Bob Draper wrote:

>Is it because we still view Liszt as the first pop star that we don't give
>him his due?

I get the feeling that Bob thinks that Liszt should be right up there
with the "biggies" such as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.  Using my higher
mathematical training, I tallied up the pages of Schwann Opus devoted
to particular composers, and some of the results are:

Mozart - 38
Bach   - 32
Beet.  - 30
Brahms - 17
Schubert-16
Tch.   - 12.5
Chopin - 12
Liszt  - 11
Haydn  - 11
Nielsen- 2.5(supports Andrew's premise?)

So, how much more "due" would Bob like? Liszt is right up there with Haydn,
pretty good company.  He has more pages than Debussy, Dvorak, Handel,
Mendelssohn, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Schumann, Strauss, Stravinsky,
Verdi, Vivaldi, and Wagner.  The only composers he is substantially behind
are the big "3".

Anyways, Liszt isn't looking too shabby.  The main thing for Bob to keep in
mind is that Mozart has more than 3 times the pages for Liszt; doesn't that
sound reasonable?

Seriously, I would assume that "favorite" composers never appear to get
their deserved exposure.  I love Zemlinsky, and he didn't even rate one
full page.

Well, I have to get back to using some calculus to finish off a real
estate appraisal I'm writing (present worth of future income streams).
It probably won't be as interesting as plowing through Schwann Opus.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]