Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lead section

... "if not the greatest" ...

Regarding Iggy402's removal, on 06:06, 14 November 2006, of "if not the greatest," I see the point about the danger of inserting personal point of view. However, to say that Liszt is merely "one of the greatest pianists in history," instead of "one of the greatest - if not the greatest - pianists in history," still seems a significant understatement, given extraordinary and credible testimonies of his contemporaries and expert opinions which have followed. The preponderance of these suggest a distinct possibility that Liszt indeed was the greatest. For this reason, my insertion on 10:56, 2 November 2006 of the phrase "if not the greatest" seemed reasonable - especially since I still was stopping well short of asserting that he in fact WAS the greatest.

For this same reason, I applaud K. Lastochka's 23:59, 14 November 2006 contribution, which gives Liszt credit where it is due, more credit than for being merely "one of the greatest" pianists in history.

Still I believe it is reasonable to point out that he is generally considered to be one of the greatest - if not the greatest - pianists in history. Again, to say that he merely was "one of the greatest" pianists in history seems an understatement. Bstct 09:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate my contributions. :) I should probably be watched carefully lest I add some POV of my own though--I'm a big Liszt fan lately. :) K. Lastochka 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comtesse or Countess

"the Comtess d'Agoult". Comtess skould be either Comtesse or Countess.
S.

It's Comtesse, I think - I'll change it. --Camembert

[edit] Hungarian Rhapsodies

The reference to "Hungarian Rhapsody" was added by an anonymous user, who apparently wasn't aware that Liszt wrote 19 of them. Which one do you reckon he/she was thinking of? #2, perhaps? --Ortonmc 03:08, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I guess so. Somebody's made Hungarian Rhapsody as well, so there's a bit of tidying up needed. I'll see what I can do tonight if nobody gets there before me. --Camembert
I've replaced the old page with the singular title with Hungarian Rhapsodies. Eventually we might want an individual page for each, but that's some way in the future, methinks. --Camembert

I am very confused by the numbering of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody! I have a Naxos CD, 8.550327, which contains a Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C#m, arranged for orchestra. In the program notes it is read, "Hungarian Rhapsody, No. 2 (No. 12) the most popular of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies, No. 2 in the orchestral arrangements the composer made with the aid of Franz Doppler, and No. 12 in the set of 19 for piano, was composed in 1853 and dedicated to the young virtuoso violinist Joseph Joachim, who that year had brought Brahms to visit him. ..."

But when I listen to a DVD Kissin (The Gift of Music), he plays Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12 in C#m, it is totally a different piece! And I've tried to search for Hungarian Rhapsody in google, it is strange that many websites give a different numbering, some of them have the No. 2 in GbM, some of them C#m, some of them Dm! And the most problematic is Liszt has written two Hungarian Rhapsody in C#m, and some websites have listed No. 2 C#m and No. 12 C#m. It is really confusing. Could anyone help to give an answer? 203.186.238.243 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Concerning the Hungarian Rhapsodies there is a little bit of confusion due to the fact, that there is not only one cycle by Liszt but there are two of them. In December 1839 Liszt composed 12 pieces of "Magyar dalok" ("Hungarian melodies") from which the pieces 1 - 7 were published in 1840 and the pieces 8 - 11 in 1843. The 12th piece, an arrangement of the Rákóczi-march, was censored for political reasons. (There are about a douzen different piano-arrangements of the Rákóczi-march by Liszt.) In 1846/47 Liszt composed new pieces from hungarian material and called them "Rhapsodies hongroises". They were published with numbers 11, 12 etc. Later in Weimar Liszt revised his former works so that a new cycle of "Rhapsodies hongroises" was created. In order to distinguish between the two cycles arabian and roman figures are used. The 12th piece of the first series is therefore called "12. Hungarian Rhapsody" and the 12th piece of the second series "XII. Hungarian Rhapsody". The "12. Rhapsodie" is by the way a former version of the "V. Rhapsody" whereas the "XII. Rhapsody" is in most parts a revised version of the "18. Rhapsody", which was left unpublished by Liszt. A complete edition containing all versions of the Rhapsodies is presently not available. Details can be found in: Gárdonyi, Zóltan: Paralipomena zu den Ungarischen Rhapsodien, in: Beiträge von ungarischen Autoren, ed. Klara Hamburger, Budapest 1978. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.192.232 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Franz (sometimes Ferenc) Liszt

Sometimes Ferenc? What is the original full Hungarian name? Rafał Pocztarski 11:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Liszt is known as Ferenc, the Hungarian version of his name, in Hungary. However, Liszt's family were German-speaking (rather snobbishly so, since Austria was the dominant partner in the empire) and Liszt himself spoke only very poor Hungarian and always used the German version of his name. -- Necrothesp 13:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So the situation is somewhat similar to that of Chopin in Poland, who is known as Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (sometimes even ‘Szopen’ though usually ‘Chopin’ and in any case always ‘Fryderyk’) but who himself changed the name to French “Frédéric-François.” I was wondering whether “Franz (sometimes Ferenc) Liszt” shouldn’t be something in the lines of “Franz (real name Ferenc) Liszt” but now I see that ‘Franz’ is not only a German version of his real name (like e.g. “Franciszek Liszt” is a popular Polish version) but it is the real name itself, so in fact there is no “original full Hungarian name”—sorry for the loaded question. So the Polish article Ferenc Liszt should be renamed to Franz Liszt, as should the CD I recorded this morning... I stand corrected, thanks a lot. Rafał Pocztarski 00:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, the modern Hungarians do always refer to him as Ferenc (presumably for reasons of national pride, since he's their national composer and they don't want to use a foreign-sounding name). -- Necrothesp 03:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. The original name is Franz and that is what in my opinion should be used in the title, unless some other form of the name is much more popular in the language of the article in question—thus Ferenc in Hungarian. For anyone speaking Polish, this subject is just being discussed on pl Ferenc Liszt talk page right now. Rafał Pocztarski 20:46, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I agree entirely. The name he used is the name we should use. -- Necrothesp 00:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that is is abosolutly great that this many people have an opinion. I play Liszt for a living and this is what I have to say. I know that Brahms wrote Hungarian Dances but as far as Rhapsodies that are Hungarian I beleive only Liszt wrote those. I only teach Liszt and have only studied Liszt. I think it is very good. I also think tha twe should put samples of all the Hungairans on there I will work on that.--24.155.163.13 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Debating whether Liszt's name was Franz or Ferenc is quite the same as debating wether the capital of Austria was Vienna or Wien. There is a lithography by Joseph Trentsenzky showing Liszt wearing some hungarian costume at age of about 11 years. Beneath, the name is printed as "Liszt Ferentz". Thinking of the fact that in Hungarian the second syllable is stressed so far no accent is put to the first and imagining the first "e" in "Ferentz" was very shortly pronounced it would be nearly the same as "Franz". The first "e" may therefore have had indicated a special kind of pronounciating a rolling "r". Liszt's father Adam Liszt in a letter to his own father from August 14, 1825, called his son "Franzl". (The "l" at the end is clearly legible so that it is sure that not "Franzi" is meant. The letter is partly written in old german letters by the way.) Czerny in his letters to Adam Liszt wrote "Franzi". Liszt's mother in her letters to him called him "Liebes Kind". Countess d'Agoult called him "Franz" which is known from some of her letters and from the third part of her memoirs. Liszt himself wrote "Franz" in a document of enrolement into the freemason lodge "Zur Einigkeit" from September 18, 1841, which can be seen in Walker, Liszt I, p.369. "Franz" is a shorter form of "Franziskus" or "Franciscus" and in the last form the name is written in his birth certificate. The meaning of "Franciscus" is "French" from the point of view in the Middle Ages. So it can go as "Francois" as well and this version can be seen in Blandine's birth certificate which was signed by Liszt as "F. Liszt". By the way, in order to explain what words like "Ungarn", "Magyar", "Hongroise" and others like that might have meant for Liszt nothing less than an essay of severeal douzens of pages will do. It was in many parts a country of his fantasy.
If someone of you looks at Walker's p.369 he will see on p.368 some others of his typical mistakes. The example from Liszt's arrangement of his Loreley (Walker writes "Lorelei" instead.) with which according to Walker Liszt should have stolen from the future of music was in fact made in the end of the Weimar years, after Liszt having had the score of Wagners Tristan in hand. The beginning of the first version of the arrangement from 1846 having had escaped from Walker's eyes in some way had been quite different. (Both versions are in volume I/15 of the New Liszt Edition, published 1982.) A further mistake is to be found in Walker's note 17 in p.368. After having praised Philippe Autexier for his book Mozart & Liszt sub Rosa Walker writes, Liszt became member of the lodge ""Zur Eintracht"" on February 22, 1842. In Autexier's book it is shown instead (p.53 with notes) that Liszt was member since February 8, 1842, and master since February 22, 1842. Liszt himself in a letter to d'Agoult wrote that he had become member on February 7 but this was an error of date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.162.45 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Organization

I think the biographical information here would be more readable if organized similarly to how Haydn and Chopin are seperated into sub sections and headers. Thoughts? --Sketchee 17:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went boldly ahead! I think it works but feel free to rename the sections, etc. --Sketchee 13:59, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nationism

Dear wikifriends, in book Franz Liszt, compositeur slovaque (Paperback), Miroslav Benko, L'Age d'Homme Editions (2003), ISBN: 2825117897 is written, that F. Liszt has slovak nationality.

"Of the other Hungarian 19th century and early 20th century composers, Bartok's place of birth is today in Romania and Dohnanyi's in Slovakia; that of Kodály still remains in the 40% of Hungary which stands as the remnants of the country."

This was removed as it probably shouldn't be here. I thought I'd just save it in case anyone wants something to develop a page on Nationalism in music or even a section on the nationalism page. --Sketchee 01:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is Christoph von Dohnányi a composer anyway? The original author may have been referring to his grandfather, if and when that section is written Schissel : bowl listen 03:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Liszt is commonly referred to as a Hungarian composer, which is an image he helped to promulgate, but I believe that he actually does not have any Hungarian ancestry. He was Austrian. --11/21/05


He was not Austrian, but an ethnic German Hungarian. As he said: "Je suis Hongrois".

According to my knowledge his father Adam Liszt was Slovak since both his parents (Juraj (eng. Georg) List and Barbara Šlesáková) were Slovaks (both his parents and Adam Liszt were speaking slovak as a first language). It implies that he (Franz Liszt) has Slovak German origin and not Hungarian German. He also learned hungarian as a second language and never used it extensively. So to call him hungarian composer is possible only in the context of 19th century since he was born in Austria-Hungary Empire which consisted of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, and parts of Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, and Italy. But to oversimplify and to relate him exclusively to present Hungary now in 21st century is really impropriate. My source is the book "Franz Liszt, compositeur slovaque", author Miroslav Demko, publisher Lausanne : Editions L'âge d'homme, 2003. This book is available in the library of the University of Oxford. I want to ask people really interested in this article to check upon this information. Iambilko 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Liszt was German Hungarian. His Slovak origin is a nationalistic fabrication.

That is possible. But what are your sources? I've presented my source and in some way I trust the authority of University of Oxford. I believe they include non-fictional book into their archive after some consideration (and this one is from 2003, relatively new one, so it can present a new discoveries on the subject of Franz Liszt). For instance let's look onto Sándor Petőfi, national hungarian poet, whose father was Serbian and mother was Slovak but because they lived in Austrian Empire (in the Hungary part) he claimed himself as Hungarian since Hungary that time strongly forced other nations to convert themselves to be Hungarian. Any other nation (from the hungarian part of the empire) during that time was strongly oppressed by Hungarians. And these are the facts. And again, I'm not saying that it is true (I mean Slovak German origin of Franz Liszt), but there are new sources which claim something different. And according to the really strong anti-nationalistic politics of the 19th century's Hungary (the fact) I am inclined to believe that this might be the true. Another example is that before the year 1918 many people would say that they are Hungarian and after 1918 they became Serbian, Slovak, Romanian, Pole, Hungarian. And please don't take this personally. I'm just keen to know how is it. Iambilko 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear respected colleague, if you have ever read any of Petőfi's poetry you will know that he was not "forced" to "convert himself" to be Hungarian. He was Hungarian, and he was extremely proud of it. He gave his life for Hungary, for God's sake! I don't know how many times I have to say this: in Hungary, nationality and ethnicity are two different things. You can be Magyar Hungarian, Slovak Hungarian, German Hungarian, anything else Hungarian. You just have to call yourself Hungarian, have allegiance and loyalty to Hungary, speak Hungarian (or in Liszt's case make a valiant effort!), and love Hungary as your homeland. I'm sure I've said this before. There are many, many, many great Hungarians whose ethnic origin was not Magyar, but their nationality is SHOULD not be called into question, nor should their loyalty. K. Lástocska 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Just want to throw a few points into the mix. Firstly, the main library in Oxford is a copyright deposit library, they have every book published in the UK. While this book doesn't seem to have been published in the UK, the point still stands that they include many books, no matter their merit. The books in the library are not a reflection of Oxford university therefore, but the person who wrote them. And I for one have never heard of the author in question, so I couldn't comment on her reliability. Anyway, I would be happy enough for the contention that he does have slovak ancestry to be included on the condition that it is mentioned that this is the view of the author above, not mainstream scholarship. It would have to be quoted and referenced properly also. Changing that he is hungarian to slovakian with no reason/source/anything provided is unacceptable. M A Mason 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all we need to understand what we mean with an ethnic hungarian. Hungarians are generally considered to be the most mixed ethnicity in Europe. Actually, most hungarians have also slav and german ancestry, more or less, as well as other ethnicity. Liszt had to. The name Liszt and that family may have had, with a high probability, same roots as a transylvanian-hungarian family named Liszty, Liszthy, Liszthiusz etc. That family was hungarian-speaking already in the 1500-century.A part of this family moved to the very same parts of Hungary where the composer had his relatives. Most of of the Liszt family were lutherans as the lutheran Liszts that moved from Transsylvania to the northern parts of what now is Burgenland. Probably Liszt is a descendant of this family. If this is true he might have some remote ancestry with the Hunyady family! According to Liszts statements and according to photos of him his mongoloid features are sometimes recognizable. This could mean that he had magyar roots. The mongoloid element in central europe is associated with the magyar tribes or some proto-magyar ones as the avars or the more distant huns. From an anthropological point of wiev Liszt had magyar ancestry with the uttermost probability. What is most important is however his own feeling in the matter. In this respect he was without doubt hungarian. He was even a nationalistic hungarian. And among nationalistic hungarians he was among the most excessively so. It doesn´t matter at all that he besides magyar also had german, austrian and different slav forefathers. Beside this he seemes to have had roumanian as well. It is quite sure that he had magyar, german and slav roots, as most hungarians do have. The name Liszt is according to bartok slavic. That doesn´t mean that it is slovakian. Some of Liszts ancestors on his fathers side wore the name Slezak. The name Schlezak is a germanized western-slav name. Probably it is czech or moravian and not originaly slovakian. The Slezaks probably however mixed with slovakians and probably magyars as well. On the other hand there are several milion people of mixed slovakian hungarian ancestry. Most of these consider themselves hungarian. Petöfi is one good example. Petöfi had however some magyar ancestry on his mothers side, but she was predominantely of slovak origin.

25 Aug 2006 Laszlo IG Schüszler


THERE are three options: "austrian-hungarian composer", "german-hungarian composer" or "hungarian composer of german descent". Hungarian alone is not correct, Liszt has (austro-)german parents and was born (and lived) in the german part of hungary (called german-west-hungary), and hungary wasn´t a free independent country that time, it was just a part of the austrian "reich". The hungarians where not free in 1811.

