Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Liszt's Sonata was composed in the early 1850's (I think 1853). Alkan's Sonata was composed in 1846.
I'd heard that the pieces were similar, but it didn't really get me until I listened to both pieces a lot and realized HOW similar they really are! (Although there are obviously many differences.)
I think I like Liszt's Sonata a tad more, but Alkan's is just 1 movement of a 4-movement Sonata, and Liszt's is all comprehensive and is one giant movement.
Hope you enjoy!
I love finding similiarites between pieces (and not just with Alkan... There's an amazing one with the end of one of Brahms' sets of variations and the end of Mendelssohn's Variations Serieuses). Beethoven Choral Fantasy and 9th Symphony final movement is very obvious, too...
My God, this will some difficult and longwinded answer, I'll try to restrain myself to the utmost essentials: -Alkan is positively programmatic, he even wrote some very important notes about it, even quoting Beethoven. -Liszt is as abstract as he would never be, afraid? -Alkan uses Faust, the Devil, Gretchen as main characters in his 2nd movement, the Devil has the inverse of Faust's theme, Gretchen is not changed, this already looks forward to the Faust-symfony by Liszt.. -there is a fugue, and let's not talk about it's nature... in Alkan's 2nd movement.. -there is some sign of thematic developement in Alkan, not unlikely to that of Liszt's -the unforbidding virtuosity Alkan uses, well, ok, Liszt tries his best, but... -themes, thoughts, scale, new territory, programmatic inspiration, virtuosity, symfonic poem on 2-hand level, exploding piano-technique, God versus Devil,
and Alkan was first
He's the one who did it, Liszt is the one who stole the idea, but maybe did a better job in writing an easier piece, and not a bad one at that...this could develop into a thesis....
try the whole Faust-movement first, and then get the idea that there are 3 more movements to tackle, and then get to listen to a reasonably well played version, hard to find.. and then try it, I mean the whole 45-minutes or so sonata, and then let's meet again...
I'd heard that the pieces were similar, but it didn't really get me until I listened to both pieces a lot and realized HOW similar they really are! (Although there are obviously many differences.)
So do you think all the similarities are interesting coincidents or that Liszt strongly based his Sonata on ALkan's or somewhere in between?
let's see what O.S.K has to say about this, I'll react on that as soon as possible, I'm very anxious to know what anyone has to say on this really not unsubstantial subject, to say the least...
-Liszt is as abstract as he would never be, afraid?
But I've read a number of Faustian interpretations of the Liszt sonata, including a very detailed one by Alfred Brendel (nobody's fool). IMO, Liszt is one of the least abstract composers I can think of.
I'd heard that the pieces were similar, but it didn't really get me until I listened to both pieces a lot and realized HOW similar they really are! (Although there are obviously many differences.)
So do you think all the similarities are interesting coincidents or that Liszt strongly based his Sonata on ALkan's or somewhere in between?
I'd say somewhere in between. I don't want to say Liszt heard Alkan's Sonata and said "I'm gonna copy that structure only with different themes!" but I don't believe he didn't know of the work (he did know of Alkan's other music, such as the Trois Morceaux Op. 15 that he himself reviewed, and reviewed very positively. There is possibility that Liszt used some ideas in his music from Alkan's Trois Morceaux Op. 15 too, but that's another story/thread at another time). And I do believe that Liszt did base parts of his Sonata from Alkan's. I don't want to say STRONGLY, but I just don't believe it's all coincidence. What were your thoughts on the video? Did you hear any similarities?
dolce, I don't want to go so far as to say it was Alkan's idea and Liszt stole it.
Also, what do you and argerichfan mean by "abstract"?
Originally Posted by jeffreyjones
Isn't the Alkan's fugue some kind of demented 8-voice thing?
The entire fugue isn't 8 voices. It just keeps adding voices and near the end of the fugue, it's reached 8. And no, it's not demented. It's a very pretty and angelic part. And the grand arrival afterward is also not demented, because Alkan marks "The Lord" in the score at that part. That is the point where the Lord intervenes, the evil is defeated, and the good triumph!
Here is Ronald Smith's take on Alkan's program in the Quasi Faust movement:
( Does this look familiar, pianoloverus?)
"Alkan must have felt in a savagely sadistic mood when he followed this taxing first movement by what must surely be one of the twelve most hazardous and tiring minutes in the entire nineteenth-century piano repertoire. But Quasi-Faust is far more than a demonstration of transcendental piano writing. An iron discipline controls and contains the black satanic forces that sweep through this gigantic movement."
"The action now becomes increasingly violen and tortured. As the lyrical subject makes continued but abortive attempts to assert itself it is marked "with supplication", "despairingly" and "torn apart", before the recapitulation is reached in a passage of unbridled fury. Here the constant crossing of the pianist's arms seems to add a symbolic significance as the Faust motif becomes locked in mortal conflict with salvos of leaping octaves."
