@1Thompsonmusic No then Horowitz: he only had a revolution on his neck, in which his piano was thrown off the balcony, many of his relatives killed and was forced to play in factory halls. It was way easier and more pleasant then to be a pianist! After he fled Russia he was harassed: his mother got no medical treatment and died subsequently, his father died in agony because he had fled from the sovjet system and make a 'career' as you called it. I have sympathy for your sigh but hear him play...
Reageren op deze video... Thank you for uploading! I enjoy the recording of Ferenc Liszt on the day he was born 200 years ago... and performed by -to me- the sublimely creative pianist Horowitz... just enjoying myself!
horowitz sounds drunk, but whatever, pretty radical performance, definately one of the slower versions of this.... always loved this piece, and minirausch, you should read about different compositional forms / why Liszt's ballade is has its raucous. Beethoven kissed Liszt after hearing him play a Piano recital, which Liszt basically invented by turning a piano sideways and playing it solo with the lid open.
Horowitz' trademark "twitchiness" in evidence here. To approach the performance or understanding of Liszt's music requires a great discipline and loftiness of MIND.
The technical stuff should never distract from this higher mission. In a sense, Liszt's mission was to "observe through music" but from a lofty mental plane. Very few can keep the vision and present it in performance and analysis. This is not a technical issue, it's a philosophical and metaphysical one.........
I know; it's really terrible. I think this is one of the single most evocative works of the entire romantic piano output, yet it is so rarely performed these days.
would you really give this piece the edge over the chopin ballades? now, i actually like this piece quite a bit -- maybe it's not performed much but a friend of mine played the shit out of it a few years ago -- but formally, melodically, emotionally, chopin comes out on top. now, i'd much rather hear this in a recital program, because the chopin ballades are so disgustingly overplayed, but they are in fact masterpieces.. so when they're actually played well (they rarely are) it's worth it.
still, even though i like this piece, i get a little impatient listening to it. section after section, with relatively little linking them together. here's this theme. oh here's this theme again. and again. with a march and some other things thrown in for contrast. in chopin, as in beethoven and brahms, it feels as though every transition, every section is absolutely essential.
this is the theory nut talking though -- emotionally this is quite a satisfying piece, but i can't help but analyze a little as i go. i like my brain AND my heart to be stimulated and contented, which is why brahms hits the g-spot every time for me.
I just prefer music where it's not so obvious what's going to happen next.
And I don't think any of the transitions are "random" at all. They're not linked together by their harmony or counterpoint; they're linked together by what they're saying.
you think this piece is emotionally lacking compared to chopin's ballades ? wow.... this ballade gives emotion a whole new name... from the ferocious chromatic passages to the subtle melodic lines... i truly believe this piece out does many of the chopin ballades.
i think it's just a matter of aesthetic preference. i like long lines, and would rather hear a long and full development than a series of individual shock tactics -- explosions of alternating octaves, showy orchestration, cheap harmonic surprises, etc. for me a more organic structural unity is more effective for emotional buildup/release.
the liszt/chopin or liszt/brahms comparison is difficult because they're doing essentially different things with structure. i'll take chopin's way myself.
Harmonic structure, which is what you are referring to when you say "long lines" and "full development" (I can only assume) is only a single primitive of the macro view of development of a piece. There are no "shock tactics", which could only be construed as a derogatory term; the music is fully developed, merely taking into account a form of development other than mere melody or counterpoint. It is unfortunate if this is the only way in which you can identify construction. [cont]
There is absolutely nothing "organic" about the structures of Chopin or Brahms; they follow centuries-old techniques of exposition, counterpoint and recapitulation. They are, in many respects, infinitely more mathematical and rigid than this work. The old forms of writing are "comfortable" and "accessible", which is something Liszt purposefully eschewed.
On "cheap tricks", I personally find the old major-minor fluctuation, sonata form, rit+cresc *less* genuinely dramatic; it is cliche.
To say you have a preference is one thing, but to attempt to dismerit a piece which, I believe, both of us would say you are probably not especially familiar with (in regard to the theory behind it, which is what your comments are directed at) is entirely different, particularly given your arguments, which I find to be very... well, unformulated and slanderous. You have more eloquently worded "this piece is stupid", saying it calls upon "cheap tricks", "showiness" and "shock tactics".
to try and address more thoroughly my point on structure: i'm not just talking about harmony. my idea of 'long line' includes motivic/thematic structure and development, time and balance, etc...it's supported by the harmonic structure, but there's more to it than that. the idea of constant variation & long, sustained development -- not just harmony but a consciousness of where a piece is going, and how to get there (think of late beethoven, brahms op. 34, bartók piano sonata, boulez #2...) --
is something that connects bach, beethoven, brahms, schoenberg, webern, boulez, carter, feldman, reich...
liszt and wagner's idea as i see it is constant melody by way of reorchestration of a specific set of motives, with little to no variation. take the beginning of this piece, and then the restatement, verbatim, a half-step lower. there's no transition or development in the traditional sense, just repetition with variation in timbre.