"Austrian Hungarian" I wouldn't accept, it's pretty irrelevant that Austria had control of the region at that time, he was born is the kingdom of Hungary. "German hungarian" I would not accept, because again it's irrelevant what his parents were, he was born in Hungary and identified with the Hungarian people. "german descent" so what? According to scientists if you trace us all back far enough we're of African descent. How far do we go back? 1 generation? 3? 10? Pointless if you ask me, given that he declared himself to be Hungarian. We can't judge his nationality or his views based on the beliefs of today, that's just bad history. K. Lásztocska has shown a number of times here that to be Hungarian means a lot more than just the country you live(d) in, so what if it wasn't free/independant? Whatever that actually means. M A Mason 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I say: He is an austrian-hungarian composer, german-slovacian descent


How could Franz Liszt have been an enthusiastic Hungarian nationalist if he couldn't even master the language fluently? Did he not attempt writing a letter in Hungarian once, but change to French quickly with apologies that he was unable to complete it in Hungarian. I would have assumed that being a Nationalist of a country would include making the effort of learning the language sufficiently... On another matter; Franz Liszt appears to be on the 'List of Austrians'; don't think that's entirely correct

What makes you so sure he didn't try to learn? :) As a patriotic Hungarian whose mother tongue is not Magyar, I can attest to the fact that it's damn hard to learn!! :) If he was able to write even half a letter, well, then that's pretty good. :) K. Lastochka 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt and Beethoven

The section about Liszt's meeting with Beethoven takes up way too much place IMO. It is interesting though, so I suggest we move it to a separate article (e.g. Liszt and Beethoven) and reduce it to a single sentence or so within the main article, with a link to the new article. — Pladask 12:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Like Sketchee, I went boldly ahead. :-) I think this is much better. — Pladask 18:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about audio sample, and reading..

Audio sample- in the media sample, what's Au bord d'une? (Resolves to download that audio sample soon, but if it turns out to be Au bord d'une source, it really should be labeled as such)

Reading- a further reading section with e.g. biography references may be good (I'd nominate Walker's, unsurprisingly, for instance.) Schissel : bowl listen 03:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I did a futher reading section, with of course the Walker books and some others which Liszt enthusiasts may be interested in. Looks like the 'au bord d'une' has been changed, my PC doesnt want to play it, but Im sure its right. I've looked at works lists and its the only one like it. —M A Mason
I checked it, the audio's definitely right Tedneeman 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Website with Searle / Raabe catalogue numbers?

The current link at the end of Noted Works is 404. I know a couple good sites that list Searle numbers (liszt.dk, lisztworks.com), but neither lists Raabe numbers.

One commercial site (www.hungaroton.hu - e.g. Recording of Les Quatre Élémens) lists Raabe nos. in cataloging their Liszt recordings, but other sites seem to be scarce on the ground, yes. Schissel : bowl listen 05:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Or it might have been a typo- this link has some of the information? Schissel : bowl listen 05:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary stuff

Many articles about musicans or composers etc on wikipedia start with "is considered to be the greatest/best..." or something like that, like in this article "Possibly the greatest virtuoso of all time". Adding things like that is just unnecessary and stupid, weather he/she/it is good or not is highly subjective. It's just as stupid as "This is Franz Lizst(for example), some people like him, some don'ta". As if peoples oppinions would change if they found out he is appreciated by some. Thats one the problem with society, people care to much what other people thing.

Well to get on topic again: Less of that stuff.

While I agree that "Possibly the greatest virtuoso of all time" is a little too POV-ish, he was, and is still widely considered to have been just that, with the numerous legends and stories attached to his life. And you must surely agree that it would be downright silly to rule out such an essential fact in his biography. :-) – Pladask 12:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
To give an own opinion of Liszt (I write it in german as I read it:)
"Die guten Leute können nicht davon ablassen, von meinen Triumphzügen und meiner unerreichten pianistischen Meisterschaft zu faseln, und das ist mir gründlich zum Ekel geworden. Sie könnten wahrlich etwas mehr sich schämen mir gegenüber, als mich mit Zurückweisung auf meinen früheren längst überwundenen und verjährten Standpunkt zu verunglimpfen."
In other words the thing Liszt would have liked to get was acceptance as composer and not as greatest pianist of all times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.135.143.99 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third concerto

There is third concerto in Eb major too.

Yes, a performance was broadcast on SBS TV (Australia) some years ago. I seem to remember this was claimed to be by Liszt but conclusive proof is lacking. JackofOz 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Anti-semitic claims

Franz Liszt is a musical hero to me. However, there should be some mention of his anti-semitic views, even if its justs a blurb.

Was he really anti-semitic? I know that Alan Walker argues that he was wrongly accused of it. I have however heard that he made some comments that could be construed in that way, same for Chopin. I'm not saying it's not true, just that if it is mentioned it needs to be balanced and properly sourced. I'm in two minds as to whether or not it's noteworthy, true or not I don't think he was ever hostile to anyone because of any views that he had, or indeed was public about it, as Wagner was. Wagner's music is apparently banned in Israel due to his anti-semitism, and as far as I'm aware there are no such restrictions on Liszt's music, which shows to me that perhaps if he were an anti-semite, he wasn't active, if you catch my drift. I'd be interested to hear others opinions on this. M A Mason 02:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I guess I really don't know. I sure would like to find out. Thank you for posting, as this is the first time I've heard about Alan Walker. I would really like to find any analysis of evidence, letters, correspondance, etc. that could shed some light either way.

After a bit of digging, it appears that Alan is the most comprehensive source on Liszt to date. Also, I would add:

Franz Liszt: A Guide to Research by Michael Saffle

Contained within Saffle's book is a reference to the following book:

Liszt: A Self-portrait in His Own Words, ed. David Whitwell. Northridge, CA: Winds, 1986. vii, 242 pp. ML410.L7A164 1986.

"A summary of Liszt's life, character, and activities drawn from the composer's letters, essays, and other documents. Includes observations made by Liszt on the Jews, the peoples of various nations, and a variety of individuals--among them, Bach, Ludwig II of Bavaris, Tolstoy, and Wagner."(Saffle)

Perhaps 'ol Liszt got a bad rap? I think you may be correct. Gstejska 08:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Here's one more source:

Riehn, Rainer. "Wilder die Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener. Liszt soll Antisemit gewesen sein...." pp. 100-14

Keep in mind that people were generally much more anti-semitic and racist in the 19th century than they are today. It is easy for us to criticize people from 200 years ago, as if we would have been different had we lived back then. Chances are we would not, because it was simply accepted by white Christians that nonwhites and jews were racially inferior. That said, I've never seen any evidence that Liszt was anti-semitic. I can't give you a footnote, but I recall reading a bit of a letter from Liszt to (I believe) the Princess Sayn-Wittgenstein encouraging her to meet & hear a new student of his, "though he is of the tribe of Jacob." That student was Carl Tausig, a Jew and one of Liszt's star pupils, to whom Liszt was especially devoted, and whose death at age 29 was bitterly mourned by Liszt, as Tausig was said to remind Liszt of his own son Daniel who had similarly died young some 12 years before.

\\David Curtin, Lock Haven USA 9/1/06

Gstejska 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Walker discusses this especially in the book (which I seem to refer to a lot.. hrm) Franz Liszt: The Weimar Years, 1848-1861. The two books which have been used most often, according to Walker, to make the case that Liszt was antisemitic were the last edition of his book on Chopin, and even more, the second edition of his book on the Gypsies and Their Music (I don't have the exact title here, nor Walker's book.) Caroline von Sayn-Wittgenstein, who he loved and almost married was an anti-Semite, and he gave much of the work of revising those books to her in his later years, and I gather he only discovered what she added to the second book especially- which contained some horrible slurs - when it was late to do anything about it, and then did not reveal her part in it out of misplaced chivalry. That said: this is what I remember of his account, will add page number sources and corrections when I have the book in front of me, and I'm not really positive. Schissel-nonLop! 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never found any evidence that F.L. was antisemitic. In fact he often seems to be significantly less so than some of his contemporaries (*cough* Wagner *cough*). I have read in many books that the nasty bits in his books were put in by Princess Caroline--sorry I can't cite any sources right now... :( just my 2 cents.K. Lastochka 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


You could try Lina Ramann's diarys (edited as "Lisztiana" by Schott (Mainz)) and learn, that Liszt agreed as thesis with the dangerous passages in the second edition of his book on the Gypsies.


Adding another opinion to the question whether Liszt was antisemitic or was not it has at first to be made clear that antisemitism in 19th century was not of the Hitler/Auschwitz kind. Wagner for example, being really fanatically antisemitic, had Jewish friends. Among them were Carl Tausig, Josef Rubinstein and others. His Parsifal was in 1882 in Bayreuth directed by the Jew Levi. It was said that his second wife Cosima, being fanatically antisemitic herself, had Jewish forbears from her mother's side. (It has turned out that it was most probably not true.) Her first husband Hans von Bülow was fanatically antisemitic as well but he had also lots of Jewish friends. Robert Schumann was in some kind antisemitic against Mendelssohn, in the same time admiring him as artist.
Coming to Liszt, his mother was most probably antisemitic. Liszt had a Jewish pupil Hermann Cohen since 1834. He was living with Liszt in Geneva in winter 1835/36 and later in Italy. Being highly problematic in his character he stole money from Liszt and did other things which did Liszt harm. Hearing of this, Liszt's mother said one day to it Jews would always behave like Jews. (It is known from a letter by d'Agoult to Liszt.) Much later, in spring 1862, Liszt met Cohen in Rome per accident. He was now the monk "Pater Augustin" having been converted to the Roman Catholic Church in the early 1850s. The meeting in 1862 can be regarded as one reason (among others) because of which Liszt himself became Abbé some years later.
In Liszt's own letters I am remembering just a single one from which an opinion of some antisemitism could be drawn. Living in London in spring 1840 he lent money from Ignaz Moscheles. Then in winter 1840/41 Liszt made his second tour together with Lavenu, and he lost a huge amount of money with it. (According to an own letter to Franz Schober it was more than 15000 C.M., i.e. more than 43000 Francs.) After having given concerts in Belgium and Paris, Liszt returned to London in Mai 1841, staying until the beginning of June 1841. But for some reasons it seemed to be nearly impossible for him earning money with concerts in London this time. When Moscheles then came to Liszt wanting to get the lent money back Liszt wrote in a letter to d'Agoult, Moscheles' Jewish character would have broken through. Having played some Etudes by Moscheles in his concerts before, Liszt put them nearly completely aside afterwards.
So the question whether Liszt had antisemitic ideas or not is altogether still open. My own impression is that in the 19th century Jews have generally been suspected doing evil things (not only in Germany of course) and some portion of this may have been shared by Liszt, but in contrast to Hitler's antisemitism Jewish people could be highly respected as individuals. There is a book "Deutsche Meister" ("German masters") by Peter Raabe (Regensburg, 1937) with some chapters about Liszt. It is there to be read nothing less than Liszt, being a German master in Raabe's view, having already been in some sense a national socialist to the highest degree. Being obviously absurd of course even this does not mean that Raabe thought Liszt would have been antisemitic. In his book "Liszts Schaffen" ("Liszt's works") he wrote quite much about Liszt's book about the Gypsies and their music in Hungary defending him in a way which could be worth reading until today (without believing everything Raabe wrote). To the well known conception, it would not have been Liszt but Princess Wittgenstein who wrote parts of the second edition, it was Raabe's point of view by the way that it would not matter because Lizst's name was on the title page so that the responsibility was his. This is perfectly correct and was Liszt's own point of view as well.

84.61.63.109 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no mention of his invention of tone poem

Franz Liszt is famous for his invention of the tone poem, or symphonic poem. The Wiki 'symphonic poem' article mentions this fact, and links to Liszt, but there is no mention in the actual Liszt article about his invention. It might be prudent to include this, as well as a link in a paragraphed section other than a listing of his works, which could be quickly skimmed over & missed.


[edit] What makes Liszt hungarian?

[edit] 2006

What was it? His mother was german. His father was magyarised german. He DIDN`T EVEN SPOKE HUNGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!! Can anyone show me just one prove that Frantz Liszt spoke hungarian? A letter, a journal, anything! NO YOU CAN`T!!! Because he didn`t spoke hungarian. Even if he didn`t, is there any prove that he ever called, or considered himself "magyar"? Greier 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

ACtually Franz Liszt did consider himself Hungarian, and true he didn't know the language very well..he was half Austrian. Adam Liszt was Hungarian, born in Hungary, worked with a Hungarian family, has a Hungarian surname and Hungarian diacratics on name. Where is the evidence that he was 100% German? Leave the sentence as it was before 65.185.213.33 changed it without reason

Liszt was clearly Hungarian. He was of course born there himself, lived their for 10 years, the Hungarians hailed him as a national hero on his returns there, let's not forget the decorations and nationalistic awards he recieved (I'm thinking of the that sword of honour, or whatever it's called). He wrote a lot of music inspired by Hungary; the Rhapsodies, the Hungarian romanzeros, the Hungarian character portraits and so on... Admitedly so did Brahms for example... but what it does show is that in his heart Liszt was Hungarian. He certainly tried to speak Hungarian, there's a letter he sent to his mother which begins in Hungarian, but goes into French, his preferred language - but was he French? No. Of course he wasn't. Language certainly doesn't determine nationality.
And finally, I won't keep you much longer, Liszt writing to Caroline about his identification with the magyars: "Nothing elsewhere can replace these things, and the physiognomy of the race, when they are linked to childhood memories and when one has kept in tact that tonality of the heart which is a feeling for one's fatherland" (Franz Liszt the Weimar years - Alan Walker, p. 404). Good enough for me.M A Mason 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
More sources:
"I am Hungarian, and I do not know a greater happiness than to introduce to my beloved country the first fruits of my education and studies-as the first expression of my gratitude. What is missing yet of my maturity I intend to acquire with lasting diligence, and perhaps then I will have the good fortune to become a small branch of my country's glory. -Announcing F.Liszt's "homecoming" concert that took place on May 1, 1823 in Pest. (Franz Liszt the Virtuoso years - Alan Walker, p. 87)
When Liszt arrived in Hungary in December 1839, after an absence of sixteen years, he was greeted as a national hero. No other living Hungarian was so widely known. He was, as István Csekey puts it, a "shining star" to the entire Hungarian nation. (CLHS, p.6)
For three generations Liszt's male forbears had worked on Hungarian soil. They loved the country, they identified with its people, they were absorbed in its culture. They lived, they reproduced, and they died in exactly the same way as thousands of other peasant families of Magyar stock. And in the unlikely event of any one of them being questioned about his "nationality", he would have replied, "Hungarian". Given the mass of evidence we now have at our disposal concerning Liszt's family background, it is truly remarkable that so seemingly simple and fundamental a matter as his national identity was ever disputed by modern scholars. (Franz Liszt the Virtuoso years - Alan Walker, p. 48)
Liszt was Hungarian in thought and word and deed. He often said throughout his life that he was Magyar; he never once claimed that he was either French or German. He constantly referred to Hungary as "my homeland" (RGS, vol.2, p.223), and it gave him immense pleasure to write, "I am part of the national pride" (LLB, vol.3, p.77). Liszt was always declaring himself for Hungarian causes. He gave many charity concerts for the people of his country, at which he sometimes appeared wearing national dress. He helped to found the great music academy in Budapest which still bears his name. In 1848 he attempted to buy the humble farm cottage in Raiding where he was born (Acta Mus. no.3877). This does not sound like a man who has no homeland, least of all like a man ashamed of his origins. (Franz Liszt the Virtuoso years - Alan Walker, p. 49)
The fact that Liszt spoke no Hungarian is not important, although Liszt himself always regretted it. Large numbers of nineteenth-century Hungarians never learned their own language. They were part of the Austrian empire and the German tongue dominated their nation, especially the western part of it, where Liszt was born. "I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to remain from my birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind..." -Liszt's letter to Baron Antal Augusz, dated May 7, 1873 (PBUS, p.160)
I'd be more than happy to quote further sources, although if your doubts regarding his national origin remain strong, I would read through Alan Walker's "Frans Liszt-The Virtuoso Years". The prologue section goes through considerable length to establish Liszt's origin. gordonf238

