Piano World Home Page

Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic?

Posted By: SiFi

Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 06:58 AM

Full title: Is Liszt's piano music pianistic or just ridiculously difficult?

So I'm on a big Liszt learning binge right now, mostly Années de pèlerinage stuff. Full disclosure: I swore off Liszt after not fully mastering Feux Follets in my teens and suffering the depression that results from such failure. But now I'm back in the fray. And it's exciting.

I'm learning 3 pieces from the Années de pèlerinage series and having a total blast with them. However, what I keep encountering are passages that seem "unpianistic". In other words, they appear to be unnecessarily difficult. But then when I deconstruct those passages and start doing the metronome routine, all of a sudden I can play them (OK I'm talking about such things as the octaves in Vallée d'Obermann and the big sequence passages in Jeux d'eau.)

Everyone I know says that Chopin wrote "for the piano" like no other composer. I just wonder whether that accolade should more appropriately be bestowed on Liszt. Let's stipulate that the 1837 version of the transcendentals was an aberration, along with the 1838 version of the Paganini etudes; the rest is pure gold, no?

Here's my hypothesis. Chopin's piano music is always pianistic in the sense that we understand that concept, but is on the whole extremely difficult to play well; Liszt's piano music is on the whole extremely difficult to play per se but is to professionally abled performers pianistic in a way that makes the technical problems conveniently surmountable and, ergo, allows the performer to more efficiently deliver the aesthetic message of the music itself. (I am so sorry for the egregious split infinitives.)

Did I get this right or horribly wrong?
Posted By: Hakki

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 07:09 AM

IMO Chopin's music fall under the hands better.
But if you have practiced a lot of Czerny, scales, octaves and have good finger dexterity and octave technique, then Liszt's music is more straightforward to play than Chopin.
For Chopin, IMO it is also necessary to develop the technique that is needed to play Chopin.
IMO the main difficulty in Liszt is speed. One really has to have the chops to pull it off.
Posted By: rmns2bseen

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 07:18 AM

I love both Chopin and Liszt, and as far as difficulty is concerned Chopin can be pretty tough in his own right. But I think Liszt had the more "expansive" musical mind. I think Liszt was thinking orchestrally much of the time (though not always), while Chopin was content to let the piano be a piano (though again not always).
Posted By: SiFi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by rmns2bseen
I think Liszt had the more "expansive" musical mind. I think Liszt was thinking orchestrally much of the time (though not always), while Chopin was content to let the piano be a piano (though again not always).

I think that is a hugely relevant observation.
Posted By: Sidokar

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 12:05 PM

I always felt Chopin to be more melodic and Liszt indeed more orchestral, sort of more magistral and grand. The technical elements in Chopin are completely blended into the music so I do not see his music as virtuosic for the sake of it. With Liszt, the virtuosic parts sometimes stand out as if added on purpose, as if Liszt couldnt help but had to have some difficulty imbedded.
Posted By: NobleHouse

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by SiFi
Originally Posted by rmns2bseen
I think Liszt had the more "expansive" musical mind. I think Liszt was thinking orchestrally much of the time (though not always), while Chopin was content to let the piano be a piano (though again not always).

I think that is a hugely relevant observation.


thumb As someone who loves all of Liszt and enjoys all of Chopin, I think this observation is apt.
Posted By: AaronSF

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by SiFi
Originally Posted by rmns2bseen
I think Liszt had the more "expansive" musical mind. I think Liszt was thinking orchestrally much of the time (though not always), while Chopin was content to let the piano be a piano (though again not always).

I think that is a hugely relevant observation.