it's a new idea, a different idea, which is why i'm trying to say it comes down to aesthetic preference. i'm not trying to attack people who like liszt, but it's definitely not my cup of tea.
keep in mind i'm approaching this as a performer, not a theorist. when i'm playing music i like architecture, struggling to create a large and unified whole and a continuity that makes sense, which is easier and more rewarding in music that develops its materials.
there's nothing quite like the inexorable progression of events in a beethoven sonata. i don't mind music that's more detail- or moment-oriented, or less interested in a steady continuity. i often enjoy it. it's just less fun for me to play or hear.
hopefully i've made some sense. if this is a discussion you'd like to continue over time (preferably in private messages, because i'm not really interested in a pissing contest) that's fine, but i've got practicing to do. <3
I'm just noting that I think your arguments thus far are either based on unfamiliarity, disregard what familiarity you have, or are merely jabs. Like I said, I'm not talking about preference; I'm discussing what you stated about the Liszt piece.
wow...indeed finally someone who actually knows hat his talking about... i personally do find this piece of liszt much for deep and riveting than many of chopin's work... although...some of liszt's works are considered cheap and second class to chopin's work....(preference wise) this piece definately stands out as one that is in the higher tier in musicality and definately in a world of its own
I wish I was around in Horowitz's day, when you didn't have to go through a thousand competitions and join a thousand websites to have a damn career.
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago 9
@1Thompsonmusic No then Horowitz: he only had a revolution on his neck, in which his piano was thrown off the balcony, many of his relatives killed and was forced to play in factory halls. It was way easier and more pleasant then to be a pianist! After he fled Russia he was harassed: his mother got no medical treatment and died subsequently, his father died in agony because he had fled from the sovjet system and make a 'career' as you called it. I have sympathy for your sigh but hear him play...
barendschipper 4 months ago
Reageren op deze video... Thank you for uploading! I enjoy the recording of Ferenc Liszt on the day he was born 200 years ago... and performed by -to me- the sublimely creative pianist Horowitz... just enjoying myself!
Thanks again!
barendschipper 4 months ago
Meisterhaft Gleichgewicht Ausdrucksmittel von dem Anwendung von Hände
MrLuigiAlessandro 1 year ago
This sounds a lot more.... contemporary than the majority of 19th century composers.
At least, to my untrained ears.
degree7 1 year ago
Listen carefully to the chord progression beginning around :59.....this seems to be the inspiration for Radiohead's Pyramid Song.
auldbrass 1 year ago 5
@auldbrass moreover: "Everything In It's Right Place" — same key
johnnieanon 1 year ago 2
@johnnieanon exactly! I was listening to this on the radio, and just started googling "liszt ballade 2 eveything in its right place"
noirdez667 10 months ago
Comment removed
ibclappin 1 year ago
Just sublime playing.
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 So if you listen to Arrau performing this work, you'd fall back !... :)
Ray0X0 1 year ago
@Ray0X0 :.... also a great version. I still prefer this "raw" one :-)
bersa888 1 year ago
So you like tonal music as well... Just kidding! :)
bepkororoti192 1 year ago
horowitz sounds drunk, but whatever, pretty radical performance, definately one of the slower versions of this.... always loved this piece, and minirausch, you should read about different compositional forms / why Liszt's ballade is has its raucous. Beethoven kissed Liszt after hearing him play a Piano recital, which Liszt basically invented by turning a piano sideways and playing it solo with the lid open.
ksruictkesn 1 year ago
Horowitz' trademark "twitchiness" in evidence here. To approach the performance or understanding of Liszt's music requires a great discipline and loftiness of MIND.
The technical stuff should never distract from this higher mission. In a sense, Liszt's mission was to "observe through music" but from a lofty mental plane. Very few can keep the vision and present it in performance and analysis. This is not a technical issue, it's a philosophical and metaphysical one.........
GhostChance1 1 year ago
I never liked this performance much. Especially Horowitz' cuts.
aardvaark069 2 years ago
Beautiful...
theevangelic 2 years ago
wonderful song......horowitz is the best pianist in the world!!
nyghtschelet 2 years ago
It's amazing to me how many scholars dismiss this work or say it's a weak specimen next to Chopin's ballades.
Hexameron 2 years ago
I know; it's really terrible. I think this is one of the single most evocative works of the entire romantic piano output, yet it is so rarely performed these days.
John11inch 2 years ago
would you really give this piece the edge over the chopin ballades? now, i actually like this piece quite a bit -- maybe it's not performed much but a friend of mine played the shit out of it a few years ago -- but formally, melodically, emotionally, chopin comes out on top. now, i'd much rather hear this in a recital program, because the chopin ballades are so disgustingly overplayed, but they are in fact masterpieces.. so when they're actually played well (they rarely are) it's worth it.
minirausch 2 years ago
still, even though i like this piece, i get a little impatient listening to it. section after section, with relatively little linking them together. here's this theme. oh here's this theme again. and again. with a march and some other things thrown in for contrast. in chopin, as in beethoven and brahms, it feels as though every transition, every section is absolutely essential.
minirausch 2 years ago
this is the theory nut talking though -- emotionally this is quite a satisfying piece, but i can't help but analyze a little as i go. i like my brain AND my heart to be stimulated and contented, which is why brahms hits the g-spot every time for me.
minirausch 2 years ago
I just prefer music where it's not so obvious what's going to happen next.