So, bottom line is he was an assimilated Hungarian, whose family were assimilated Hungarians, and he WAS in fact Hungarian even though he came from Germanic stock. Kind of like Lajos Kossuth.....nationality and ethnicity get pretty mushy in Central Europe, the way I see it is if somebody feels Hungarian, calls himself Hungarian and loves Hungary as his homeland, then he's Hungarian. :) K. Lastochka 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your attitude K. Lastochka :) Who are we to say what nationality he was? He was born in Hungary, and identified as Hungarian. Clearly a hungarian. M A Mason 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

There is a letter by Liszt from which I cite from best memory because I just cannot remember where I read it. It should be from the late 1870s or the 1880s and sounds like this: "I have the whole world as enemy against me. The Germans think my music is French, whereas the French think it is German. From the view of Budapest my music is academic, whereas it is Gypsy music from the view of Vienna. From the view of the Vatican I am carrying the "Venusberg" into church, whereas the freemasons dislike me because I am making church music. From the view of Bayreuth (i.e. Wagner) I am not a composer but a salesman, and the Jews hate me without reason at all." ("Venusberg" is the place where the Lady Venus in Wagner's Tannhäuser is living.) It could be added besides this, that Liszt was in 1838 in Italy hated as composer because his fantasies on melodies from Italian operas were sounding much too German, whereas there were people in Germany hating him as composer because he took Italian melodies for some of his works. Then there is his "Hussitenlied" which he made in summer 1840 in Frankfurt. It was published with full text, praising the Czech for being champions in beating and drinking, so that Liszt may have made some further enemies in Hungary with it. The conclusion will be that countries being busy today in claiming Liszt as being their own had as well busy done the contrary during the times of his living. (There is a similar problem concerning Bartok and Hungary by the way.)
Asking for Liszt's own point of view, there can be no doubt that the musical centre of his world, not to say the universe, has always been Paris. In his compositions there are not more than a comparatively small number of them showing any Hungarian characteristics at all. As case of normality strong French and Italian and some German influences are to be found. Saying Liszt was a Hungarian artist would therefore mean that some exceptions should be regarded as being normality, whereas normal cases should be regarded as being exceptions. Speaking only for myself of course, I cannot see any sense in it. Following the same lines, you could call Johannes Brahms or Johann Strauß typical Hungarian artists as well. Without wanting to offend the fans of the Hungarian Liszt in the least, I should suggest to take a different and more psychological point of view. When Liszt was in certain times with rather ostentatious words claiming a felt Hungarian identity (So far as I know he was the only "Hungarian" artist doing it this way.), the reason may have been that he had hoped to gain some purposes with it. Looking to the year 1853 when the Rhapsodies III - XV were published and besides this, another cycle "Hungarian Romancero" for piano was made. (It has been left unpublished by Liszt and is now available in the New Liszt Edition.) It is known that in the beginning of the year there had been a strong crisis in Liszt's life in Weimar, and there were rumours that he wanted to leave, going to America for example. The purpose which he hoped to gain may therefore have been, getting some position in Budapest.80.145.29.55 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Scholar! How I've missed you! :)

Sir, you are making this issue much more complicated than it has to be. Why should we not take Mr. Liszt at his word in the many letters and documents in which he proudly claims Hungarian identity? Certainly one could spend one's entire life sifting through letters, criticisms, contemporary biographies and anything else you could think of to attempt to posthumously correct Liszt on the matter of his own nationality, but why bother? First of all it comes dangerously close to violating Wikipedia policy on original research, second of all it's kind of mean. You are German, am I correct? Would you like it if, many years after your death, people arrogantly and cavalierly reassigned your nationality on the basis of their own "psychological point of view", inferences and reading between many lines?

I might point out that there could be a similar situation with Liszt's friend Chopin: Chopin was half-Polish, half-French, and like most musicians of the day made the center of his world in Paris. So, why not correct this proud Polish patriot and tell him and everyone else that he was really French? I just looked at the Chopin article and saw no arguments about his nationality, nor have I ever heard any in the wider world. Why is this, I wonder? K. Lásztocska 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Dearest colleague Lastocska, when comparing Liszt and Chopin there may be some differences to be detected after all. Liszt played God save the Queen in England, Heil Dir im Siegerkranz in Berlin, Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser in Vienna and Möge Gott dich stets erhalten, Weimars edles Fürstenhaus! in Weimar. They were all the proper national hymns. He made a transcription of the Hussitenlied for people in Prag, a transcription of the Marseillese for people in Paris and a Kaiser Wilhelm Marsch for people in Berlin. Living in Rome he played the Pope’s hymn Urbi et orbi. In Hungary he played (surprise! surprise!) the Rácóczi March. (In contrast to Walker, Liszt I, p.353, it was not the Rákóczy March having been played by Liszt at the Hanover Square Rooms in London, but it was the second piece of his transcription of Schubert’s Divertissement hongroise.) Having a look at Liszt in September 1838 in Italy, he had made enemies with his polemic in the baccalaureus letter about the Scala, lamenting of the fact hat the Italians in Italy were loving Italian music instead of German. After having been heavily attacked for this he defended himself writing other letters and not a single word concerning his most loved Hungary or the Hungarian music was dropping from his pen. In Germany, Liszt is regarded as having been an international artist, and I cannot see the least arrogant or mean in it. From the voluminous citations from Walker's Liszt it can be quite well understood by the way for which reason he got a Medal of the Hungarian Minister of Culture in 1986, but possibly not learnt much about Liszt.84.61.6.36 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this coming down to a semantic disagreement over what exactly is meant by nationality? I agree that Liszt was an international artist, but only in the same way that Tony Blair, George Bush and indeed Angela Merkel are international politicians. Ask any of them their nationality and they would reply British, American, German respectively. Just because they conduct politics at an international level as Liszt played music at an international level, does not, in my view, alter the place and people that they identify with. Or for that matter where they were born. Liszt may have stopped referring to himself as Hungarian in public at some point, I'll take your word on that, but he never identified with anywhere else. He did identify with Hungary, and he was born there. Surely it's as simple as that? M A Mason 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Anonymous Scholar, you forgot Poland. He played "Jeszcze Polska nie zginiela" in Warsaw once, and caused a near-riot when the recently-conquered Poles heard their national song thundering from Liszt's piano. But that's neither here nor there. Like Mr. Liszt, I too speak several languages and play the music of many countries. Like Liszt, I have ancestors of several nationalities. Like Liszt, I live in the wider world among people of all cultures and ethnicities and have little patience for boorish provincial chauvinist-nationalism. So now will you tell me that I too am not Hungarian?

Myself aside, your evidence that Liszt did not consider himself a Hungarian is purely circumstantial and requires numerous inferences, leaps of faith and assumptions. I challenge you, sir, produce just one verifiable piece of evidence, a letter perhaps, in which good Mr. Liszt declares himself NOT to be Hungarian. Show me please, where does he plainly and simply state that he is not "from birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind" ? Give me real evidence and not hints and shadows!

The more I engage in these sorts of discussions here the more I am convinced that only a Hungarian can understand what it means to be Hungarian. Ethnically, we are barely a cohesive group--we have Magyar and Hun and Slav and Tatar and Turk and German and anything else you can think of all mixed up in our blood. To be Hungarian is not a matter of DNA or the exact national political borders of Central Europe at the time of one's birth, it a deep conviction and loyalty in the heart. If you can prove conclusively to me that Liszt felt no such things for Hungary in his heart, then I will admit defeat. But until then let us assume that our dear friend Mr. Liszt was not a baldfaced liar and take him at his word.

"I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to remain from my birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind..." K. Lásztocska 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


You are right, I did forget that Liszt played "Noch ist Polen nicht verloren" in Warsaw, and I further admit that without doubt he would have played "Stars and stripes" as well if having been touring in America. But there is no connection between this and his own may have been nationality. Taking your own words, Liszt's Hungarian identity is apparently a thing which can only be properly recognized by people having Magyar and Hun and Slav and Tartar and Turk and German and anything else I can think of (I am just thinking of Africa and China.) all mixed in their blood. If it is so, your case is pretty easy and my case is pretty easy as well. Just show that Liszt was a person having all these different kinds of things mixed in his blood and you have so far won. Looking at my side, I should however say that there will be not many readers of the English Wikipedia being altogether Magyar and Hun and all the rest of it. It will be a very small minority instead, and it would follow from the Wikipedia rules that Liszt must not be regarded as having been Hungarian on an English Wikipedia page at least.
So far as I can see, it is a central problem that you are very strongly involved with own emotions, trying to identify yourself in some sense with Liszt. When doing this, you will not be able to see him as the person he really was. You take him as a mirror showing parts of yourself instead. In reality he was a man living in the 19th century in a geographical region where everything's changed its name at least five times and belonged to about eight thousand kingdoms besides. He was in this scenery acting, and his thinking has been much different from yours and mine. When he in the Weimar years once said Johann Sebastian Bach would have been a true catholic and Hungarian artist, I take it as have been said by Liszt without forgetting that Bach was protestant and coming from a line with forbears of Polish kind. (It is for this reason that he made Polonaises in his Goldberg variations.) We have got to accept that Liszt's life has been exactly of that kind as it was, and it implies that there may have been certain aspects of his living which I do not like and which you would possibly not like either. We have got to accept this as well, and doing it, it is my own experience that he is altogether looking much greater and much more interesting afterwards. In comparison with this, the Liszt-being-Hungarian and the Liszt-being-the-greatest-pianist-of-all-times stories are really dull, at least for me. His model in his youth was Byron's Manfred, being sure that he could successfully fight with the devil in person. (Liszt lost the fight.) Talking in more practical terms, it will be your own business if calling Liszt having been Hungarian, and not mine. So my suggestion will be: Let the question of Liszt's nationality be perfectly open which would be the best solution or write it in sentences stating a felt or claimed Hungarian nationality. You can do it in other ways just as you like it of course. A Wikipedia article is not a scientific thesis but works in progress, so that other people coming after us will make up their own minds to it.
Concerning the chapter Tony Blair, Angela Merkel etc. I just add as a remark, that I am remembering J. F. Kennedy saying in a famous speech: "Ich bin ein Berliner" ("I am a Berliner") and Bill Clinton saying "I am a Kölsch". "Berliner" has several different meanings in German, including some kind of doughnut which people are used to eat on 31 December, and "Kölsch" is some kind of beer. (In German there are "Amerikaner" which can be eaten as well.)(Anonymus Scholar)80.145.1.196 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


There is no such song as "Noch ist Polen nicht verloren". It is called "Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła."

I take offense to your assertion that I cannot see things as they really are because I am too tied up in my own emotions. I would be defending Liszt even if I were Swedish, or Italian, or Turkmen, and if he were Russian, or Kazakh, or Norwegian, and....well, the list goes on, you get the point. I am not taking part in this argument for any petty nationalistic reasons, I am not trying to "claim" Liszt as one of "my own," I am putting up this fight because of my respect and affection for this great artist Liszt, such that on the matter of his cherished homeland and nationality I will not allow anyone to spit contemptuously on his grave.

Incidentally, you missed my point about the Hungarians being such an ethnically mixed people. I will try to clarify: what I meant to say is, the "Hungarian People" are almost impossible to define as one specific ethnic group. Living in the very crossroads of Europe and being overrun periodically has turned us into the national melting pot of Europe. Some of our greatest heroes (Lajos Kossuth, Sándor Petőfi, the Hunyadis) have come from Slavic ancestry--and yet they still proudly and to the end of their days declared themselves to be Hungarian. Sure, the scholars will disagree, they will say "Oh, Petőfi's birth name was Alexander Petrovics, he thought he was Hungarian but he was wrong, he was actually Slovak." And meanwhile Petőfi lies in a cold unmarked grave somewhere in Russia, after giving his life and blood for Hungary! I cannot stress this enough: to be Hungarian you must simply consider yourself Hungarian, feel Hungarian, and love Hungary as your homeland. (Nowadays you also have to speak Hungarian, but NOBODY spoke Hungarian back then.)

Regarding the "Polish" Bach, according to Harold C. Schoenberg in "The Lives of the Great Composers", Bach in fact always believed himself to be of, yes, Hungarian ancestry. Apparently he once traced his family tree back many generations to some bakers in Hungary. Scholars, of course, dispute his findings, but does that change the fact that Bach proudly considered himself to be part Hungarian? (And simply writing a polonaise is hardly an indicator of someone being Polish, by the way.)

Most important: I am still waiting for your piece of conclusive evidence that Liszt did NOT consider himself a Hungarian.K. Lásztocska 14:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Just take it easy, dear colleague; there is no need for shouting in a way so that your voice might be in Timbuktu to be heard. It can be seen and shown from sources that Liszt was since 1832 heavily influenced by the Père Enfantin fraction of the Saint Simoniens. It can also be seen and shown from sources that he was since 1832 heavily influenced by lectures given by Francois Joseph Fétis about "Omnitonie" and "Omnirythmik". (I take the German words because Liszt himself took them in a French letter to Fétis.) It can further be seen and shown from sources that he was since 1834 heavily influenced by Felicité de Lamennais. These were all French influences. But concerning his Hungarian identity it is quite a different thing.
His name was obviously not Hungarian which is known from the fact that his father's father changed the name "List" to "Liszt" so that Hungarians should not say "Lischt" instead. (For English eyes I give "Lishd" as a hint.) From the time since Liszt arrived in Paris in December 1823 until spring 1828, I can - at moment at least - not remember just a single event pointing into the direction of any felt Hungarian identity at all. Liszt's Allegri di bravura op.4 were 1824 published with a dedication to the Hungarian Count Amadé, and Liszt's name was Francois on the title page. It was only in May 1828 when Liszt made two Hungarian piano pieces "Zum Andenken an Fr. Liszt" ("Reminding of Fr. Liszt"), and this is to be seen in connection with a letter to Count Amadé in which Liszt was begging for help. The Count wrote in his reply that Liszt should better help himself, and it was all over with Liszt's Hungarian identity again. For the following 11 years he was always and in all senses behaving like a Parisian, and he did it up to 150%. When living together with Countess d'Agoult in Geneva, they made plans for travelling in different countries, and it is known from a letter Liszt's to his mother from end of March 1836 that they wanted to go to Naples first, then living for 6 months in Rome and afterwards go to Tyrol and Austria. Concerning his most loved Hungary there is not a single word to be found. When Liszt met Thalberg in February 1837 in Paris it was an ideal opportunity for demonstrating that typical true Hungarian compatriot solidarity. Thalberg had Hungarian ancestors from his mother's side, but it is well known that there was no compatriot solidarity on Liszt's side but the entire contrary instead. In spring 1838, Liszt was in Vienna called being a composer of the French romantique school, and there was no protest from his side. Looking at Liszt in November 1839, he gave concerts in Trieste, and further concerts in Vienna and Pest were planned. In order to be successful in Pest, Liszt wrote a letter to a Hungarian friend, begging for some preparations to be made. Some days before going from Vienna to Pest he started in the end of December 1839 making his "Magyar dalok" ("Hungarian melodies") and his transcription of the first movement of Schubert's Divertissement hongroise at last, and these were since more than 11 years the first Hungarian notes dropping from his pen at all. When afterwards in the beginning of 1840 it was to be heard in Paris that Liszt was all of a sudden feeling being Hungarian and claiming having Hungarian ancestors of nobility kind the reaction was a hell of laughing about it, and whoever could find it astonishing.
Putting it altogether the result will be that Liszt's Hungarian identity has been at least of a rather particular kind. Comparing it with the Hun-and-Tartar-and-all-of-the-others kind which has been described by you, I can only conclude that the one and the other thing have been perfectly different. In other words, if the thing which was described by you has the meaning of being or feeling Hungarian than it is sure that Liszt was not Hungarian at all.
Concerning the Hungarian Bach it is known that one of his ancestors lived in Hungary for some time, and it was in the second half of the 16th century. But this ancestor was born in a small place in Thuringia to which he returned before 1600. So far as I know he was not a baker but a miller. (I admit that I did not read the famous book from which you are citing, and I do it in brackets because of fearing Mr. Schoenberg might turn out in the end being also of the simultaneous Hun and Tartar kind.)
The text of your "Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła." will sound different in different languages, and since Liszt was fluent in French, German and Italian, but not in Polish, it is highly doubtable that he was thinking "Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła." when playing the melody. I myself took a German version for my reply thinking of certain reasons concerning style. In case that someone living in the 21st century is for this feeling offended, I take it with astonishment but apologize without further words.85.182.47.111 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Polish either, but I have enough respect for Poland and the Poles that I will call their national song by its proper name. Surely a man as intelligent as Liszt could have learned four words in Polish, especially being as he was a friend of Chopin's! (And as for German name vs. Polish name, is it really all that surprising that someone might be slightly offended (or at least irritated) when someone refers to "Noch is Polen nicht verloren" when, in living memory, Poland was wiped off the map by Germany?)