Couldn't agree more. As a consequence much of Liszt's piano music sound less like pieces composed directly for the piano and more like piano reductions of orchestral pieces to me. Chopin's piano music is idiosyncratic to the piano. Many of Beethoven's sonatas have an orchestral quality, but ultimately (to me) they sound like characteristic piano pieces where Beethoven has stretched to the outer limits what the piano can do and still sound like a piano. Brahms and Debussy both composed piano pieces that make use of the piano's unique abilities. Faure, too. Which is to say, as fun as Liszt's piano pieces can me, there are other composers (IMHO) who composed better for the piano's inherent strengths and weaknesses.
Posted By: ronde des sylphes

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 07/06/19 09:02 PM

I have to say that, as far as I'm concerned, Liszt's writing is significantly more pianistic than Chopin's in the harder works, with the caveat that things like the 1837 TEs and the 1838 Paganinis are on a different level.

Often when Liszt has written something which *looks* difficult on the page, a bit of work will reveal an internal logic to the passage, which, once understood, renders it surprisingly playable. I'd say that Chopin writes "against the hand" far more often than Liszt does, and Liszt is skilled at extracting pianistic effect in a relatively economical manner (particularly once you get into the middle period of his life). Of course, all ths being said, the pianist needs to have good octaves and arpeggios and, probably to a lesser extent, scales: but these are after all the building blocks of good technique.
Posted By: achoo42

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 08/08/19 02:11 PM

You're right for the most part. Liszt's music is often very pianistic. Often it will have a high degree of mechanical difficulty but once you get there, you have it.

He's very good at making things sound much harder than they are. Chopin is generally pretty pianistic as well, just look as his etudes; horribly difficult until you have the technique for them. Schumann, on the other hand, is awkward to play no matter what, even his "easy-sounding" pieces. Don't play Schumann if you want something pianistic!
Posted By: Sweelinck

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 08/16/19 05:58 AM

I find Brahms to be very un-pianistic, though I love his music.
Posted By: WhoDwaldi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 08/16/19 02:53 PM

I'm not sure where the research, the HIP people, stand on all this most recently, but I think the key to it is square piano vs. modern piano.

We (almost?) get to the modern concert grand with Liszt, with all its orchestral qualities . . . and lots of tremolos. Chopin is more bel canto, florid, intimate. But he really understood how it make things fall under the fingers, back in the keys.
Posted By: Tim Adrianson

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 08/16/19 07:44 PM

Hi, SiFi -- Two comments regarding your hypothesis --

My understanding is that Liszt was an exceptionally hard worker at the piano in his youth, spending several hours a day perfecting all the technical skills associated with the emerging modern piano. And so to me, it is likely that what even accomplished pianists regarded as virtually unplayable passages, he could in fact perform, and with musical grace. In that sense, I compare him to Art Tatum, the Jazz pianist whose technical feats at breakneck speeds were legendary, but who also spent several hours per day maintaining his craft -- that is to say, there was a great deal of perspiration in addition to exceptional natural ability.

From a composition standpoint, I tend to agree most with writer/pianist Charles Rosen, who suggested that Liszt's greatest contribution to piano literature was his introduction of new pianistic soundscapes, new possibilities in attaining orchestral breadth, and across the entire range of the keyboard, and much of that derived from the prodigious technical challenges that sometimes only he could achieve. And I think again of Tatum in the Jazz world -- jaw-dropping feats of technical wizardry in his performances of American Songbook Standards.

And so -- unpianistic? With Liszt, not really -- in the sense that, for example, some piano reduction scores of orchestral pieces can be virtually unplayable or at best clumsy if approached literally. But much of his output does presuppose complete command of technical challenges at the keyboard -- i.e., you HAVE to have major "chops" to present his music effectively.
Posted By: rmns2bseen

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 08/16/19 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tim Adrianson

...
And so -- unpianistic? With Liszt, not really -- in the sense that, for example, some piano reduction scores of orchestral pieces can be virtually unplayable or at best clumsy if approached literally. But much of his output does presuppose complete command of technical challenges at the keyboard -- i.e., you HAVE to have major "chops" to present his music effectively.

