If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I like them (that's a dissenting opinion for you) but don't think I'd go out of my way to hear a live performance unless soloist and/or rest of concert were pretty pressing.
My (marginally) more detailed thoughts hereet seq....
I like his symphonies and most of his works for solo piano. I have the Sony and EMI box sets that were released in 2011, for his bicentenary.
But the concertos have always struck me as a mis-step. For one thing, they are superficial; for another, they are (both) very short. There is - to my ears- very little memorable music in them. Very unrewarding to conduct, too, if not to play the solo part.
I don't think these concertos are very good and I'm surprised that major pianists waste their time on them.
Any dissenting opinions?
Yes I like them and though not listened frequently recently going back in time I remember performances on LP by Katchen, Kempff and Vasary, but back to Giulini - his recordings with Lazar Berman are good.
Yes I like them and though not listened frequently recently going back in time I remember performances on LP by Katchen, Kempff and Vasary, but back to Giulini - his recordings with Lazar Berman are good.
It was listening to Giulini/Berman that prompted this thread.
The performances can't be faulted, but the works.....! It was a great relief to hear Berman solo playing Venezia et Napoli at the end.
I don't think these concertos are very good and I'm surprised that major pianists waste their time on them.
Any dissenting opinions?
Well, I suppose that the nearest comparison with string music would be the Paganini concertos, works that are pleasant musically but where the thrill is seeing those incredibly difficult pyrotechnics overcome. The interest is in the performance rather than the musical quality. I've heard the Liszt concertos a few times and have always enjoyed them.
I also suspect that triangle players like the ? Second concerto.
Well, I suppose that the nearest comparison with string music would be the Paganini concertos, works that are pleasant musically but where the thrill is seeing those incredibly difficult pyrotechnics overcome. The interest is in the performance rather than the musical quality. I've heard the Liszt concertos a few times and have always enjoyed them.
I also suspect that triangle players like the ? Second concerto.
I think part of my reaction to them is that I expected the piano virtuoso of the 19th century to come up with some substantial works for the piano-orchestra combination. Apart from anything else, I find them disappointing.
I don't know a lot of music by Liszt but, apart from the piano concertos, most of what I've heard strikes me as being a bit gloomy. I did have a friend who felt that he was an extremely underrated composer.
I think part of my reaction to them is that I expected the piano virtuoso of the 19th century to come up with some substantial works for the piano-orchestra combination. Apart from anything else, I find them disappointing.
I've always liked the Hungarian Fantasia, a very lively work for P&O.
I think part of my reaction to them is that I expected the piano virtuoso of the 19th century to come up with some substantial works for the piano-orchestra combination. Apart from anything else, I find them disappointing.
I don't thnk this necessarily follows - and I think it is to misunderstand the nature of Liszt's life as a virtuoso. He invented the solo piano recital, but his years as a travelling virtuoso, during all of which he was a soloist, were really astonishingly short - by the age of 36, after only 8 or 9 years on the road, during which he gave many hundreds of recitals, from Moscow to Cadiz, Limerick to Odessa - and with nearly 40 years of life ahead of him - he retired from the concert platform, returning (as a piano soloist) very infrequently, and usually only for benefit concerts for others. He certainly never played a concerto on these tours. The "Weimar Years" (1848-61) were devoted to teaching, orchestral composition, choral works, and conducting the music of others, chiefly Wagner and Berlioz. Much of his finest solo piano music was written in old age - some of which is doubtless the "gloomy" stuff pastoralguy refers to, and which he seldom played in public. During his later years (1861-86) he led a peripatetic existence, moving between Rome, Bayreuth and Budapest. A knowledge of Liszt's life helps greatly with an appreciation of his music - what he wrote, when he wrote it.
Brendel - one of Liszt's mightiest exponents, and musical thinker who understands him better than anyone - regards him above all as the master of the short form. His greatest works are for solo piano - that's it. Seems churlish, given his monumental output, to criticise him for what he didn't write
I don't think these concertos are very good and I'm surprised that major pianists waste their time on them.
Any dissenting opinions?
Afraid I have to agree. I have the Brendel/LPO/Haitink recordings if I want to give them an airing. Mind, Mahler made good use of a motive (one can hardly call it a theme) from the First Piano Concerto in his 6th Symphony
"The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink
Comment