That, of course, is neither here nor there, as is the odd diversion about the sort-of-Hungarian Bach. To respond to your points:

  • "Liszt" is not an obviously Hungarian name, in fact it was originally a German name that was "magyarized" by Liszt's grandfather. Not surprising. Hungary is a big ethnic melting pot. The name Kossuth isn't obviously Hungarian either, it comes from the Slovak word košut, meaning "billy-goat". I know Ukrainians with Russian names (and Russians with Ukrainian names), Hungarians with German names, Turkmens with Azerbaijani names, and on and on. Kind of a worthless piece of evidence when you think about it.
  • Liszt was influenced by the Saint-Simonites (and the other Frenchmen you mention whose names I can neither spell nor pronounce), therefore he was not Hungarian. I really am not following your logic on this. Please explain! Can a "Real Hungarian" not be an international man as well? Can he not take inspiration from great thinkers of other nationalities? It makes me wonder if your mental image of the "True Hungarian" isn't some sort of archetypal Jóska Magyar, who has a droopy mustache and always wears a bunda, lives on the puszta with his girl Piroska and several herds of livestock, drinks pálinka, eats nothing but paprika, and wastes all his money on wine and gypsy violinists at the local csarda.
  • Liszt didn't go back to Hungary for a long time, therefore he wasn't really Hungarian. Ridiculous. So he was an ex-pat, big stinking deal. I can't come up with anything more elaborate to say. K. Lásztocska 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


We are arriving at a point at last, from which in our debating Liszt's may have been Hungarian identity there may an end come into sight. When comparing Liszt with a Hungarian of the Kossuth type it is even more evident that his Hungarian identity has been a highly problematic thing. (There is a very sarcastic poem by Heinrich Heine concerning exactly this.) Taking the Jóska Magyar version instead, there are strong hints pointing to the direction that there is much more resemblance between this and Liszt's own imaginations of being Hungarian, but this is not the subject which I want to discuss now.

So far as I can see, Liszt's father Adam Liszt assumed that he himself was not Hungarian but German. Having lived in a Franciscan order for some time and afterwards studied philosophy for one semester, he was in that time registered as "Adamus Matthäus Liszt, natio et loco natalis Germanus" which is Latin and has the meaning "Adam Matthias Liszt, of German nationality and born in a German place". To the question, in which way his son Franz was thinking concerning his own nationality when living in Raiding, can without doing posthumous mind reading not answered with certainty. But since Franz Liszt and his whole family were only speaking German in these times, it is highly probable that he thought he was German in the same sense as his father was. You may also have a look at the landscape of the "Burgenland" ("Country of castles") given by Alan Walker in his Liszt I, p.46. Near Raiding there are places with names like Deutschkreuz, Unterfrauenhaid and Lackenbach to be seen, and the names are all German. In other words, Liszt's family was living in a German colony. (There were German colonies in Russia as well, and many people still living there are until now proud of not being Russians but Germans.)

It can be shown that Liszt was in Paris regarded as being a German artist as well. I am remembering an article in the Parisian Ménestrel from February 19, 1837, in which Liszt's reactions are described when listening to Thalberg's piano playing in a soirée given three days before by Zimmermann, a professor at the Parisian conservatorium. According to the article, the Parisian contemporaries had expected that Liszt when meeting Thalberg would show compatriot solidarity. Since Thalberg was in Paris regarded as being a German artist, it was all the same with Liszt.

In winter 1839-40, Liszt all of a sudden started giving some of his well known statements concerning his Hungarian identity, so that something must have had changed. The thing which had changed is also quite well known. It was Liszt's assumption, there would have been a Hungarian family Listius of nobility rank (I took the name from a short remark in a Parisian paper.) a long time ago, and this would have been the line from which he himself came. It has in the meanwhile turned out that Liszt's assumption was wrong. So it was an error and can be compared with other errors in his letters to be found. (There are plenty of them.) From a logical point of view these different kinds of errors are to be regarded as being equal. As a result, the may have been felt Hungarian identity Liszt's has the same logical ranking as a wrong date given to one of his letters. In October 1858 Liszt got his most desired nobility rank by the way, but it was not a Hungarian but an Austrian one.

Concerning Poland having been wiped out by Germans, it has neither been Liszt's business nor is it mine or yours. Polish and German people are living altogether in the European Union today and they are doing it in friendly ways. Concerning the strong influences of the Père Enfantin, Francois Joseph Fétis and Felicité de Lammenais on Liszt, it would be a quite long story when trying to explain it in full details, and there would be many more of Alan Walker's mistakes to be corrected. But without knowledge of this background, Liszt's life and his development as artist cannot be properly understood at all. Chopin and Liszt were both talking French by the way.84.61.93.253 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Herr Heine's cruel poem quite well, unfortunately. In response I will simply say that Liszt failed to rush off to battle in 1848 because he was a pacifist, and had long distrusted the radical revolutionary rhetoric of Kossuth in favor of the more level-headed reforms of István Szechényi. Also, Princess Carolyne was seriously ill as the revolution broke out and Liszt didn't want to leave her all by herself.
I seriously disagree with you that Liszt's sole reason for professing Hungarian identity was a desire for a noble rank. And I can't help but wonder what he would think if he heard your assertion that Liszt's feeling of Hungarian identity has "the same logical ranking as a wrong date given to one of his letters".
But I give up. You obviously know more about Liszt than anyone else in the whole wide world, probably even more than Liszt knew about himself. I can type in his defence until my fingers bleed, but I can see that it would be pretty pointless. Bocsánatot kérek, kedves Ferenc, hatástalan vagyok... K. Lásztocska 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To conclude your very interesting argument, I could add that Liszt was a perfect Austro-Hungarian. That is to say a man with a german blood , a Magyar heart and a French spirit (cf. "Dyonisos ou le crucifié", a french survey by P-A Huré and C. Knepper). Besides, if the anonymous scholar possesses enough bases to read French, I and the others french member will be happy to welcome his knowledge on the french version of the article .

yours sincerely

Alexander Doria 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


There may be some kind of finale in the Liszt-being-Hungarian chapter now. The day before yesterday I found some rather new materials by Hungarian scholars, and their result concerning Liszt has been, that his ancestors up to four generations had all been Germans. The name "List" is regarded as having been a shorter form of the German name "Listhart". There were several variants of it, including "List" and "Listl". "Listl" was a common form having been used by German colonists living in the region where Liszt lived as a boy. It had the meaning of something like altogether "little List" and "dear List", and for the same reason, Liszt was called "Franzl" by his father in some of his letters. Liszt's true name was therefore "Franz" and not "Ferenc".
Concerning Liszt's own knowledge, he had on April 10, 1859, been decorated with the "Ritterkreuz des Eisernen-Kronenordens III. Klasse" by the Austrian Emperor and with this got the right to ask in a petition for getting some nobility rank. He did it in an own writing from August 25, 1859. To that writing an official, being in charge, wrote as a remark the question, whether Liszt had already been a Hungarian of nobility rank before. They searched in the archives for it, and some days later found persons László Listhius, Johann Listhius and Andreas List, who had gotten Hungarian nobility ranks in 1655, 1664 and 1719, but it was altogether clear that these persons had nothing to do with Franz Liszt at all. Liszt himself agreed to it after having seen the materials from the archives. (It is known from a written remark about it.) On October 30, 1859 he got an Austrian nobility rank (I wrote erroneously "1858" instead some days ago.) and he paid 158 Gulden for it. In 1867 he gave his nobility rank to his uncle Eduard Liszt.
So, for the fans of the Hungarian Liszt there is nearly nothing left. You could only call him a has-dreamt-of-being, a many-people-are-wishing-it or a being-it-by-honour Hungarian. Had he been a Hungarian patriotic hero of the Kossuth type instead, he would surely not have gotten a nobility rank from the Austrian Emperor's hands. He had in his youth been supervised by the Austrian secret police, so that there had been nothing he could hide. Having played things like the Rácóczi March in the beginning of 1840 in Pest and ""Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła Polska nie zgina." in Warsaw he had been regarded as mad man or naughty boy and nothing more. In 1846 in Pest, he did not take part in patriotic demonstrations of any kind. Having gotten an invitation for visiting a patriotic assembly, he did not even do this because of feeling melancholic, as he said. (Hoping to get a position in Vienna he could not afford offending Prince Metternich.) The Rácóczi March was no longer censored, so that Liszt could play and publish it as much as he liked.
In case that someone of you does not like the result, I am sorry of it but cannot help. I should only say that Liszt has been exactly the man he was and we have got to take it.(Anonymus Scholar)85.22.9.233 10:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A man's nationality is not something to be assigned after his death by scholars in an ivory tower, whether they are Hungarian scholars or German ones, or ones from the planet Mars. It is something that Liszt and Liszt alone could tell us for certain. I make no pretense of being able to see across the firmament into the afterlife to gaze deep into his heart and find there a Hungarian soul. But I am acquainted with Liszt through his music, his letters, and several biographies of him (and yes, I have read more than just Alan Walker) and it is clear to me that he did believe himself to be "from birth to the grave Magyar in his heart and mind." Read his letters! Listen to Funerailles, Octobre 1849 and hear the agonized elegy he wrote for his defeated homeland! Hear the exuberant joy in his Hungarian Rhapsodies, especially the proud Hungarian Fantasy for piano and orchestra. Remember the tears in his eyes as he accepted that famous sword of honor from the Hungarian government and vowed to lead Hungary to greatness in art. And he did just that: his sword may have remained in its sheath during the terrible fighting of 1848, but if he had fought and died for Kossuth, he would not have been able, at the end of his life, to found a great conservatory in Pest. It is still standing, and now it bears his name. It is one of the finest conservatories in Europe and the world. Let that venerable hall and the countless great musicians who have passed through its doors be Liszt's final testimony. K. Lásztocska 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry that for this time my answer is given in rather explicit terms. We have in the meanwhile perfectly understood that you are strongly wishing, Liszt might be called Hungarian, and that this is the only purpose you like. Unfortunately there are no argments left on your side. Concerning Liszt's letters I shall not tell how many of them I really read because of wanting to be polite, and the question, if it is me or you who is living in an ivory tower may for the same reason be left perfectly open. Concerning pieces like Funérailles and the Hungarian Rhapsodies I am happy that I can play them quite well myself. Concerning Liszt's tears on January 4, 1840, in Pest, I add that I could not see them and you could not see them either, but the question may be open again because there is not the least connection between this and Liszt's nationality at all. The great conservatory in Pest has not been founded by Liszt and the countless great musicians who have passed through its door have obviously nothing to do with Liszt's nationality again. (This is not the advertising page for the conservatory in Budapest by the way.) Liszt took part in the foundation of the conservatory in Geneva instead, so from now on please call him Swiss and get for this reason tears in your eyes.84.61.37.128 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't indulge you with my tears. If you are really as well-read as you claim, you will have undoubtedly come across things like this:

"I am Hungarian, and I do not know a greater happiness than to introduce to my beloved country the first fruits of my education and studies-as the first expression of my gratitude. What is missing yet of my maturity I intend to acquire with lasting diligence, and perhaps then I will have the good fortune to become a small branch of my country's glory." -Announcing F.Liszt's "homecoming" concert that took place on May 1, 1823 in Pest.

And this:

"I may surely be allowed, in spite of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, to remain from my birth to the grave Magyar in heart and mind..." -Liszt's letter to Baron Antal Augusz, dated May 7, 1873 (PBUS, p.160)

Sir, tell me plainly, are you calling Mr. Liszt a liar? K. Lásztocska 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to interrupt, but I am curious, Annoymous colleague, so you don't feel that Liszt was Hungarian? What, then, was he? Even by your reasoning he was partially Hungarian. Is that not by your reasoning the most accurate description? This argument has I'll admit brought up some interesting points, but let's put this debate in the context of the article. Are you seriously suggesting that it should say "Franz Liszt was an international pianist..."? Also, I vaguely remember you mentioning that you worked on the German version of the Liszt article. Here he is described as "ein ungarischer Komponist" (a Hungarian composer), did a similar debate not arise there? Did you raise the point? Why didn't you change it there also? M A Mason 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As you do not seem able to put one end and find an agreement to the issue of Liszt's nationality, I propose you, once more, my mediation : Liszt was an Austro-Hungarian or, if you prefer Musil's concept, a Kakanian. Actually, his mother was a German from bohemia, and his father a magyarised German. Then, as the Austro-Hungarian civilization, Liszt stands as a product of a melting-pot of Mittle-Europa's cultures and civilizations. As others great Austro-Hungarian figures, Liszt is a francophile who put Paris at the very center of his universe. And, as the anonymous scholar focuses on, Liszt has a great respect for the imperial family.

P.S. I would appreciate you to read my remarks (please, scuse my english which may sound strange)

Yours Sincerely

Alexander Doria 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Monsieur Doria, thank you for your suggestion. It would be a good compromise, however, I dont agree that someone's nationality can or should be defined by the empire that they were born into. For example, if we were discussing a pianist from Australia at this time we would not refer to him with "Such-and-such was a 19th century pianist of the British empire..." Liszt was Hungarian; the fact that Austria ran the show at the time does not really give him a connection to that country, at least in my view. Sincerely, M A Mason 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with that--"Austro-Hungarian" isn't really a nationality, more like an unfortunate turn of history. But then I guess I'm not 100% neutral when it comes to the Habsburgs. :) Merci anyway, Alexander.K. Lásztocska 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact the Austro-Hungarian empire wasn't really , like the British colonialist empire, an artificial and arbitrary construction. As the Musil's roman, the man without qualities, or the analysts of the Hungarian historian Fetjö show it, an Austro-Hungarian national spirit existed, at an embryonic state, before the collapse of the Habsbourg's empire. This spirit could have the following caracteristics : cosmopolitanism (which include francophilie), elitism, and love for culture and arts. You will agree with me that Liszt possesses all those caracteristics. Besides, in Liszt's time, Austria dosn't stand as the owner of Hungaria (it was the Habsbourgs), but only a geographic expression. He didn't only became an Austro-Hungarian by a turn of History. Anyway my ambition is to settle yours problems, not to create others. Then, if you find my mediation a little shaky, forget it!

Yours Sincerly

Köszönöm, Làsztocska (I feel cosmopolitan myself)

Monsieur Doria 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a valid perspective. In light of your most recent comments I adjust my previous statement, and admit that OK, there was a sort of "Austro-Hungarian national feeling." It was after all a very cosmopolitan and internationalist era, at least more so than the current one (....*ahem*....). My point, though, is still that from everything I have read, and I have still not read anything convincing me to the contrary, that Liszt thought of himself primarily as just a Hungarian, not an "Austro-Hungarian." K. Lásztocska 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With you, I, and the anonymous scholar we've got three different conceptions of Nation. In your point of view, Liszt is an Hungarian because he wanted to be one : you believe in an elective Nation as the French philosopher Ernest Renan who once said "La nation est un plébiscite de tout les jours" — which means that a nation exist only because people want to . In Anonymous Scholar's vision, nation is a racial concept : Liszt has German ancestor, then he is German (he joins Herder's theories). Finally in my mediation, I considered that people belongs to a nation because they have a specific way of living, and a particuliar collective spirit. To be neutral, the article on Franz Liszt should develop those three viewpoints.

Jó estét Lásztocska (What do you think of my Hungarian speaking?)