I love Liszt's transcriptions of seven Bach organ works. Liszt doesn't inject himself into the music as much as some later transcribers did. They're pretty faithful and provide something of an illusion of the organ's grandeur - although of course a replication of that on a piano is impossible. But it does sound "pianistic" and it sometimes gives me the feeling that this is what Bach might have sounded like if he had known the modern piano. I think Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven's symphonies are also really good, though I've never tried to play any of them. In short I believe Liszt was usually thinking more "musically" than strictly pianistically most of the time.
Posted By: kbrod1

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 08/16/19 11:05 PM

I tried my hands at Feux Follets 40 plus years ago and it was depressingly beyond my capabilities and I thought I was quite good at the time technically. Fortunately I was able to listen to Lazar Berman's reissue that was new to the US then of the set and forget my sorrows. The album also had the 3rd Rhapsody and a phenomenal Spanish Rhapsody which before that I thought was trash but he made it fantastic.
Posted By: achoo42

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/13/19 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sweelinck
I find Brahms to be very un-pianistic, though I love his music.


Brahms and Schumann are both unpianistic and usually much harder than they sound—they both didn't like writing florid cadenzas or pianistic acrobatics.
Posted By: Carey

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/13/19 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by achoo42
Schumann, on the other hand, is awkward to play no matter what, even his "easy-sounding" pieces.
So true !!! thumb
Posted By: johnstaf

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/14/19 12:34 AM

Schumann and deadlines don't really suit each other in my experience. I find myself fighting the piano, and getting bogged down and spending ages trying to get a passage to feel comfortable. I still can't stay away from his music though...
Posted By: SiFi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/14/19 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by johnstaf
Schumann and deadlines don't really suit each other in my experience. I find myself fighting the piano, and getting bogged down and spending ages trying to get a passage to feel comfortable. I still can't stay away from his music though...

I so understand what you’re saying.
Posted By: spk

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/14/19 06:25 PM

I've learned some Liszt, including the Dante sonata, Schubert lieder transcriptions. I think it is pianistic, and it can often fit under the hand pretty well, though there can be a lot of jumps, rolled chords, etc.

Schumann I agree is ridiculous. I've been re-learning the Symphonic Etudes, and it has quite a few very awkward parts. Simultaneous big jumps in both hands in opposite directions and different amounts, large awkward block chords, etc.

The g minor sonata is crazy. He writes at the beginning for as fast as possible, then writes faster still..., even faster,. etc, etc.
Posted By: johnstaf

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/14/19 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by spk

The g minor sonata is crazy. He writes at the beginning for as fast as possible, then writes faster still..., even faster,. etc, etc.


The last movement of the third sonata is the same. It's prestissimo possibile, and then più presto at the end. At least it only gets faster once. grin
Posted By: rmns2bseen

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 04:33 AM

The problem I see is in defining "pianistic" and its "unpianistic" opposite. It seems that if we use the term "pianistic" we have a particular composer (or two) in mind, and using that as the standard. What makes Brahms "unpianistic"? To me unpianistic would be to expect to the piano to do something unsuited for it, like sustaining a note for very long periods. Other than that, if it's playable on a piano isn't it by definition "pianistic"?
Posted By: bennevis

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 11:55 AM

Having learnt Schumann's Carnaval and Kriesleriana with my teacher (and the C major Fantasy and many other pieces by myself), I don't find his piano music problematic (his orchestral music is, but that's beside the point) or unpianistic at all.

In fact, some of Liszt's piano pieces (the ones where he's obviously thinking of an orchestra, with lots of tremolos, and I'm not talking about his transcriptions) is problematic for me, and I don't enjoy playing them.
Posted By: newport

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 01:04 PM

Didn't Schumann's future father-in-law say his music was 'unplayable'? There must be something there.
Posted By: SiFi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by achoo42
Liszt's music is often very pianistic. Often it will have a high degree of mechanical difficulty but once you get there, you have it.

He's very good at making things sound much harder than they are. Chopin is generally pretty pianistic as well, just look as his etudes; horribly difficult until you have the technique for them. Schumann, on the other hand, is awkward to play no matter what, even his "easy-sounding" pieces. Don't play Schumann if you want something pianistic!