"Faust survives, and for the first time Alkan applies the brakes in an imposing build up of orchestral sonority crowned by four huge arpeggios that sweep from the bottom to the top of the keyboard. ..with the Devil's assistance they should land on the notes E sharp, F sharp, D sharp and C sharp and, lest we have forgotten that these are the first four notes of the "Redemption theme" played backwards, Alkan immediately reminds us by spelling them out in their correct order. All is now hushed for the strangest and most complex passage in all nineteenth-century piano music. In a riot of sharps, double sharps and one triple sharp this fugal exposition modulates unerringly to the remote key of E sharp major. The final extraordinary combination of six parts in invertible counterpoint, plus two extra voices and three doublings - eleven parts in all - initiates the entry of 'Le Seigneur' (The Lord) symbolised by an open fourth, the outlying notes of the chant."
"The final pages complete the sonata scheme with a magnificent peroration in which all the warring elements - even the devil himself - are held captive by the omnipresent motif as it mounts inexorably, as a six-note ostinato, to its majestic climax. For the two massive chords which end this complex drama this great subject, the main-spring of the entire work, is once more reduced to its essential interval of a fourth signifying 'Le Seigneur'."
I tell you what... Smith is an INCREDIBLE writer.
Last edited by Orange Soda King; 08/26/1010:42 PM.
Also, what do you and argerichfan mean by "abstract"?
English is not dolce's first language, therefore I may not understand what he means by using the English word 'abstract'.
A decent definition would be existing in thought or idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. From what I gather from dolce's take on the Alkan Sonata, it is not abstract at all, but because Liszt gave no programme to his Sonata, therefore it is abstract.
Furthermore, I think Alkan's influence on Liszt is vastly overstated. So the thematic transformation which drives the Liszt sonata comes from Alkan? Well that is news to me and quite a load of bollocks, frankly.
Don't get me wrong, I love Alkan -and marvel at OSK's enthusiasm (good on ya!)- but ultimately Alkan doesn't quite enter the Pantheon of Chopin, Schumann and Liszt. Sorry mates, overall, they just wrote greater music.
To provide a personal example: I absolutely adore Franz Schmidt's music. This guy has it all: lush orchestration, great tunes, emotional involvement and catharsis, incredible mastery of long time spans, even expert writing for piano and organ. (His organs works are very difficult.) There isn't anything Schmidt wrote that I don't seize upon and drool over.
But put him up against his great contemporaries? He is like an Alkan. Fabulous stuff, yet no Bruckner or Mahler, not to mention Strauss, Wagner or Elgar.
I'd heard that the pieces were similar, but it didn't really get me until I listened to both pieces a lot and realized HOW similar they really are! (Although there are obviously many differences.)
So do you think all the similarities are interesting coincidents or that Liszt strongly based his Sonata on ALkan's or somewhere in between?
I'd say somewhere in between. I don't want to say Liszt heard Alkan's Sonata and said "I'm gonna copy that structure only with different themes!" but I don't believe he didn't know of the work (he did know of Alkan's other music, such as the Trois Morceaux Op. 15 that he himself reviewed, and reviewed very positively. There is possibility that Liszt used some ideas in his music from Alkan's Trois Morceaux Op. 15 too, but that's another story/thread at another time). And I do believe that Liszt did base parts of his Sonata from Alkan's. I don't want to say STRONGLY, but I just don't believe it's all coincidence. What were your thoughts on the video? Did you hear any similarities?
I watched the video, and thought the similarities you pointed out do seem to be direct influences, at least in the earlier parts of the Liszt. But by the time the fugal sections appear, the sonatas have gone off in somewhat different directions, although it is still striking that both composers go into a fugal mode at similar structural points, using similar materials (but in very different ways).
Anyway, thanks so much for doing that video, because although I realized there were similarities between the Alkan and the Liszt, hearing them side by side is a revelation. It is as if Liszt swallowed the Alkan whole, let it stew in his unconscious for a while, and then redid it in his own manner (which, BTW, is far more comfortable for the pianist).
You should check out the Reubke piano sonata, if you haven't already, which is to the Liszt as the Liszt is to the Alkan, but with some Alkan from the op. 39 concerto first movement thrown in to complicate matters. It is almost as if Reubke was telling Liszt, "If you can steal from Alkan like that, watch me steal from you, in turn." But of course, all this theft was done as a form of sincere admiration and it may well have been expected by the composer that the discerning and knowledgeable listener would be able to identify the influences.
Liszt b minor sonata is very similar to Chopin's b minor sonata. And Chopin sonata composed in 1844 before alkan and liszt sonatas. Look at the first movement of Chopin sonata no 3 and 2nd movement of liszts sonata and you will understand the similarity between them
Personally, I just think his music shouldn't be mostly ignored like it is today. I mean, you don't quite hear Ginastera as much as you hear Chopin, but you still hear him every once in a while and most people at least know his name and some of his music.
But no, he's no equal to Chopin or Liszt or Brahms. As a pianist, he was most definitely, but as a composer... I just think there should be more recognition; not necessarily on the same level as Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Schumann, etc. (although I wonder HOW much Mendelssohn really has over Alkan sometimes).
