Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Alkan most overlooked pianist?

Goldberg would be a worthy opponent in a 'Chopin and his greatness' debate

Nearly everything Chopin wrote is a masterpiece and he did it all in such a short time span. Alkan simply doesnt have enough good material. I think that most songs over 10 minutes tend to get boring and repetitive anyways. Any Sonata for that matter.

No need to my friend . I certainly will not rip your head off (just your fingers ) It is all opinion and that is in fact exactly what music thrives upon and always has done.

I would ask though if you could maybe be more detailed as to why you think how you do on this subject.

In respect of large scale works / weakness's it could be argued that Chopin maybe had problems with the 'sonata' style in the classical sense and how to shape that within his own creative thinking.

imo he was always wrestling with ( for him )an outdated format and constantly trying to escape the boundaries of it. Strucuraly some of his major works have weakness in respect of 'classical' style . However again a few would argue that his writing is so poetic , harmonically and melodically unique and ear pleasingly friendly that it does not weaken the overall quality of his writing

Added to which is a fantastically pianistically writing style that is again unique to him and makes him accessible by almost everybody listener and player alike

I don't think you could say that about definitely Alkan and generally speaking Liszt although I agree there are some wonderful things by him too

Majority of people I know associates Elton John or Richard Clayderman with piano.

Wow.

WOW.

and that'd be why Juilliard has Elton playing a benefit concert for them....To bring more money into their coffers....


the link

Alkan, IMHO, sits where he belongs.

I agree that Chopin's work is much more easily accessible to the listener (and pianist) but as time goes on in my admittedly short pianistic career (5 years) I still find I grow less fond of Chopin. I did intentionally cite the sonatas because I felt that these mainly demonstrated his slight lack to complete convincing large scale works...but I also must confess that Liszt's own B minor sonata is a work to which I have rarely been sympathetic (Cziffra's recording does it for me, at least).
Now, I must say that for me, Chopin's genius is seen most clearly in the majority of his dance works: Polonaises (most of them, at least), Mazurkas, Waltzes, and Rondos. Once again, I don't *hate* Chopin (I'd choose him over LOTS of other composers any day) but Liszt and Alkan just seem to "do more" for me. I also think it's worth to note, on a strictly personal level again, that I've always been a little confused about and held mixed opinions of the Romantic era in general. I know it is very easily understood and accessed by the majority of pianists, but my favorite music comes from the Baroque, Classical, some postRomantic and Contemporary times. Plus, I'm a foolish 16 year old who doesn't know what the heck he's talking about!!

So why do you favour Alkan and Liszt over Chopin?
Technical difficulty? flashy repetoire? 'cool-soundng' pieces?

While I don't wish to make this thread "heated" in any way, I must say by your post you are implying that my musical tastes are shallow or superficious, which I don't really appreciate. But, I'm not overly offended either. No, my interest in Liszt and Alkan is more related to a love of complex, transcendental music that, particularly in the case of Alkan, is frequently "orchestral" in nature. I know the majority of people find Liszt's music trashy and bangy, or whatever, but how much do they really listen? I'm also greatly disheartened by those (not necessarily anyone here though) who mistake technical difficulty for lack of musicality. They frown upon virtuostic pieces and I really can't see why! That is, of course, provided that they are still musical. For instance, the Transcendental Etudes or transcriptions of the Beethoven Symphonies. Alkan's Symphony for Solo Piano. For me, though, technical demands have never made me enjoy a piece. But if it's exciting, new, original, and in most cases, thoughtful (and most of these do warrant technical difficulties) then I might like it. Plus, I see no harm in liking "cool-sounding" music. Are you supposed to like "dull-sounding" music?
And before anyone starts going on about my shallow tastes, perhaps you'll consider some of my favorite composers (who take first seat to the others we've discussed in this thread): Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Gibbons, Field, Scriabin, Saint-Saens (for fun), Ornstein, Godowsky, Busoni, Rzewski (though I admit, I need to hear more of his. No complaints yet though!), and of course Schoenberg, Mahler, and Schubert. I must also say I'm turning into quite a fan of Sorabji, but perhaps I must admit that at times, an attraction to him can very much seem to be more of a fascination with his otherwordly demands...
Anyway, those are all composers whom I would put before Liszt, Alkan, and Chopin for listening (as if I can effectively PLAY any of them). Which one of those is shallow, flashy music? Bach, perhaps?
I am being light-hearted, of course, but at the same time keep in mind that my musical tastes (or lack thereof) seem to be a little unusual. I'm not sure if that's good or bad...but hey.