You all may find this passage from Gerald Abraham's 100 Years of Music particularly germane to the discussion of Liszt vs Chopin vs Schumann. I think his commentary is spot on.

"Chopin and Liszt were stylists because they were great pianists, Berlioz partly because he could not play the piano at all. It was Schumann's misfortune to be neither a virtuoso nor a non-pianist. Of all the great romantic composers he was the least sensitive to relationship between idea and medium. His piano works . . . are genuine piano music in the sense that they are obviously conceived for two hands on a keyboard, but they betray an almost complete insensitiveness to the new pianistic resources that were being opened up by Field, Chopin and Liszt. . . . However beautiful as music, his pieces are never remarkable as piano music." (My emphasis)

There's obviously more to say on the subject, but I think this covers some of the main points rather well. Perhaps we could summarize some of the discussion so far something like this: Schumann's music is generally not very "pianistic" and is often difficult not so much because it requires great virtuosity as because it is simply awkwardly conceived for the instrument. Chopin's piano music is extraordinarily idiomatic to a degree that is perhaps unique in the whole literature; it is often difficult but always in a way that is functional, i.e. the difficulty is intrinsic to the music itself and intended to produce specific effects reflective of his inimitable sound-world. Liszt's music is difficult in that it clearly requires virtuoso technique simply to play it, but his sound-world is less focused (some would say less restricted) than Chopin's; one could say that his inspiration comes not only from the specifically pianistic sonorities and textures that Chopin explored so exquisitely but also from a vision of the piano as virtually an orchestra unto itself. This last point has been made several times throughout the thread, and the more I practice Liszt's music the more valid it becomes IMO. Sometimes he crosses a line when going after really big orchestral effects and in several cases (e.g. the notorious 1837 version of the Transcendentals) his music becomes difficult in a non-functional sense, pushing the limits of what the piano and pianists are capable of beyond the message of the actual music. But I believe his mature music is truly pianistic in a way that is just as authentic as Chopin's but that also palpably "transcends" the conventions and performance techniques of piano music as they existed in his time, often successfully simulating the power and sonority of a full orchestra.
Posted By: johnstaf

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 01:33 PM

I think Schumann's music is beautifully conceived for the piano, but not necessarily for the pianist.
Posted By: chopin_r_us

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 02:02 PM

Liszt played Beethoven, Chopin didn't.
Posted By: achoo42

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by bennevis
Having learnt Schumann's Carnaval and Kriesleriana with my teacher (and the C major Fantasy and many other pieces by myself), I don't find his piano music problematic (his orchestral music is, but that's beside the point) or unpianistic at all.

In fact, some of Liszt's piano pieces (the ones where he's obviously thinking of an orchestra, with lots of tremolos, and I'm not talking about his transcriptions) is problematic for me, and I don't enjoy playing them.

So you're really good at rapid jumps then? I don't know of a single pianist who doesn't find the leaps in Paganini or the coda of the Fantasie to be difficult and awkward.

Also, not sure what you mean by the Liszt pieces but not the transcriptions. All of Liszt's most difficult pieces with tremolos are transcriptions.
Posted By: bennevis

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by achoo42
Originally Posted by bennevis
Having learnt Schumann's Carnaval and Kriesleriana with my teacher (and the C major Fantasy and many other pieces by myself), I don't find his piano music problematic (his orchestral music is, but that's beside the point) or unpianistic at all.

In fact, some of Liszt's piano pieces (the ones where he's obviously thinking of an orchestra, with lots of tremolos, and I'm not talking about his transcriptions) is problematic for me, and I don't enjoy playing them.

So you're really good at rapid jumps then? I don't know of a single pianist who doesn't find the leaps in Paganini or the coda of the Fantasie to be difficult and awkward.

Don't you mean the coda of the March? smirk

I didn't say it was easy. I said it wasn't problematic or unpianistic.