Like, I disagree with Busoni's famous statement of saying Alkan was one of the five greatest writers for the keyboard since Beethoven (up to his time). But Busoni was also a much smarter musician/man than I am. Maybe Alkan's music was just to his taste a lot.
And I also said that the Liszt Sonata is NOT a rip off of Alkan's Sonata, but that there are some obvious similarities. Unless you were replying to dolce there.
Batuhan, I still don't hear multiple movements in the Liszt Sonata.
Like, I disagree with Busoni's famous statement of saying Alkan was one of the five greatest writers for the keyboard since Beethoven (up to his time). But Busoni was also a much smarter musician/man than I am. Maybe Alkan's music was just to his taste a lot.
Well, one disagrees with Busoni at their own peril, but perhaps this was Busoni the pianist speaking, not Busoni the composer?
Never meant to imply that anyone said Liszt 'ripped' off Alkan, but I still feel that Alkan's influence on Liszt is slightly overstated in some quarters. I wonder how much of Alkan's music Liszt really knew.
Well, at a personal level, we know Alkan was friends with Chopin. Do you think on a personal level he was friends with Liszt? In Pier's Lane's lecture on YouTube, it is mentioned how composers/pianists sort of ran around or mingled in clusters with each other, and it was mentioned that (most likely before 1849 when Alkan began withdraw) Alkan was often hanging around with Chopin, Liszt, Thalberg, and others.
If that were true, they could have discussed aspects of piano playing and talked about their own compositions, as well as more casual things.
Also, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to say Alkan inspired Liszt to write the Sonata in B Minor and base it off him. In this case, it seems like Liszt borrowed a couple techniques of Alkan to make his own and to add to them... Just like he did with Paganini in extending piano technique (only in this case, probably a much smaller scale than with Pag).
And it went both ways... it's very easy to see all of Alkan's inspiration from Liszt. The unprecedented use of virtuosity found in Liszt's music is found in Alkan's too, and one Alkan authority in Lane's lecture (I forgot who at the moment, sorry) says that "Alkan heard Liszt and helped himself liberally to some of the [Liszt's] inventions..."
General point: I just wanted to point out the similarities between the two works. I know I'm an avid Alkan fan, and many other avid Alkan fans (including me, especially a whole lot before) seem to blow the need for him out of proportion (sometimes a little, and sometimes a WHOLE lot). I now want to try to step back and look at it all as a big picture/in context to his contemporaries.
And if all else fails, I can just say I like Alkan and his music and will program his music along with all the great composers before him, during his time, and the came after him.
Also, what do you and argerichfan mean by "abstract"?
English is not dolce's first language, therefore I may not understand what he means by using the English word 'abstract'.
A decent definition would be existing in thought or idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. From what I gather from dolce's take on the Alkan Sonata, it is not abstract at all, but because Liszt gave no programme to his Sonata, therefore it is abstract.
Furthermore, I think Alkan's influence on Liszt is vastly overstated. So the thematic transformation which drives the Liszt sonata comes from Alkan? Well that is news to me and quite a load of bollocks, frankly.
Don't get me wrong, I love Alkan -and marvel at OSK's enthusiasm (good on ya!)- but ultimately Alkan doesn't quite enter the Pantheon of Chopin, Schumann and Liszt. Sorry mates, overall, they just wrote greater music.
To provide a personal example: I absolutely adore Franz Schmidt's music. This guy has it all: lush orchestration, great tunes, emotional involvement and catharsis, incredible mastery of long time spans, even expert writing for piano and organ. (His organs works are very difficult.) There isn't anything Schmidt wrote that I don't seize upon and drool over.
But put him up against his great contemporaries? He is like an Alkan. Fabulous stuff, yet no Bruckner or Mahler, not to mention Strauss, Wagner or Elgar.
thank you for pointing out my linguistic handicap, a great help. let's talk on in Dutch...Liszt's sonata is one of the few pieces that is ABSTRACT in the sense that the maestro for once refrained of calling it soandso, he wanted it to be a sonata, called it that way and never suggesed any program himself, could that be more ABSTRACT than, f.i. the Alkan sonata with such a definite program? Oh, a little advise: play the Alkan and only than tell what you think of that enormous volume of totally underestimated music, especially by bystanders and onlookers who lack the fingers to really appreciate it, even stupid critics can be put in that category.
Liszt's sonata is one of the few pieces that is ABSTRACT in the sense that the maestro for once refrained of calling it soandso, he wanted it to be a sonata, called it that way and never suggested any program himself...
But don't you find it interesting that three years after the sonata, Liszt came out with the fully programmatic Faust Symphony, using an even more sophisticated thematic transformation than the sonata?
I agree that Liszt called it a 'sonata' and left it at that, never suggesting a program. Yet I sometimes wonder if he wasn't pulling our collective leg a bit...
he probabely did, haha, and I do agree that the Faust Symphonie is his, let's say orchestral masterpiece, but the sonata still sours high above it, and is a complete and lonesome masterpiece, a sonata to shut the door on the subject so to speak, whereas the Faust sym. cries for something more, Mahler tried his hand at it, 8, and maybe got there, though I'm not sure...