Monsieur Doria 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, very well put. :) I can't believe I didn't think of that before--that instead of just flat-out stating LISZT WAS HUNGARIAN or LISZT WAS GERMAN or whatever, we could just "teach the controversy" as it were. We did that on Sándor Petőfi: after some heated edit warring and battling citations over whether he was ethnically all-Slovak or half-Serb, we decided: duhhh, let's just say "some believe him to be of entirely Slovak ancestry, other sources claim he was half-Serbian." And problem solved. :)

You're basically correct in your analysis of my concept of nationality. For the most part I do agree with your Mr. Renan. I also like your viewpoint about the "national character" and specific way of living, that's also quite important. I have little patience for racial theories--there is of course some place for them (blood of the ancestors and all), but generally I find such definitions of nationality unhelpful, imperceptive, usually obnoxious and often harmful. In Hungary, I'm sure you know, there have been heated debates over "Who is a Hungarian?" for practically as long as the nation has existed, and they show no sign of coming to any conclusion anytime soon. It's all very interesting. :)

Oh, BTW, te nagyon jól beszelsz magyarul. :) K. Lásztocska 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we come to a compromise . I doubt that A.S. will agree with it and, frankly, I don't care: my mediation was neutral and disinteressed (I stand both Germanophile and Magyarophile and I'm a Frenchman: I haven't any bias on Liszt's nationality) and you accept it with an open mind. Then I propose to all Liszt's contributors to make a chapter on Liszt's nationality in that way (I will do the same thing in the French version) :

  1. Liszt as an hungarian (the most important part, because it is the most probable and Well-known vision : in there you could put your "Magyar by heart and mind" etc…)
  2. Liszt as a German (something short about his family)
  3. Liszt as an Austro-Hungarian (something short too, with all the elements I expound you higher)
  4. Liszt as a 'Kosmopolitai' or an European : this interest of this section is to persuade A.S. If he remains Sttuborn, we may forget it

Szervusz/Salut/I/(no German translation)

Messire Alexander Doria, roi potentiel de France et de Navarre 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


(I am answering to the posting by our colleague Lásztocska from March 11.) Your first citation was taken from Alan Walker's Liszt I, p.87. It was not written by Liszt but it was an announcement with the meaning of advertising. Its first line is "High and Gracious Nobility!", so that it was addressed to Hungarian aristocrats. It is well known that Adam Liszt wanted to get a scholarship from them, and it is mainly this which is being said in your citation. A group of Hungarian aristocrats agreed to Adam Liszt's desire but it is known from an own comment by Liszt in his later years that only little money came. (Beethoven in Vienna had some similar problems.) It was exactly this reason because of which Liszt wrote in Mai 1828 his letter to Count Amadé of which I told you on March 6.
PBUS is a short reference to "Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen", ed. Margit Prahács, and you may be sure that I read the book. (You took your citation from an old posting by our colleague gordonf283 instead.) I read the letter again and can only say that there is not much to it. It was written in German and is concerning some purposes of the concervatory in Budapest. Liszt gave a suggestion that there should be a class for the Hungarian folk song and afterwards wrote
Man darf mir wohl gestatten, dass ungeachtet meiner beklagenswerten Unkenntnis der ungarischen Sprache, ich von Geburt bis zum Grabe im Herzen und Sinn, Magyar verbleibe, und demnach die Cultur der ungarischen Musik ernstlich zu fördern wünsche.
Liszt did not claim that he was Hungarian but he wrote that he might be allowed remaining a Magyar in heart and mind. (From the contemporaries' point of view there was a difference between "Hungarian" and "Magyar" by the way.) He was since June 13, 1871, "königlicher Rat" in Budapest, but he was "Kammerherr" in Weimar as well. A "Magyar in heart and mind" taken by the words is nothing more than a subjectively felt version of a "Magyar of honour", and I add to this that since October 26, 1860, Liszt had also been citizen of honour of Weimar. It is well known besides that Liszt did not only support the Hungarian music but the Russian and several others as well. In other words, from a citation of the kind given by you it can nearly nothing be concluded. During the war of 1870-71 Liszt was mainly standing on the French side by the way. (Liszt's son in law Emile Ollivier was in 1870 French prime minister.) To the question whether Liszt was a liar I give the short answer that he surely was because he sometimes lied. He was a human being and all of them do it, as everybody knows.
The main difference between us is that I am always defending Liszt in his right for having been the individual person he was, whereas you are doing the contrary without noticing it. The piece Funérailles may be a good example for demonstrating it. It is the seventh piece of the cycle Harmonies poétiques et religieuses which contains nine other pieces besides. In the New Liszt Edition there are two further pieces "Hymne de la nuit" and "Hymn du matin" which had been left unpublished by Liszt. In the eleven pieces besides Funérailles there is absolutely nothing Hungarian to be detected, and even Funérailles, taken as music, has no Hungarian characteristics at all. Liszt was altogether thinking of the death of Felix Lichnowski and Chopin, as he said. It can be shown that the number seven was some kind of personal symbol for Liszt himself. Since his own birthday was in October, he was thinking of himself and of the fact that altogether with Lichnowski and Chopin a part of himself had died. (Looking at him on October 22, 1862, and on October 22, 1865, there are similar things to be found.) The next piece has therefore words "Miserere mei, Deus". In the end of the cycle there is a love song in Italian style to Princess Wittgenstein to whom the cycle was dedicated. Most of the other pieces are French (referencing to Lamartine) and the piece "pater noster" has no national style at all. The result is, that when you are concentrating with strong "Hungarian" feelings just on "Funérailles" you are not really defending Liszt, but you are cutting at least eleven twelfth from his body and soul away. Taking another cycle, the “Weihnachtsbaum”, there is one Hungarian piece from twelve again. In the “Bunte Reihe” after Ferdinand David it is one Hungarian piece in two versions from 24. (Concerning the Hungarian character of the Hungarian Rhapsodies you should try to get the two essays by Béla Bartók about Liszt, and concerning the meaning of "German" in the 19th century you could take R. Wagners essay "Was ist deutsch", which was read with much interest by Liszt.)80.144.103.17 10:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. And I thought you'd finally decided to leave us alone. I am getting very tired of your condescending attitude towards me, sir. I may not be an international scholar, and I have not yet written a doctoral dissertation, but I'm not stupid. And you don't have to explain the difference between "Hungarian" and "Magyar" to me.

I am defending Liszt also, since EVERYTHING I've read states that his Hungarian identity was important to him and was a PART of the individual person he was. Where have I ever denied that he had German blood, French ideas, Polish and French and German and Hungarian friends, etc. etc. etc. I have not. I even agreed with good Monsieur Doria up the page when he said that Liszt was an internationalist. You, on the other hand, are bending over backwards and leaping from one dubious conclusion to the next to "prove" your pet conviction, that Liszt was not even in the slightest bit Hungarian in any way at all. Did I mention how you don't have to explain the difference between "Hungarian" and "Magyar" to me?

As for Funerailles, again, I'm not stupid. I KNOW it's part of a larger cycle of works. Funerailles was written in response to the crushing of the Hungarian War for Independence in October 1849. Hence the military fanfare, the soldiers' funeral march, and how do you explain the fact that an early sketch of the work bore the inscription "Magyar"? (Remember, I know the difference between Hungarian and Magyar!)

As for the Hungarian Rhapsodies, do you think I'm stupid? I know they aren't based on Real Authentic Hungarian Folk Music--believe it or not I am quite well read on the subject of Magyar peasant music. EVERYBODY back then thought that Hungarian music was Gypsy music, even those about whose nationality there is no debate. And actually, there is a quote from Liszt somewhere (I will find its exact wording and a source when I have more free time, which means not today) that he had a fond dream of going to wander around the countryside looking for peasant music. Bartók read that with much interest. :)

I have no more time right now to waste on this argument. Auf wiedersehen. K. Lásztocska 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You must have some late in the discussion, Anonymous Scholar. Actually I and Lásztocka (and there isn't the slightiest doubt that Mason will join us) came to the following compromise : Liszt's nationality depends on which conception one gets of Nation (everything concerning that point is developed higher). However, I undestand you believe Liszt to be a 'Kosmopolitaï' (citizen of the world) without any nationality or an European. This is a possibility. But, anyway, and despite all your knowledge, I don't think that we can exclude his attachment for Hungaria, and make him German, or French (even if I would be very happy to learn that he was my compatriot).

Yours sincerely and 'Danke' anyway

Monsieur Doria 13:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lager or Lagen

Which is his mother's maiden name - Lager or Lagen? According to this article it's Lagen, but according to the article of Anna Liszt, it's Lager. --1523 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lager, according to Alan Walker; I'll change the article, thanks :) M A Mason 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road to Pilgrimage section

Can anyone explain to me why this section is so titled? If not I'll change it to something else. Arniep 14:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seemed a good time to change it so I did, to 'Years of Pilgrimage', seemed a lot more appropriate than 'road to pilgrimage' anyway, and it is of course the title of the set of pieces composed at this time. Do change it if you disaprove, thanks M A Mason 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt, the priest

Does anybody know if Liszt became a priest or something similar. There was a story that he was a ladies' man, and he promised each he will marry them, it never happened. In order to avoid the promise, he studied 4 years to be a priest and he was ordained in 1860's, even though he had kids, he was a widow.

Liszt never became a priest, common misconception. He did, though, take the 4 Minor Orders of the Catholic Church; which, as the article shows, requires neither that the person taking the orders be celibate, nor remain unmarried. It is true that he was a Ladies' man in his day, though to say he promised them all marriage is an exageration. He desperately wanted to marry Princess Caroline however and they even appealed to the Pope for permission but were unsuccessful. His taking of these orders was certainly not to avoid marriage, as he was completely devoted to Caroline, but for purely religious reasons. M A Mason 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you sure

- Old newspapers say he married to avoid marriage and I do not mean to Caroline, but to other ladies, it's possible this happened before he met Caroline. So what kind of 4 orders? Was this similar to a brother? I know he was religious but...

This I think is an example of what I talk about in Liszt's AID (everyone get on there and vote for him!), if you ask me it's just a rumour put about by his critics to damage his reputation. He had relationships with a number of women, Someone St Criq (sp?) was one, then there was Marie and Caroline, and he had an affair with a woman called Agnes Street-Someone. He may have proposed marriage to any or all of them. There is this article about Minor Orders that explains the ins and outs of them. I think it was similar to a brother, I know he lived in a monastery and had the title Abbé, but he was under no obligations to do with marriage. Like I say, little more than a rumour. Where and when did you read about this in an old newspaper, or where did you find out about it? I'd be very interested to know, thanks M A Mason 21:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did you get your info from

Ok, I know somebody who can give you that file, leave your email here for few days, I will get that person to email you. But if he had women, still, should not even be Abbe. What's AID?

Don't worry about the file, I'll find it myself at some point. And you could have women and be Abbé, he wasn't a monk or a priest etc, he just took the minor orders - helping out at Masses and the like. AID is the article improvement drive where wikipedians vote for an article thtat they all work on to improve it to the standard of a featured article. M A Mason 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added a subsection on Liszt's virtuosity

I have added "Liszt's virtuosity and technical reforms" and "piano recital" under Musical style and influence to shed some more light on his pianistic reforms. gordonf238 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

this section refers to his Transcendental Studies and then says that Schumann said they were playable by 8 or 9 people at most. This is incorrect. Schumann was referring to Liszt's Douze Grandes Etudes, which were the much more difficult precursers to the 12 Transcendental Studies - which are much more managable pieces. 199.111.216.222 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest

Was he greatest or did he get his virtuosity from Chopin? And yea, one of the reasons he was abbot, he wanted to avoid marraige.

As far as I know he and Chopin were both superior pianists when they met at Paris. I don't really understand your question, Chopin didn't teach Liszt and I dont think there's much of a stylistic influence, neither musically nor technically. M A Mason 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Chopin did not think Liszt was superior when meeting him in December 1831 in Paris. See his letter to Titus Woyciechowski from December 12, 1831, where Liszt is called a zero comparied with Kalkbrenner. According to a description in Le Pianist (a French paper) of March 20, 1835, Liszt acted as some kind of caricature when piano playing in these days. There is a similar description in a biographical essay which was published in Mai 1843 under the name Duverger. Liszt read it before publication and there were apparently no objections from his side. Chopin told his pupils they should not play in the manner in which Liszt was playing. From Liszt's own point of view it was the winter 1839/40 when he started playing beautiful. In Czerny's memoirs the same opinion is to be found. In spring 1844 there is a period with reviews in which Liszt's playing is described as being horribly excentric. Busoni heard Liszt in the late 1870s finding his playing dull and academic. Emil Sauer in his memoirs wrote that Liszt playing a Sonata by Beethoven had at least done a good job as actor. From all this concludes that Liszt's playing had been quite different at different times. It is altogether most probably sure that it did not sound like Leslie Howard's and this is one reason (among others) for which I find it isastonishing that in an enclyclopedia article there is advertising for him to be found. Let Liszt may have been the best pianist who ever lived, Leslie Howard is certainly not.

[edit] Liszt and Chopin

"Liszt's contemporaries such as Chopin and Schumann saw this kind of worship as vulgar and inappropriate, and eventually came to despise Liszt because of it."

Hmm...it is to my knowledge that the relationship between Chopin and Liszt was love/hate, they were close friends, but they could be envious at times. I think it is far too strong to say despise here, though I am not going to change it without approval. Lots could be said about the relationship between Liszt and Chopin, though I don't know much about Schumann and Liszt o_O — Pmerrill

I support you on the Liszt/Chopin matter. I don't know anything about Schumann and Liszt either -- a source to back this up would be nice. — Pladask 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll go ahead and take out the names altogether, that's pretty harmless, thus making it: "Some of Liszt's contemporaries saw this kind of worship as vulgar and inappropriate, and eventually came to despise Liszt because of it." --Pmerrill 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between Liszt and both Schumann and Chopin is fascinating. It's clear that Liszt held Schumann and Chopin in the highest possible regard and was a champion of their works. But the tension with Chopin, according to the biographies and letters I've read, seem to indicate personal reasons for it relating to an occasion when Liszt used Chopin's apartment for a rendezvous without telling him about it (a story that has never been definitely confirmed), though the two did patch up their friendship by Chopin's final years. Schumann considered Liszt a genius who squandered his talent in the pursuit of mere showmanship and seems genunely dismayed by what he saw as a betrayal of Art for the sake of flashy pyrotechnics; Clara Schumann loathed Liszt and that is well documented. Mhare40

[edit] Composer-Pianist

Should there be an article named "Composer-Pianist"? It's become a very common phrase phrase, as they are truly a unique breed when compared to regular "concert pianists". There are lots of pianists that could fall under that category, who made a living as both a composer AND a pianist - Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Marc-André Hamelin, etc. Is it worth its own article? --Crabbyass 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He was also a conductor. He actively promoted the music of Berlioz and Wagner during his Weimar years, and continued to conduct much of his own music for the remainder of his life. I'm open to the idea of mentioning both of these attributes in the opening paragraph Gordon Freeman 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemason?

Broken category- nono. More seriously: I know of no evidence that Liszt was a freemason at all. He was a lay Franciscan as of the mid-1850s and later took minor orders- not inconsistent but not the same as evidence, which is lacking. Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a book Mozat & Liszt sub Rosa with lots of materials. It is from 1984 I think and the author's name is Ph. Autexier. Liszt was freemason since February 8, 1842, as a matter of fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.135.143.99 (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] That Photo

Okay now -- what's up with the photo of Liszt at the top of this article? It's probably the ugliest thing I've ever seen! I, of course, mean no offense at all to whoever uploaded it -- any photo is better than no photo -- and if anyone should be offended by my comments it should be solely the actual photographer.

In any event, can we do no better than this? I did a search on google and found many, many photos/portraits of the great Liszt. Now, what's most important in an encyclopaedia, naturally, is the written content, and I think the editors have done a pretty good job here. However, the photo is so unattractive that I actually find it distracting: I think we should really consider switching that photo for one of his more dignified portraits, such as this one from Britannica.