There's a big difference.

Quote
Also, not sure what you mean by the Liszt pieces but not the transcriptions. All of Liszt's most difficult pieces with tremolos are transcriptions.

You obviously haven't heard his B minor Sonata or Dante Sonata or.......
Posted By: SiFi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by bennevis
Quote
Also, not sure what you mean by the Liszt pieces but not the transcriptions. All of Liszt's most difficult pieces with tremolos are transcriptions.

You obviously haven't heard his B minor Sonata or Dante Sonata or.......

. . . Jeux d'eau a la Villa d'Este, or Paganini Etude #1 (nothing but tremolos), or Chasse Niege, or . . .
Posted By: Sidokar

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/15/19 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by SiFi


"Chopin and Liszt were stylists because they were great pianists, Berlioz partly because he could not play the piano at all. It was Schumann's misfortune to be neither a virtuoso nor a non-pianist. Of all the great romantic composers he was the least sensitive to relationship between idea and medium. His piano works . . . are genuine piano music in the sense that they are obviously conceived for two hands on a keyboard, but they betray an almost complete insensitiveness to the new pianistic resources that were being opened up by Field, Chopin and Liszt. . . . However beautiful as music, his pieces are never remarkable as piano music." (My emphasis)



With all due respect to M. Abraham, who to my knowledge was not a great pianist, this is just a writer formula, which is untrue and unfair. Schumann wrote beautiful and remarkable piano music. I do not see that his pieces are any less pianistic than those of Chopin or Listz. Piano music does not need to imitate orchestra or anything else to be interesting and does not need to be technically ultra challenging either. Schumann composed his music in his world of sound, different than Chopin and Listz and everyone is attacted more or less to one or the other.
Posted By: achoo42

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/16/19 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by bennevis

You obviously haven't heard his B minor Sonata or Dante Sonata or.......


Haven't heard them? I've played them both! Nothing unpianistic in them at all compared to some of the transcriptions. Usual Liszt stuff all the way through.

Ever seen the transcendental transcriptions of the Paganini etudes?

And yeah, I mean the coda of the march of the Fantasie. The entire work is called the Fantasie, not just the first movement.
Posted By: winterflower

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/22/19 03:23 AM

Basically, I can reiterate this quote, which is very in line with my suspicions:

Originally Posted by SiFi


Chopin's piano music is extraordinarily idiomatic to a degree that is perhaps unique in the whole literature; it is often difficult but always in a way that is functional, i.e. the difficulty is intrinsic to the music itself and intended to produce specific effects reflective of his inimitable sound-world. Liszt's music is difficult in that it clearly requires virtuoso technique simply to play it, but his sound-world is less focused (some would say less restricted) than Chopin's;



Notably, some of Liszt's work -looks- reminiscent of exercises and standard arpeggios. So perhaps sometimes he makes things 'easier' by finding the way to string his music onto semi-standard patterns.

The tremolos that so annoy me as unnecessary difficulties, too, serve various -distinct, even distinctive,- purposes.

So is kind of seem that Liszt finds ways to take some drilled technique and make it alive in music.

Although, so much for drill, I might agree that some of Liszt's pianism is in seeing effective moves that weren't per se conventional--but I'm not enough of an expert for my agreeing to mean anything.

--------------------------------
Now, what do could we even mean by "pianistic?" I suppose it frequently has something to do with whether the precise way it is laid out is particularly playable--that any difficulty involved is not awkwardness of... some particular kind. (I can't even say, awkwardness of an ineffective kind, because perhaps the piece simply needs those notes played there, pianistic or not.) But of course there is also the matter of extracting really worthy sound from the piano in particular--for instance, does the bass, pedaled properly, blend into the melody in some exquisite way.
(Let's count pedal-effects in general.)
Posted By: winterflower

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/22/19 03:23 AM

Incidentally, there are a few measures in Brahms where I've wondered if he was being intentionally difficult, to force (not just enable!) pianists to use some particular fingering/technique/etc. that he favors, rather than something that would otherwise be more obvious. (The move seems a bit risky, if some pianists don't even have the physique to be dragged into that method.)
Posted By: SiFi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/22/19 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by winterflower
Incidentally, there are a few measures in Brahms where I've wondered if he was being intentionally difficult, to force (not just enable!) pianists to use some particular fingering/technique/etc. that he favors, rather than something that would otherwise be more obvious. (The move seems a bit risky, if some pianists don't even have the physique to be dragged into that method.)

