Franz Liszt

* Piano Sonata in B-Minor S178
* Concert Study Nr.1 in Ab-Major "Il Lamento"
* Concert Study Nr.2 in F-Minor "La Leggierezza"
* Concert Study Nr.3 in Db-Major "Un Sospiro"

Louis Lortie (Fortepiano)
Chandos ABTD1223 [CrOII] TT: 58:18

Summary for the busy executive: Prometheus walking in Mud.

Most would agree that Wagner and Liszt constitute the peak of Romanticism,
and the burning question is seldom whom of them was the greater composer.
The author of this review has a great volume of things to say about Wagner,
various discussionfora might have experienced at this time, but lets us
allow ourselves to share some words on Franz Liszt as introduction to
this review.

The prominent 19th century critic Eduard Hanslick barked a lot on
Wagner and his concept of the Music Drama, but actually it was for him
even a greater heresy to attempt to transform the symphony to programmatic
drama then the opera to something radically new.  Hanslick sang the praise
of Liszt the concert pianist, and was the last to miss an event of a
concertating Liszt, but there it was the end of the admiration.  Hanslick
hardly praised Richard Wagners ability as singing performer (which in fact
was remarkable, although lacking suitable voice), but Hanslick gave Wagner
good credit for his early works, especially "Der Fliegende Hollaender",
although he couldn't accept the way Wagner later developed the opera.
Liszt might be the major romantic composer with the longest carrier, and
the one who best linked Beethoven to Schoenberg, starting his carrier
writing his own version Diabolic Variations and works verging at atonality
at the end.  Still Hanslick was at best lukewarm to most.

One could further argue that Liszt might have set much influence in
contrast to Wagner who never actually formed school with his prophetics,
although he had imitators.  Often it was suggested that this stems from
the pure quality of the works as they appear to us.  Wagner left a core
of works too perfect for anyone who came after to add anything to.  Liszt
composed many highly musical works, but there is on the full output at
least something abortive, specific works that fall short of certain
demands....and this can be explained, and in the comparision to Wagner it
contrasts clearer, as a matter balance between the indented and executed
idea.  Like although one might agree that Romanticism bore more bold usage
of chromatism, one cannot argue that Liszt is more Romantic then Wagner
just because he uses chromatism to times more boldly then Wagner.  The
difference lies rather on a deeper level of the concept that consistutes
a work.  Like, and that comes more frappant when taking notice to Liszts
programmatic titles, he took on greater demands of what the work should
inhold and express then one could likely live up to.  Like if he composed
somebody elses music.

As I wiew then, his works fall into four cathegories:  1) Works for
concert purposes composed mainly in the first half of his life where he
was more obsessed with concerting around, and then in chronological order:
2) The transcriptions of Beethovens symphonies and related works which gave
him much insight in other composers, and mainly Beethovens, from the piano
point of wiew.  3) The Weimar years:  His most important compositionary
period, in which he composed works like the two Pianoconcertos, the
Pianosonata and 12 Symphonic Poems, and finally 4) what should have been
the period of his finest works but in which something went wrong in all his
major compositions.  To these compositions belong:  the cantatas "Christus"
and "S:t Elisabeth", the 13th Symphonic Poem "Von der Weige bis zum Grabe"
and the Faust-Sinfonie.

I think Liszt is a composer who appells more to the intellect then
emotions although that far from means his emotional message can not be
strong.  Musicologists and Brain-researchers has in 2001 speculated much
about how the brains percieve and create music after an old debate lit on
fire again about Maurice Ravels braindamadge.  In short the arguing goes
that in his latest works - Bolero and the Pianoconcerto in G and the
Pianoconcert for left hand - Ravel changes his style to put lesser stress
on thematic development and more on timbre.  Now there are different
centras in the brain for almost every single factor that consitutes music,
and to say it simple the sence for melody is located in the left brain, the
sence for Klaenge (the german word) is in the right, and while the poor
Maurice Ravel showed signs of decline of other functions related to his
left brain, like speech, the arguing goes that this set traces in his
music.  The change in style can be rather clearly detected in analysis,
although it can as well be a matter of change in taste from external
influence.  Should one make a funny comment of Liszt in Ravels clothes,
he was, should I express it, a composer who had composed in another style
then his talent should have allowed him to do his best in.  That says;
Liszts Rapsodies are exceptional for a beginner to get good ideas of ways
of executing thematic development, and it was that Liszt had talent for,
still he experimented with sounds - Klaenge - and stressed them, as this
was fashion from his point of wiew.  He had a very good talent for thematic
development, but he didn't - and here is the heavy point in the difference
from Wagner - allow his energy to flow from the unconscious levels up on
conscious level.  First feel, and then understand and explain the feeling.
He failed in harmonize conscious and instinctive forces - with Schoenbergs
words:  "he consciously replaced the old form by a new....the old vision
with somebody else's vision instead of his own".