I would just do it myself, but I don't think I can just take it from that particular (encyclopaedic) site and upload it here. Can anyone advise me in better detail as to Wikipedia's policy on this? --Todeswalzer|Talk 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The photograph in this article is Public Domain, because of the photographer's age, among other things. There is a very strong feeling among Wikipedia's founders that Wikipedia should have as great a part free content as possible. I don't know, but I'm guessing that many of the pictures you found are not demonstrably public domain. If you can find one which is public domain, then according to Bridgeman v. Corel or whatever, any reproduction of it is public domain. (This is all as opposed to Fair use, which is used far too much on WP, IMHO. Mak (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That portrait you posted was painted by Henri Lehmann. And a quick google has revealed that he died in 1882, so it should be public domain. I like this version [1], which is quite good. From here [2]. M A Mason 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I've switched the old photo for the Lehmann portrait. Thanks for the help. --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that looks great :) M A Mason 16:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I was about to upload that pic myself--was musing on what Hungary-related articles needed work, and remembered "Oh yeah, that picture of Liszt Ferenc was absolutely gross, he deserves better, I should put up that painting of him when he was young and dashing." And lo and behold, somebody already did! Köszönöm szépen (thanks very much) to whoever put that up! :) K. Lastochka 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


There are some problems concerning your pictures of Liszt. At least two of them are apparently in posession of a person Ernst Burger living in Munich who published a book: Franz Liszt, Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten, in 1986. They are "Franz Liszt's music room in Weimar, 1884" and "Liszt at piano, 1886". Without knowing much about the legal stuff for myself it could be imagined that Burger wants some references to his collection added. In the "Four ages of Liszt" the first picture was published in Leipzig's Illustrierte Zeitung from September 27, 1845, and it was printed "Franz Liszt, Ritter des Ordens pour le mérite" beneath. Liszt was "Ritter des Ordens pour le mérite" since summer 1842 so that the picture may not show him as boy but as man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.162.45 (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Further on Weimar

The invitation was at the instigation of Maria Pavlovna, if I remember, but Carl Alexander played a large role. There's also now an article on Hippolyte André Jean Baptiste Chélard if his contract (Cornell U Press edition of The Weimar Years, page 96) with Liszt (immediately contradicted by Grand Duke Carl Friedrich (sorry, wrote Carl Alexander- who was not yet in a position to contradict that...), followed by ill-will...) is relevant*... I do think that the roots of the growing ill-will which helped create the "Barber of Baghdad affair" are of interest if maybe not for a brief article like here.

Much more generally, since some of Walker's references and footnotes on other subjects are presently unverifiable (in locked libraries, for example), a person feels uneasy about using his book for reference material at times. Ways in which his has since been superceded by better research would be of great interest to me.

  • Chélard was J N Hummel's successor in Weimar. The agreement between Chélard and Liszt was worked out in October of 1842, and contradicted in one respect by the Grand Duke a few days later: the agreement had stipulated that Liszt would "remain Herr Liszt for life, without accepting any other title", a few days later he was asked to sign a document in which he agreed "Herr Liszt has informed me today that he will accept with gratitude and pleasure the title of Kapellmeister in Extraordinary". Though much might have followed without this disagreement, and while Liszt's new title was in fact - as Walker has occasion to note later- well-chosen (he explains the meaning of 'in Extraordinary' moderately well...)- the whole conflict, while not necessarily avoidable, was no help to his mind in the years that followed, a decade later when he settled in Weimar ... Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please see the new order on the external sites and check the sites I have there deleted. There is another (commercial) site: pianosociety.com/cms/index.php?section=221 which contains an huge collection of cds (to buy online of course). My other comments are on the hystory page. Alegreen 08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt interpreters

I'm not quite sure where to post this, but I think every composer should have his/her most remarkable interpreters listed in some standard way. --Sdistefano 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...trust me, trying to decide who the most remarkable Liszt interpreters are would set off a battle of epic proportions. It's such a personal-preference thing, there isn't any good way to say for sure and definitively who is the "best"...and Liszt is particularly difficult in that respect. K. Lástocska 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You never know if there's going to be controversy until you try. Who's up for Nikolai Demidenko? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.180.137 (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Zoltán Kocsis and György Cziffra all the way!!!! :) K. Lásztocska 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Naturally, the correct answer is Vladimir Horowitz. Anyone who disagrees with me is ... (politeness prevents me from saying). JackofOz 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For me, it's Alfred Brendel, hands down. Listen to his recording of Annees de Pelerinage (Italy), he takes you to heaven and hell in the Dante Lecture like no other. Words don't do justice..FRM SYD 08:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Personnally, even if I love Horowitz, I think it's obvious that nobody plays better Liszt than Claudio Arrau, who learn piano with a Liszt'student. For instance, Arrau's Sonata in B minor is the best I ever heard . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexander Doria (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] slovak??

patently untrue statement that his first language was Slovak removed (it was actually German), and unusual statement the veracity of which I seriously doubt removed from article and pasted here pending verification.

Here is the weird statement:

He was fascinated by the pre-Hungarian history of Slovakia, he dedicated Slavino slavno Slaveni (Let's Celebrate Famous Slavs) to St. Cyril and Methodius[citation needed].

Anyone heard of this before?!?! K. Lástocska 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no Opus numbers?

The article currently states:

Although Liszt provided opus numbers for his works during his lifetime, these are rarely used today. Instead, his works are usually identified using one of two different cataloging schemes ...

So then the question, Why no Opus numbers? If anyone knows the answer, I'd be very interested. (It might also be useful to explain in the article why the numbers are no longer used.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


It may be misleading to hear the first piano concerto referred to as Liszt's opus four or so I gather when the version we know (which has the same no.?) is no student work, for example. I suspect that one reason and not the only reason may be akin to the chronology problem you encounter with Antonín Dvořák, where on the contrary his publisher's sales and resales led to high opus numbers for early works (opus 80 for the E major quartet) that give also no indication of chronology either, and make the Jarmil Burghauser catalog preferable. (Of course, there's a Beethoven cantata, The Glorious Moment (»Der glorreiche Augenblick«) - I've heard it once, it's by my favorite composer; I liked it- from around 1812-4 and premiered in the same concert as symphony no. 7, whose opus no. is 136!) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The last composition of Liszt that got an opus number is definitively the first part of his Lucia-Fantasy, the Andante finale, which got the opus number 13. It was composed in autumn 1839 and published in Jauary 1840. In Liszt's subsequent compositions there is no opus number at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.102.54 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] POV?

“ Indeed, Liszt is frequently credited with re-defining piano playing itself, and his influence is still visible today. ”

This seems a little POV to me (if not the entire sentence, then at least the "indeed" part). I tried tweaking it, but it doesn't sound quite right any other way. (I didn't save the changes for that reason.) — The still-Esperanzan  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There may be some POV problems with the wording; however, the essence of the statement is sound and we should be very careful not to eliminate or downplay Liszt's significance as a pianist. He did redefine the piano and the way it was played, and his influence will be felt for as long as the instrument is around. I'll check back in a few days and see what I can come up with. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say he didn't, but it just sounded a little weird with the "indeed" in there. — The still-Esperanzan  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franciscus, Franz, Francois, Ferenc, Frankie

I just removed this sentence:

He always used the German version Franz, never the Hungarian version Ferenc.

for the simple reason that it's actually pretty hard to tell. He was born as Franciscus, his parents called him Franzi, the Germans and Austrians called him Franz, the French called him either Franz or Francois, the Hungarians called him Ferenc...and he didn't help us poor confused saps out one bit by almost invariably signing his name as simply "F. Liszt." :) K. Lásztocska 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Walker's Liszt

In my opinion the twofold advertising of Alan Walker’s Liszt is contradicting the required Wikipedia neutrality of point of view. Notwithstanding Walkers celebrity his three volumes are containing lots and lots and lots of errors and mistakes many of which have been refuted in subsequent Liszt research. Walker's books about Liszt are written from an extremely restricted kind of point of view, which means that everything Liszt did or is supposed to have done must have been admirable to the highest point, whereas all contemporaries with alternate opinions could only have been jealous (Ferdinand Hiller), have had paranoia (Princess Wittgenstein) or have been in some other kinds ill (Robert Schumann, Comtesse d'Agoult, Olga Janina and many others). In order to gain neutrality there should be added references to other books. (The Liszt biography of Serge Gut for example is comparatively excellent.) If someone really likes to get into contact with the personality of Liszt and his life, reading his own letters (published up to a huge amount) and playing his music will be the best way after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.192.232 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I take your point about the leaning towards Walker's research, and his pro-Liszt bias is evident (as is arguably the case with most biography). User:K. Lastochka has mentioned working on getting this article to featured status, and as far as I'm concerned the big thing this article is lacking is references. If there are important points from other biographies missing, please add them! I have only the Walker books, and two others that are 80 years old. I'm planning on getting more for getting the article to featured status soon. If you can prove that anything in the article is erroneous, again please remove it, but if it is anything signicant mention it here and your own source so we can discuss it. M A Mason 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read your answer and shall certainly reply but for some reasons it will take some days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.102.54 (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC).


Re: "all contemporaries with alternate opinions..." Well, I must mention that Schumann WAS in fact mentally disturbed, Comtesse d'Agoult may not have been disturbed strictly speaking but she certainly had a melancholic personality, and as for Janina...she was completely nuts, and no one disputes that. :) I also understand your point about Walker's bias, but it must be remembered that basically, his books were probably the first real, serious, scholarly bio of Liszt (i.e. not based primarily on rumors, 19th-century tabloid sensationalism, romans a clef, and popular legends.) Certainly Mr. Walker may have erred at certain points, but his three volumes are still a very important and valuable resource. As M A Mason says, if you find factual errors by all means, correct them. But please do not dismiss the usefulness and significance of Walker's books (especially the corrected editions) because you don't approve of his admiration of Liszt.K. Lásztocska 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Until today I thought having been acquainted to current Liszt research quite well, and that from this point of view Alan Walker's real task when correcting all mistakes which were to be found in the three volumes of his "real, serious, scholarly bio of Liszt" would have been no less than writing complete new books. I am also remebering having met the one or the other expert in the field of Liszt research who had come to the same conclusion. Concerning the mental disturbed Schumann, the somewhat disturbed Contess d'Agoult and the completely nuts Janina we did not share your opinion in all respects and we also thought there would be some differences between arguments ad hominem and arguments ad rem. But it may of course be as well that we all have been wrong and you are right and your laudatio given to Alan Walker is a special kind of neutrality of point of view. So it will be the best solution of all when Wikipedia readers make up their own minds to the case.

80.145.221.5 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No no, you're right of course. Who am I? Just a stupid little student. You're a scholar. You certainly know more about this than I do--I'm not being sarcastic at all, I'm being completely serious. I apologize for being a snob and sticking my nose into things I know nothing about--I liked Walker's books, and I found them well-researched and convincing, but I am hardly a scholar of music history--hell, I'm not even in conservatory yet. So thank you, Anonymous Scholar, for reminding me that there are things I know nothing about and should stay out of. (Still not being sarcastic, this is completely sincere even though it might sound snide.) Wikipedia can do that to people, can convince even idiots, dilletantes and charlatans like me that they're experts. I am not an expert and as such should not be editing this article. Liszt deserves better than to have his article spoiled by a stupid little girl. (Regarding Schumann though, didn't he die in a mental institution? I didn't think there was any dispute that he went nuts toward the end of his life.) K. Lásztocska 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Alan Walker's reference to Schumann's illness is to be found in note 7 in his Liszt II, p.341-42. It is concerning an agitated evening on June 9, 1848, in Schumann's house in Dresden and there are several sources to be added to the sources given by Walker. They are a letter by Schumann to Hermann Härtel from June 11, 1848, some remarks by Ignaz Moscheles in his diary, a letter by Schumann to Liszt from Mai 31, 1849, and some more. From all these sources it can hardly be concluded what had really happened in details but some outlines can be recognized. Whereas Moscheles only mentions that Liszt had been talking in an arrogant and ungrateful manner about Mendelssohn (He had heard it from Schumann on June 10, 1848.) and Schumann wrote in his letter to Hermann Härtel, Liszt had praised Meyerbeer in comparison with Mendelssohn, it comes from Schumann's letter to Liszt that he had felt being arrogantly attacked himself by Liszt as composer.
In the evening of June 9 Schumann's Trio op.63 was played and either to this or to a Quintet by Schumann Liszt said in some disdainful words it would be all grey in grey and quite the same as that typical Leipzig style. In order to defend Leipzig and himself, Schumann reminded of Mendelssohn with whom Liszt however had had some evil scenes in the beginning of 1842 in Berlin. (They did not talk a single word afterwards when meeting by accident.) Liszt therefore started praising Meyerbeer being a genius in comparison with whom Mendelssohn was absolutely nothing, and since Schumann was most despising Meyerbeer and admiring Mendelssohn he went to rage. Schumann then left the room and Liszt left the house. In Schumann’s letter to Liszt form Mai 31, 1849, there are some sentences reminding of the scene and defending Schumann himself, Mendelssohn and other composers in Leipzig again. At the end of his letter Schumann wrote: "Let us forget that evening - a word is not an arrow." When meeting afterwards, Liszt and Schumann behaved in a friendly manner.
In order to make up an own opinion it would be necessary that more details concerning the complicated relations between Liszt, Schumann and Schumann's wife Clara were given, and this would be much too long to be done at this place. But concerning Walker's theory, Schumann had shown symptoms of tertiary syphilis in the evening of June 9, 1848, I cannot see the least hint in favour of it. Walker is referring to an essay which is rather old (1957!) and which I did not read, but it is highly doubtable that there is any information concerning the evening of June 9, 1848, in it to be found. According some other and newer books which I read, the syphilis which Schumann got in his youth in Italy was typically developing in different phases. In early phases there could by symptoms like fever and others, which were coming and disappearing, and between these phases could be several years in which the affected person felt perfectly healthy and no symptoms at all could be recognized. It was only in a late phase when the brain was affected, and it was not predictable after which time this late phase begun. Then there was a very last phase in which the affected person could be in a state of consciousness which may be compared with the state of consciousness of animals, and this very last phase was reached by Schumann in 1856 in Endenich. He shortly afterwards died, and it was quite normal in that times, may it have been as horrible as it was. In our times he would have been easily cured with penicillin.
Having a look at Schumann as composer in 1848, he made his most popular Album für die Jugend ("Album for the youth") op.68 in that year. It contained Musikalische Haus- und Lebensregeln ("Musical rules for home and life") which were published in a translation to French by Liszt. Schumann was also busy with composing his scenes from Faust and his music for Byron's Manfred. They are very highly esteemed today and regarded as being some of his best works, so that there is nothing to be found of mental debility again. The manuscript score of the Manfred overture has a manuscript title page with a dedication to Liszt and as revenge to this Liszt gavehis own Klaviersonate in h-Moll (“Piano Sonata in B Minor”) a dedication to Schumann. It is well known of course that Schumann did not like Liszt’s compositions nearly at all, but this was neither a matter of defected brains nor a matter of program music (Schumann's Manfred overture is program music.) but it was a matter of Schumann’s musical taste for which he cannot be blamed.