And I don't think any of the transitions are "random" at all. They're not linked together by their harmony or counterpoint; they're linked together by what they're saying.
John11inch 2 years ago
you think this piece is emotionally lacking compared to chopin's ballades ? wow.... this ballade gives emotion a whole new name... from the ferocious chromatic passages to the subtle melodic lines... i truly believe this piece out does many of the chopin ballades.
maddorox 2 years ago
pst. *peeks out from behind a wall*
I agree with you >>
Don't tell anyone I said so or I'll get lynched by "the establishment". *runs back into hiding*
John11inch 2 years ago
i think it's just a matter of aesthetic preference. i like long lines, and would rather hear a long and full development than a series of individual shock tactics -- explosions of alternating octaves, showy orchestration, cheap harmonic surprises, etc. for me a more organic structural unity is more effective for emotional buildup/release.
the liszt/chopin or liszt/brahms comparison is difficult because they're doing essentially different things with structure. i'll take chopin's way myself.
minirausch 2 years ago
Harmonic structure, which is what you are referring to when you say "long lines" and "full development" (I can only assume) is only a single primitive of the macro view of development of a piece. There are no "shock tactics", which could only be construed as a derogatory term; the music is fully developed, merely taking into account a form of development other than mere melody or counterpoint. It is unfortunate if this is the only way in which you can identify construction. [cont]
John11inch 2 years ago
There is absolutely nothing "organic" about the structures of Chopin or Brahms; they follow centuries-old techniques of exposition, counterpoint and recapitulation. They are, in many respects, infinitely more mathematical and rigid than this work. The old forms of writing are "comfortable" and "accessible", which is something Liszt purposefully eschewed.
On "cheap tricks", I personally find the old major-minor fluctuation, sonata form, rit+cresc *less* genuinely dramatic; it is cliche.
John11inch 2 years ago 5
To say you have a preference is one thing, but to attempt to dismerit a piece which, I believe, both of us would say you are probably not especially familiar with (in regard to the theory behind it, which is what your comments are directed at) is entirely different, particularly given your arguments, which I find to be very... well, unformulated and slanderous. You have more eloquently worded "this piece is stupid", saying it calls upon "cheap tricks", "showiness" and "shock tactics".
John11inch 2 years ago
to try and address more thoroughly my point on structure: i'm not just talking about harmony. my idea of 'long line' includes motivic/thematic structure and development, time and balance, etc...it's supported by the harmonic structure, but there's more to it than that. the idea of constant variation & long, sustained development -- not just harmony but a consciousness of where a piece is going, and how to get there (think of late beethoven, brahms op. 34, bartók piano sonata, boulez #2...) --
minirausch 2 years ago
is something that connects bach, beethoven, brahms, schoenberg, webern, boulez, carter, feldman, reich...
liszt and wagner's idea as i see it is constant melody by way of reorchestration of a specific set of motives, with little to no variation. take the beginning of this piece, and then the restatement, verbatim, a half-step lower. there's no transition or development in the traditional sense, just repetition with variation in timbre.
minirausch 2 years ago
it's a new idea, a different idea, which is why i'm trying to say it comes down to aesthetic preference. i'm not trying to attack people who like liszt, but it's definitely not my cup of tea.
keep in mind i'm approaching this as a performer, not a theorist. when i'm playing music i like architecture, struggling to create a large and unified whole and a continuity that makes sense, which is easier and more rewarding in music that develops its materials.
minirausch 2 years ago
there's nothing quite like the inexorable progression of events in a beethoven sonata. i don't mind music that's more detail- or moment-oriented, or less interested in a steady continuity. i often enjoy it. it's just less fun for me to play or hear.
hopefully i've made some sense. if this is a discussion you'd like to continue over time (preferably in private messages, because i'm not really interested in a pissing contest) that's fine, but i've got practicing to do. <3
minirausch 2 years ago
I'm not trying to engage in a "pissing contest".
I'm just noting that I think your arguments thus far are either based on unfamiliarity, disregard what familiarity you have, or are merely jabs. Like I said, I'm not talking about preference; I'm discussing what you stated about the Liszt piece.
John11inch 2 years ago
wow...indeed finally someone who actually knows hat his talking about... i personally do find this piece of liszt much for deep and riveting than many of chopin's work... although...some of liszt's works are considered cheap and second class to chopin's work....(preference wise) this piece definately stands out as one that is in the higher tier in musicality and definately in a world of its own
maddorox 2 years ago