The symphonic poems are spanning over a vast range of expressions and
forms and shed light on Liszt advantages as well as his weak sides.  Anyone
engaging on a sampling of the poems must feel the repetitious and episodic
character (as well as the tematic banality) of Nr.1 "Ce qu'on entend sur
la montage".  Nor does Romanticism ever becomes so vulgar as in "Hungaria"
(Nr.9), and although the more restrained and economical "Orpheus" (Nr.4)
despite its curiously salon-like material in places, and intense
Tristan-like "Hamlet" (Nr.10) have found particular favour with critics
seeking continousity in Liszts more visionary pieces.  Tasso (Nr.2) and
"Festklaenge" (Nr.7) are brisk of directed harnessed energy brooded with
tragic, although they never reach up to Beethovens perfect balance between
scale and power, they at least beat "Hunnenschlacht" (Nr.11).  "Die Ideale"
(Nr.12) ewokes the world of Parsifals "Good Friday", as well as in "Von der
Weige bis zum Grabe", which also has alludings to Brahms, intriguingly
enough.  The best and most personal of Liszt; "Les Preludes" (Nr.3)
certainly has its popularity justified to the extent, for all its
repetitousness, it lacks the laboured and ramschackle contiinuity of the
least successful pieces.

"Orpheus", "Prometheus" and "Hamlet" are in my opinion Liszts best works,
especially the latter is very heartfelt and intense.  Liszt also was
very obbsessed with this figure and describes H.  as "an exceptional
person [...] who demands the wine of life and will not be satisfied
with buttermilk".  These emotionative works are also so much far from
the intellectualizing side of Liszt; that reads; the Transcendental
Philosopher.  The Pianosonata is now a transcendental work above all,
even the notorious etudes.

What impresses me about the abovementioned works is easy to say, as much
can be said.  The Piano Sonata IS indeed a fascinating piece, but I would
say that because - and this is a necessary paus - the sence of structural
innovation serving expressive intensity.  Because there is a single
movement embracing elements - first movement, slow movement, finale -
normally kept iseparate in the Classical Sonatask the compsoer ensures
overall cohesion of structure and enhances the great diversity of mood by
carefully controlled harmonic processes perpetually recurring cells of
themata.  Liszt applied the work he had practiced on enhanche the cohesion
while expanding the forms which he had practiced in the symphonic poems.
Liszt's ability, evident in the Sonata, was to construct a thrilling tonal
and thematic drama by challenging, but ultimately confirming, the most
essential characteristics of goal-directed symphonic organization:  and it
is not the least surprising that he should have sought to discover the kind
of poetic subjects for his symphonic poems that would enable comparative
structural means to be employed.

The way Liszt really build his expanded forms is by letting a lot of
miniature sequences run together, and the expanded form is thereby rather
an effect of expanded form then anything else, though it doesn't necessary
has to be.  Above was why the pianosonata is fascinating, but why a
recording of the sonata is fascinating to listen to is that the miniature
sequences give the performer much freedom to puzzle the bricks togetehr to
a unity - or something else - and no recording I have heard of the sonata
is the other alike, and there will always be as many unique "wholes" of the
Liszt sonata as there are players - at least potentially.  Louis Lortie has
a firm grasp on fusioning the great structures apart, meanwhile clear in
detail.  Lorties playing is so soft so the music is just floating forward,
sudden like the move of a fog, still many details are there which makes the
reading very lush and rich.  Lorties interpretation is true an intellectual
one, but it fusions the brain with the heart in a syntheseis that is
absolutely wonderful.  Has this sonata ever been played so sensetive and
with so much compassion.  The Liszt transcendental works are actually,
as to all I am able to percieve them requiring a great intellectual
understanding in first place; i.e having a grasp on the sequences, and how
the emotional expressions come out is a secondray to that:  i.e how the
intellect manages to put the sequences in a tasteful way.  One player of
Liszt sonata which I must admit I highly admire is Geoffrey Bush, with his
intense fire and never decreasing power, yet sensetive and a rare deep
understanding for how the material can be arranged.  Lortie lacks some
in the power in certain places, but that is something I always felt in
commercial recordings with Lortie, like if he knew the microphones were
there and that sustains his power.  In private recordings he is more
intense also in the bombast parts.  Still I would choose Lortie for my
desert island recording, as I think his mind can add a from inner downunder
coming unconsciuos feeling to the work as a first alternative, which I
think can do good in interpreting Liszt.

All in all:  Recommended as a highly interesting recording of an
interesting work.

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]