80.145.1.161 09:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Coming back to the case of Alan Walker's Liszt I give some examples for two different types of mistakes to be found in his volume "The Virtuoso Years" (Liszt I). There is at first a plenty of smaller ones. An example for this kind is the table of Liszt's tours (Liszt I, p.294/295) where the name of Vienna is missing. Walker's statement (Liszt I, p.242) Thalberg would have toured in Spain in 1845 overlapping Liszt's own visit is wrong. In reality Thalberg lived as respected artist in Paris preparing an edition of his Sonata op.56 and giving concert on April 2, 1845. The example from Thalberg's Moses-fantasy in three staves (Liszt I, p.234) is in all editions of the fantasy printed in two staves. Liszt did not rent the Paris Opéra House as "reply" to Thalberg's concert of March 12, 1837 (Liszt I, p.237) but he took part in a concert production of Berlioz. The 12 transcriptions of Schubert-songs including the "Erlkönig" were not published by Haslinger and the poems were not printed separately (Liszt I, p.258) but they were published by Diabelli in September 1838 with words underlying the notes. A mistake of another kind is to be found in Walker's note 6 on page 234 of Liszt I. Thalberg's Moses-fantasy is not a partial copy of a paraphrase which the harp virtuoso Parish-Alvars played with spectacular success on his European tours. Thalberg played his fantasy on March 12, 1837, in Paris for the first time (It was not an "old warhorse" in that time as Walker states in Liszt I, p.237.) whereas the European tours of Parish-Alvars started in 1842. The fantasy of Parish-Alvars is in fact an arrangement of Thalberg's fantasy. Moritz Dietrichstein was not a Prince, Thalberg was not an impostor (Liszt I, S.232) and it is most probable that he had real princely forbears. (The "Gothaische genealogische Adelskalender" is a helpful source in this respect.) In Liszt I, p.186 Francois Joseph Fétis is "arch-conservative" which contradicts Liszt's own letter to Fétis from September 17, 1859, concerning the importance of lessons about "Omnitonie" and "Omnirhythmik" that Fétis gave in 1832 and which Liszt attended. According to Liszt I, p.149 Liszt made love with Adèle de la Prunarède for the whole winter of 1832/33 in the Savoie. So he must have had abilities of bilocation as he was at the same time in Paris being introduced to the Countess d'Agoult. (Liszt I, p.190) The program of the concert on May 14 in Vienna is not typical as Walker states (Liszt I, p.256) because Liszt was typically concentrating on a virtuoso repertoire. A classical program containing a Sonata of Beethoven and Fugues of Scarlatti and Händel is therefore a rare exception. The "Katzenfuge" in this program is the only piece of Scarlatti played by Liszt in all his concerts by the way. The letter shown in Liszt I, p.202 is not a letter of Marie d'Agoult, Liszt did not play the "Hammerklavier Sonata" in the Salle Erard and Berlioz could not possibly have read the score in his hand (Liszt I, S.236), but this would be really lengthy and complicated to explain. (The sources are mainly materials by Liszt himself.) I could go on in this way filling some books with corrections to Walker's and it would be rather thick books after all. At this place I just repeat and assure that Walker's productions about Liszt are not reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.128.71 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your very concise response, I don't have time at this moment to address everything you've written, I will have a look properly tomorrow. I should start by saying that the edition of The Virtuoso Years which I own is the revised edition, 6th printing, so it seems likely that little errors of which you speak have been removed - the ommission of Vienna from the list of places toured between 1838 & 1847 (pp. 294-5) certainly has been rectified. I can't speak for the edition of Thalberg's works, or their date of publication. Nor can I speak for the dates of his own tour, though Liszt's tour of Spain ended in April 1845 (p. 401), your date does suggest that in fact their tours didn't overlap, I'd be keen to see your source. It's interesting about the Moses Fantasy being a 'war-horse'. Walker states that the 'God save the King Fantasy' was at this time newly composed, not the other way round - perhaps he is confused, or has been misinformed. Again, a source would be nice. On the programme, whether or not it was atypical is a matter of opinion, and while Liszt did play a heck of a lot of virtuosic material at this time, he did not just play studies or similar. No one disputes that the Cat's fugue is the only piece by Scarlatti that Liszt played in public. The letter on p. 202, in my edition at least, is not claimed to be by d'Agoult, but by Liszt. I'd like to see a source on Liszt not playing the Hammerklavier, after all it's not inconcievable that he did. As for Berlioz, you could just point us in the direction of a source. As far as I know he wasn't blind or anything at this time. M A Mason 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat difficult fo me answering in short because I do not like people advertising their own productions. But in this case I shall answer anyway and tell that I did some Liszt research myself. I wrote a thesis about Liszt which you can trace with Google and download as pdf. It is: Protzies, Günther: Studien zur Biographie Franz Liszts und zu ausgewählten seiner Klavierwerke in der Zeit der Jahre 1828 - 1846, Bochum 2004. In the third part which is called "Liszt and Thalberg" you will find all sources you have just been asking for. The letter on p.202 is certainly not a letter by Liszt which goes without further sources because Liszt's handwriting was horrible in that time and the handwriting in the letter is definitively not his. (In case you are interested I shall look into some books and tell the writer's name the other day. In the moment I think that it is Théophile de Ferrière.) Berlioz could not read the score because it was dark when Liszt played the sonata and it was neither the "Hammerklavier" nor in the Salle Erard. There are some mistakes in my own text by the way but I hope they are smaller ones than Walker's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.92.2 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Having had a new look at Walker's p.256 with the "typical" program I permit myself giving some further comments to that page. In his first paragraph Walker describes Liszt's Viennese audiences and the name of Kalkbrenner is to be found. But Kalkbrenner was not in Vienna in that time which is well known from several sources. (The Nouvelles of the Gazette musicale of Paris and an own letter of Liszt are only some of them.) The other persons listed by Walker attended many concerts of different virtuosos. So there was nothing special concerning Liszt about it whereas Walker states the contrary. Walker then states Liszt would have played more than forty compositions in Vienna from memory, which may have been or may not have been. It is in any way a statement without the slightest reference to a source so that it cannot be relied on. It could as well have been that Liszt played most of his repertoire from score as he was used to do at least up to 1835. In p.256 follows the "typical" program itself. My statement the program would have been not typical can be verified when comparing the program with other programs of Liszt. (That could be done using Michael Saffle’s book Liszt in Germany for example, where some hundreds of programs are listed.) In this sense it turns out that the program p.356 of the recital on June 9, 1840, in London is typical whereas the classical program with two fugues p.256 is in fact a rare exception. In p.256 Walker then states Liszt, playing the Katzenfuge, would have invented some kind of "historical recital". It is wrong again because there were other pianists who were really used to play classical programs. Among them were Carl Maria von Bocklet in Vienna and Ignaz Moscheles in London. Moscheles had started with historical recitals in spring 1837. On February 11, 1838, he played, according to the Gazette musicale of Paris, January 27, 1838, a program containing 20 pieces in the first and two pieces in the second part. Among the pieces in the first part was a Sonata of Scarlatti followed by 13 other pieces in the older style. It followed Etudes by Herz, Potter, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Thalberg and Moscheles himself. In the second part he played a Sonata by Beethoven (op.57) and a Sonata by Weber. This was a real admirable classical program but the program played by Liszt on Mai 14, 1838, was not. According to Walker (almost at the end of his page) as soon as Liszt had entered Vienna, Schubert song transrciptions would have started pourring from his pen and among them the transcriptions of Auf dem Wasser zu singen, Erlkönig, Ständchen and Ave Maria. But the first three pieces did really not pour from Liszt's pen in Vienna because they were made in summer 1837 in Nohant. The transcription of the Ave Maria did not pour from his pen in Vienna either. It is not to be found in the programs of the concerts because it did not yet exist. It was later made by Liszt for Diabelli. Coming to Walker's p.257, Liszt should have introduced groups of twenty-eight Schubert transcriptions in his four charity concerts. But in the first on April 18 and in the second on Mai 5 he played nothing by Schubert at all. In the third, the "typical" concert p.256, he accompanied Benedikt Randhartinger who sang the Forelle. In the forth on Mai 24, Schuberts Der Gondelfahrer was to be heard. It was not accompanied by Liszt but by Randhartinger. So in contrast to Walker's statement it is to be concluded that Liszt played in his four charity concerts not only no groups but no Schubert transcriptions at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.194.39 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
There are two corrections to be made to my last commentary on Walker's p.256.
At first: Moscheles played his concert on January 27 and it was the Gazette musicale of February 11.
At second: Liszt's second charity concert in Vienna was not on Mai 5 but on Mai 6.
Concerning the "Katzenfuge" I took Saffle's Liszt in Germany myself and found that among several hundreds of listed concert programs there is exactly 1 containing the "Katzenfuge" so that the playing of this piece by Liszt may really called a rare exception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.151.221 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Putting an end to the question concerning the letter p.202 in Walker's Liszt I, it has tourned out, that it was neither from Liszt nor from spring 1834 as it was assumed by Walker, but from Théophile de Ferrière and from January 1, 1834, instead. It is all known from a lecture given by Serge Gut in October 1989 in Eisenstadt. The lecture was published as an essay in 1991.80.144.124.222 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

Could someone who has any knowledge of IPA provide a transliteration of Franz and Ferenc Liszt? It's a pretty glaring omission in the article.

I know the pronunciation of Liszt, but would Franz be like 'Frans', as if it were something belonging to someone called Fran, 'Fran's apple' if you see what I mean. Or would it be more like 'Frants'? And is the end of Ferenc the same as with French, 'Ferench', or more like 'Ferenk'? I have a feeling it's 'Frants' and 'Ferenk', but I'm not sure enough to have a go at the IPA myself. M A Mason 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ferenc" is actually pronounced more like "Ferentz", I don't know German very well but pretty sure Franz is just how it looks. ("long A" sound btw...like "Frahnz") K. Lásztocska 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Franz" is being pronounced as "Frants" with a short "a" in regular German. In Vienna people are pronouncing in a different way. "Franz" may there sound as "Frahnts". The most interesting problem of Liszt's own pronounciation when saying "Franz" has not yet been solved in Liszt research and it could most probobably be that some time machine had to be invented first.84.61.2.94 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Because of the possibility that someone of you is looking to "Franz" with English eyes, I add that the "a" is not being pronounced as in "rat" or "gate" but like the "u" in "but". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.61.6.36 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Liszt and Thalberg

According to Lizt's own statement in his later years Thalberg had been much more succesful in Paris than Liszt himself. Thalberg was also much more succesful in Italy and in England. In spring 1841 after two concerts of Thalberg in Vienna it was said that he was the real leading pianist of the time. Thalberg was admired by Robert Schumann who met him in October 1838 in Vienna, by Clara Wieck/Schumann who played works of him up to 1847, by Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, by Hector Berlioz, by Giaccomo Meyerbeer, by Giaccomo Rossini, by Ferdinand Hiller and many many others. To give some examples concerning the money which was earned by Liszt and Thalberg in their concerts Thalberg gave his first own concert in Paris on April 16, 1836. For that concert he got 10000 Francs. Liszt giving concerts in Lyon at the same time got 500 Francs for one concert. In spring 1842 Thalberg gave two concerts in Paris for which he got 12000 Francs and 13000 Francs. Liszt in the beginning of 1846 was happy for an offer to give two concerts in Paris for which he would get altogether 15000 Francs. While it was said that the compositions of Liszt were poor the compositions of Thalberg were liked and played in all Europe. If it is sayed that the compositions of Thalberg were mostly forgotten up to today it would be correct but the same goes for the vast majority of the compositions of Liszt. It would be difficult in fact to find artists who were not delighted by the music of Thalberg in the time around 1840. Liszt with his struggle against Thalberg was an exception of the rarest kind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.102.54 (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Liszt's transcriptions

Liszt was not the first composer who made piano arrangements of vocal and instrumental scores. There were thousands of arrangements made by many, many other composers and in a long time (several centuries) before Liszt. For his arrangements of Beethoven's 5th, 6th and 7th sinfonies Liszt took a piano arrangement for four hands by Czerny by the way. There were piano arrangements of the sinfonies by Hummel, Kalkbrenner and others in that time. Liszt's arrangements of the 5th and the 6th sinfonies were published in March 1840 and they were not succesful. Without minor exceptions they are hardly ever played today. The same goes for the vast majority of his song transcriptions notwithstanding the beautiful music Liszt made in many of them.

[edit] Liszt's "methode"

Liszt's letter to his mother mentioning his "Methode" is not from November but from October 19, 1835. Since it was a methode to be used by the students in Geneva and there were not many greatest pianists who ever lived among them it would have been a rather bad methode if it could really provide "an invaluable insight into the playing style of one of the greatest pianists who ever lived". There is some kind of known methode by Liszt. It is called "Technische Studien" and has been published in three volumes by Editio musica, Budapest. From a practical kind of point of view you could take Alfred Cortot's methode as well. Better results will be gained when using Czerny's Schule des Virtuosen which was studied by Hans von Bülow in his early Weimar years.

The technical studies are very different and irrelevant. As for the methode, no one has claimed that it was ever used in the conservatoire, it was intended to be used there. If it ever was used there, I think it would be quite likely that it would still be with us. As I've put into the article, it is believed by some to be existent, but it has not been found, and clearly not used. October or November I dont think it particularly matters either way. M A Mason 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt in Dublin

In the diary of Orlando Parry there are the following remarks concerning the concerts given by the group around Lavenu in Dublin: "At 2 this Morning (It is meant the afternoon of January 7, 1841.) 4th concert here, took place at Rotunda as usual. Bad attendance, only about 160 (...) Everything as flat as dish water - no applause, no nothing." and: "5th concert here. It was the Anacreontic Society 2nd Concert, but given in the small room of the Rotunda or Rotundo as they print it here. It was not quite so full as I had anticipated (400) (...) Liszt & Rudersdoff played a piece "Sonata of Beethoven" - 20 minutes long! 'twas dreadful!". In fact the "4th" concert was their first and the "5th" concert their second concert in Dublin. (They had attendend three concerts of other artists the days before.) The "dreadful" sonata should have been the Kreutzer Sonata. After having given two concerts in Limerick they returned to Dublin on January 12th (120 miles!) where they gave two further concerts on January 12th and 13th. It was only the concert on January 13th, a concert of the Philharmonic Society, where they had an audience of at least 1200 people. (The diary of Parry has been published in the Liszt Society Journal in 1981-82.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.162.45 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Liszt's revolutionizing the piano technique

I cannot understand what is exactly meant when saying Liszt would have revolutionized piano technique. At present state there is nothing more to be read that Liszt did something new which was new because it was new but nobody can telll what it was. (For some reasons I am just remembering an old picture which shows Liszt playing a four handed Sonata by Chopin with his left foot only but this was a caricature of course.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.112.116 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Liszt brought piano technique to a whole new level. He had (by all accounts) an absolutely unbelievable virtuoso technique himself, characterized mostly by complete freedom (finger independence--he practiced his Czerny) and great expressiveness. He used that technique to revolutionary musical ends. As far as I know he was the first to treat the piano like an orchestra: listen to some of the Transcendentals, the Hungarian Rhapsodies, even the Annees de Pelegrinage, a lot of them are very "symphonic" in scope and style. (Then of course there's the famous story about him playing his transcription of the Symphonie Fantastique immediately after it had been played by the full orchestra, and apparently Liszt brought the house down, making an even stronger impression with just two hands on a keyboard than had been made by the entire orchestra!) I'm not a very good pianist myself and haven't played much Liszt, so I can't be very specific at the moment, but IMHO the "symphonic" thing is one of his most important contributions. (Of course he also, like Paganini, just wrote such damn difficult pieces that he ended up raising the overall level of technical virtuosity among the next generation of pianists.) K. Lásztocska 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There are at first reviews saying that Liszt's playing had been bad, and this can hardly be surprising because an artist is not a God, as was correctly said by Schumann. Examples are the two concerts in which he played Mendelssohn's Concerto in d Minor. In both cases there are reviews lamenting that his playing had not been satisfying even technically. Then there are lots of contemporarian reviews saying that other virtuosos had an absolutely unbelievable technique as well. An example is Alexander Dreyschock playing Chopin's Etude op.10,12 with left hand in octaves. (It was on December 27, 1838, in Leipzig and the concert was attended by Thalberg.) Concerning the complete finger independence which was in spring 1837 attributed by Fétis to Thalberg, Liszt in his answer gave a reference to Kalkbenner's methode, and he was right. In fact, the playing of Johann Sebastian Bach can hardly be imagined without having had complete finger independence, so there was nothing new to it in 19th century. A pianist without this quality would in all times not have been a virtuoso but an amateur. Treating the piano as orchestra had been a rather old thing as well. (Think of J. S. Bach again with his Italian Concerto or his arrangements of italian concertos of other composers. You could also think of Schumann's Etudes symphoniques op.13.) Liszt in his own concerts played the last three movements of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, and taking Liszt's score there is absolutely nothing extraordinary to be found in them. Having played them for a last time on January 16, 1842, in Berlin, Liszt gave it up because it was not succesful. The arrangement of the "Marche to the Scaffold" is rather easy to be played. (When playing it in Paris Liszt was strongly critizised by contemporarian by the way.) For giving a more difficult example I am thinking of the first solo in the well known Concerto in Eb Major with the leaping octaves. There is a similar example in the beginning of Liszt's Huguenots fantasy, this time being chromatic. Liszt took it from Weber's Concerto ("Konzertstück") in f Minor so that there was nothing new to it again. The leaps over two octaves in the first version of Liszt's Marche of Tcherkesses from Glinka's Ruslan and Ludmilla are much more difficult to play, but they can be found in an earlyer fantasy by H. Herz as well. The famous octaves in the beginning of the "Erlkönig" (see Walker's Liszt I, p.257) can be found in an original version of Schubert's song. Comparing Liszt's piano works with works by Thalberg and Döhler (I collected lots of them for scientific purposes.) it turnes out that it might be difficult finding anything at all (concerning technique) which was in the works by Liszt and missing in the other's works. In fact Liszt took much from the works by his collegues, especially from Thalberg's works. They could all play the piano quite well. Liszt's concert pieces have not been rarely played by other pianists in the 1840s because of their revolutionizing the piano technique but because they have been disliked as music. The Andante finale from Lucia di Lammermoor was an exception (being played by other artists) and this piece was regarded as a piece in Thalberg's style. So if wanting to praise Liszt why not doing it just saying that he was one of the greatest composers in 19th century? It would be have been much more than painting him as incredible piano Hulk instead and I should have agreed without comment.84.61.2.94 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] language issues