I completely agree with that, and not just WRT Brahms. I think it was Leon Fleischer who insisted it is never right to "redistribute" or otherwise try to simplify piano music to make it more performable. We should always give the composer credit for knowing what they're doing and infer a purpose to every musical/pianistic ingredient of his/her conceptions, of which technical elements are always a part, sometimes, as in etudes, one of the principal parts.
Posted By: Hatchestron

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/22/19 03:04 PM

But as Leon Fleischer crippled himself by misusing his hands, terminating what may have become one of the great 20th century careers, it is worth remembering that this sort of fundamentalism can have a profound physical cost.
Posted By: SiFi

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/23/19 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Hatchestron
But as Leon Fleischer crippled himself by misusing his hands, terminating what may have become one of the great 20th century careers, it is worth remembering that this sort of fundamentalism can have a profound physical cost.

Was his career really terminated? And was the "misuse" entirely to do with his insistence on honest reproduction of the composer's score? (I actually don't know the answer to either of these questions.)
Posted By: dogperson

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/23/19 12:12 PM

Hi SiFi
It was focal dystopia. The root cause: it seems doubtful but unknown if it was due to a religious adherence to the score. There was no use of the right hand for forty years but now there is return with Botox, but with repertoire limitations

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/arts/12iht-pianist.1.6104272.html
Posted By: pianoloverus

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/23/19 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by SiFi
Full title: Is Liszt's piano music pianistic or just ridiculously difficult?

I'm learning 3 pieces from the Années de pèlerinage series and having a total blast with them. However, what I keep encountering are passages
that seem "unpianistic". In other words, they appear to be unnecessarily difficult. But then when I deconstruct those passages and start doing the metronome routine, all of a sudden I can play them (OK I'm talking about such things as the octaves in Vallée d'Obermann and the big sequence passages in Jeux d'eau.)

Here's my hypothesis. Chopin's piano music is always pianistic in the sense that we understand that concept, but is on the whole extremely difficult to play well; Liszt's piano music is on the whole extremely difficult to play per se but is to professionally abled performers pianistic in a way that makes the technical problems conveniently surmountable and, ergo, allows the performer to more efficiently deliver the aesthetic message of the music itself. (I am so sorry for the egregious split infinitives.)
I'm not clear on how you and others view the idea of "pianistic".

Are you saying that professional level performers find Chopin's harder pieces more difficult to play well than similar level pieces by Liszt? Can you expand on "pianistic in a way that makes the technical problems conveniently surmountable and, ergo, allows the performer to more efficiently deliver the aesthetic message of the music itself. "? Can you give an example of a Chopin work that you find difficult to play even though it's pianistic and explain why you feel that way?

My general idea of "pianistic" is that it lies comfortably for the hand although that approach seems quite vague also. Some say Brahms is unpianistic but maybe that's only due to requiring a large hand to make it less awkward? Or maybe if a pianist practiced a huge amount of Brahms the types of figurations he uses would become less awkward?

I'm interested in your ideas and the ideas of other posters on this topic.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/24/19 12:58 AM

Nahre Sol’s video on “How To Sound Like Frank Liszt”.
Posted By: Colin Miles

Re: Is Liszt's Piano Music Really Pianistic? - 10/24/19 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Groove On
Nahre Sol’s video on “How To Sound Like Frank Liszt”.


Brilliant, and very, very informative.
© 2020 Piano World Piano & Digital Piano Forums