In order to be consistent as well as directing the reader's associations ("Les cloches de Genève" is by Liszt whereas "The Bells of Geneva" might be by Richards.) not only some but all of Liszt's works should be called with original titles in original languages. So the "Piano Sonata in B minor" should be "Klaviersonate in h-Moll" and the "Transcendental Etudes" should be "Etudes d'exécution transcendante". The "Etude in twelve Exercises" should be "Etude en douze exercises". The "March to the Scaffold" should be "Marche au supplice". (Liszt arranged all five movements of the Symphonie fantastique.) The "Divertissement on the Cavatina "I tuoi frequenti palpiti" from Pacini's La Niobe" should be "Divertissement sur la Cavatine de Pacini (I tuoi frquenti palpit)" according to the Haslinger edition. (It was composed in autumn 1835 and revised in spring 1838. According to the Latte edition, published in October 1836, there may have been a previous version for piano and orchestra but nothing has come to light of it.) The "Hungarian Rhapsodies" should be "Rhapsodies hongroises". (The animated cartoons have nothing to do with Liszt at all, may they have been funny as well.) The "Ballade No. 2 in H-Moll" should be "2. Ballade in h-Moll", the "Sinfonic poems" should be "Sinfonische Dichtungen" or "Symphonische Dichtungen" and so on.

Why? I can understand Italian, French and German (at least in the context of musical stuff), but not everyone is so linguistically apt. :-) Also please see: WP:ENGLISH. and if you could set up an account and sign your messages it would be great... K. Lásztocska 14:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting to offend my dearest and most respected collegue Lásztocska in the least I say as my opinion that the main task when writing an encyclopedia article will be giving correct and objective informations. At second there should be some concistence because the article would be looking irritating otherwise. Taking some examples. Among the Symphonic-Poems it is to be read: "Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne (also known as Berg-Symphonie)" which I compare with "Three Concert Etudes (French: Trois Études de Concert); No.3, Un Sospiro ("A sigh"), Etude No.39". The first is correct because the original title and an alternative title having been used in Liszt's time are given. In order to give hints for people not being acquainted to French and German, translations "What can be heard from the mountains" and "Mountain-Symphony" could be added. In case of the Etude on the other hand it is looking as if the original title was "Three Concert Etudes", and "Trois Ètudes de Concert" was a translation given for people speaking French. It is therefore looking rather strange in an article in English. So it could be "Trois Études de Concert ("Three Concert-Studies")" instead. An even better solution would be "Trois Études de Concert ("Three Concert-Studies"); in a Parisian edition "Trois Caprices poétiques" ("Three poetic fantasies")". In the French edition the three pieces have Italian titles "Il lamento", "La legierezza" and "Un sospiro". In case of the third piece it is given in your article as "Un Sospiro" ("A sigh") and not as "A Sigh (Italian: "Un Sospiro")". So why not doing the same with the others as well? The added "Etude No.39" is a mistake by the way having to be cancelled.
In order to show that there may be some problems when using translations I take as example the set of Liszt's transriptions of six songs by Chopin. which was in two different editions published by Ad. Mt. Schlesinger, Berlin. It can be shown that the set is a musical portrait of Princess Marie Hohenlohe, daughter of Princess Wittgenstein, to whom the transcriptions were dedicated. Her mother language was Polish from which I myself can understand not more than some words. But for Liszt it was important giving not only German titles in the German edition but Polish titles as well. (There are no words put to the music.) Looking to the fifth piece, it had been printed as "Meine Freundin - Moja" ("My girl friend - Moja") on the first edition's title page whereas "Meine Freuden - Moja" ("My joys - Moja") was meant. So a second edition was made and it happened a new mistake. The fifth piece was now "Meine Freunden - Moja" (could be "My friends - Moja") on the title page, being somewhat closer to the truth but altogether wrong as well. The example shows that there may be errors leading to misunderstandings when trying to give translated titles. The correct title will therefore be (in my opinion) at first rate the original one, whereas a translated title will go in second rank.
Concerning an own account at your English Wikipedia, I add as a remark that I am presently revising the Liszt article in the German Wikipedia. (It is not perfectly ready yet.) It would be desirable in my own opinion that your English article should be quite different from the German one (and much better than the French, taking its present state) so that in this way some international neutrality of point of view would be gained. I did not want disturbing you but thought that some extra informations could be helpful and maybe of interest for you. In this sense I dare giving a last remark to that question concerning languages. The six volumes of Liszt's Literary Works are containing not originals but translations to German and there are lots of already known mistakes in them. Some essays published with Liszt's name are missing. (his review of some piano pieces by Ch. Alkan for example) So there could be added a reference to the newer and better edition which was published by Breitkopf & Härtel (ed. Detlef Altenburg). There is also an edition in English by Ch. Suttoni but (so far as I know) it does not contain everything.84.61.2.94 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not disturbing anyone, new perspectives and information are always welcome. :) My invitation to contribute here still stands, but if you don't want to that's fine. As for the language thing, I see your point--my point, which I probably didn't articulate very well, was that we should just use the names that are most commonly used in English-speaking countries. On the other hand, that would be a major pain to try and count up the # of uses of each language in every published edition, so I'll defer to you on this one. :) K. Lásztocska 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Wow, congratulations, 84.61.2.94! You should enter debates. :) Seriously, though, I am amazed at your musical knowledge. ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He's apparently some big Liszt scholar--all the rest of us are schlubs and know-nothing charlatans by comparison. K. Lásztocska 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


From my point of view the central question concerning that language debate will be in the end whether a Mac Donald's Liszt or the real Liszt is being preferred. Finding out original titles in different languages may not really be a pain for the piano works at least. Just take the New Liszt Edition, Editio musica, Budapest.

80.145.0.225 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, is it THAT important? If we say "Piano Sonata in B minor" instead of "Klaviersonate in h-moll" it means that we are presenting some sort of "McDonald's" version of Liszt? Maybe you are not entirely familiar with the function of Wikipedia. It is not intended to elevate public taste, nor is it intended to be an arbiter of philosophical debates. (It is also not intended to turn ordinary English-speaking barbarians into nice civilized, cultured German speakers. :) ) It is intended as a compendium of knowledge and a source of free information. Most people using the English Wikipedia, if they are looking for information on the aforementioned sonata, will type "piano sonata in b minor" into the search engine, not "klaviersonate in h-moll."

My dear Anonymous Scholar, I must respectfully admit that I am beginning to find your posts ever so slightly unhelpful. You have confined yourself to posting big detail-ridden scholarly mini-theses on the talk page, but have not edited the article itself. If the article is really such a god-awful mess, well then, that's what the "edit this page" button is for. And if you have no interest in contributing to the article, then why the voluminous talk-page outpouring of titles, facts, impressive words, and making the rest of us ordinary Joes and Janes look like total idiots?

(By the way, stepping back from this particular issue I must briefly address all the various academics, scholars, professors and other folks who whine about how bad Wikipedia is and what an unreliable source of information it is. "Wikipedia is evil!" they cry, "we found mistakes!!" Well, my response to that is just what I said above: that's what the little "edit this page" button is for. You find a mistake, you fix it, and the Wiki gets that much better. OK, rant over. :) K. Lásztocska 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My view on this seems to be in line with wikipedia guidelines, about using the title most commonly used in English. Something like that. People here know Waldesrauschen as just that, no one calls it 'forrest murmurings' which I think is the English translation, I'm sure you can correct if it is not. So wikipedia should reflect that. Similarly, eveyone knows the sonata as the 'Piano Sonata in B minor', not the original German title, so we should not use that title.
You seem to be very well informed on the subject of Liszt, as Ms. Lasztochka has said, and I agree with her. There shouldn't be a debate about Liszt scholarship on this page. The article should be showing the facts about him, with a little opinion here and there where it's warranted.
I really want this article to be as good as possible, featured status, even. And we're not going to achieve this if we're squabling over minor points such as the language, and very specific details in books; details that are really irrelevant since they're not even mentioned in the article.
So the Walker books aren't perfect, I'm sure none of the other ones are either. That's why we need to combine what we know from different places to check the facts. If something is clearly wrong, we reject it, and move on. M A Mason 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


So far as I can remember and still read, I posted on 16 February that the twofold advertising of Alan Walker's Liszt in your article would be contradicting the required Wikipedia neutrality of point of view. In order to be constructive I suggested adding references to some further books and among them the Liszt biography by Serge Gut, which is available in English so far as I know. The same goes for editions of Liszt's letters. There are many of them published in excellently commented editions, containing facsimiles, transcriptions and translations to English. If Wikipedia readers feel interested in Liszt's personality and his life they may take some of these editions without any need for being turned into nice civilized, cultured German speakers before. It is my conviction by the way that among the English-speaking Wikipedia readers there will be no barbarians at all. Concerning the references to Liszt's works in your article there may be a pretty easy solution after all: Take the Liszt article in the Musical Grove (It is in English.) and do it in the same way as it has been done there.84.61.30.70 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levant, Debussy

I leave it to those actively working on this article to decide whether to use this but Oscar Levant remarked, "The later piano works of Liszt were harmonically so inventive and new that they were the forerunner of the Impressionist school that Debussy founded." [Oscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being Oscar, Pocket Books 1969 (reprint of G.P. Putnam 1968), p. 129–130. ISBN 0-671-77104-3.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

  • I should suggest playing pieces like "Unstern!" or the 2nd Mephisto Waltz and listen to the answer you are getting from this.84.61.6.36 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt's letter in Hungarian

Having read in your article that there is a letter Liszt's to his mother which begins in faltering Hungarian, and after an apology continues in French, I'd like to see it. Since it is apparently missing in the new edition of Liszt's correspondence with his mother (ed. Klara Hamburger, Eisenstadt 2000) I have got to search it eslewhere. So, please tell me where you found it.80.144.195.184 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections made to the listed works

Having learnt that you are preferring doing corrections without listening to arguments before, I did some of them in your list of Liszt's works. For getting tired now I'll take a break. So please don't be angry that there have been some mistakes to be found left. Concerning that language problem I took the point of the view, that it will surely a better task for you finding out apropriate English titles instead of the titles given until now. (Anonymus Scholar)80.145.10.217 10:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listed works

The list with the selected works is already rather long. It will be much longer when adding some of the most important choral works and some others to it. For this reason I strongly suggest to build extra pages for the piano works, symphonic works, choral works etc. The extra pages may contain links leading to the single works. At present state some aspects are totally missing. An example is Liszt as editor of piano works by Beethoven, Schubert, Weber, Viole and others. Giving a remark to your article's principal style again (I know that you do not like it.), it is at present state looking like an advertising page. With such kind of a view, a life such as the life having been lived by Liszt can in no sense be understood at all. Liszt himself had a much more sceptical view at himself, and there have been good reasons for him thinking in that way. To give a single hint, his motto in his youth as it is known from one of his letters was: "I prefer being not happy and rich, but being happy and poor." He was not touring for 10 years just for the fun of it but for the purpose to get as much money as possible with his concerts. It was only in his later years (starting in the end of 1861) that he changed his philosophy and in his last years he was subjectively feeling being not happy and poor altogether.85.182.47.210 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The page needs a lot of work I know, and over time it will get better. I have a few ideas that I'll put forward soon. As for the list of works I agree with you, it is too long, and I think it includes too many works that just aren't notable at all. Love Liszt though I do, I am very much aware that not everything he wrote was a masterpiece. It needs cuttting down certainly. I think a new article for a (complete?) list of works would be a very good idea. If you see any works listed that you don't think merit inclusion please remove them by all means. M A Mason 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I shall add some dates of first performances to some of the piano works until soon, but I don't know the appropriate English names of some of the cities. So please have a critical look at it and change the versions given by me.80.145.1.196 11:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Having added the dates of firt performances, there are some problems with some links which I cannot correct myself at moment.80.144.124.222 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources concerning Robert le diable and Hexameron

Concerning Robert le diable: The exact date of the concert in Hamburg was taken from an announcement in the "Hamburgische Correspondent" (a German paper). The further details have been told by Liszt himself (according to Liszt it had been "ein halber Misserfolg"); see the diary of his pupil Carl Lachmund. (There is an old edition in German and a rather new edition in English of it.)

Concerning the Hexameron: The fact that the variation by Czerny is the only really difficult one will easily be verified when looking into the score. It is besides my own experience, having played quite a lot of Liszt's piano music myself, and it is shared by all people known to me, who had also played it. The other fact, that Liszt skipped the variations by Czerny and by Chopin in many cases, is known from announcements and reviews of his concerts. (He made two own variations instead by the way, but it is not known whether he ever played them.) Giving some examples: In an announcement for the concert on February 18, 1838, in Milan, the variation by Czerny is missing. In an announcement for the concert on January 26, 1840, in Pressburg, it is explicitly to be read, that the Hexameron would contain only variations by Thalberg, Liszt, Herz and Pixis. From a review in the AmZ ("Leipziger Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung") No. 13 from March 1840, p.261-62 it is known that Liszt played the same selection in Prag. According to the AmZ No. 14 from April 1840, p.299 the variation by Czerny had been omitted in the concert on March 30, 1840 in Leipzig, and - so far as I can remember at moment - it is known from a review by Schumann that the variation by Chopin had been omitted as well. In this style I could go on, giving a very long list.84.61.93.253 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To the anonymous scholar

Sir, I do respect your knowledge on the subject of Franz Liszt, please be under no illusion about that. You clearly do have a very scholarly background and have probably done more research about Liszt than I could ever hope to do. I do not doubt your credentials as a scholar, nor do I doubt your intentions in coming here and putting accross your point of view.

I have to speak my mind though, and say that it is starting to get tiresome coming on here to read essays about topics which are in no way to do with the article. This talk page is not a forum. If the nationality or whereabouts of Liszt on a certain date are to be debated, this is not the place, and there are plenty of music forums where this can be done. It is well accepted in mainstream scholarship that Liszt was Hungarian. I have never seen an article, website, publication of any sort that states otherwise. To say otherwise amounts to original research, which is not allowed here.

You have shown by your edits to the list of works section that you can be a very valuable contributor and a great asset to the article, and the project in general. Coming here and writing your essays not only wastes your own time, but the time of those reading it, but especially K. Lásztocska who has very patiently read and responded to all your comments, arguments and indeed accusations.

For your own sake and that of the article, let's spend time improving it; not bickering over what amounts to minor points which in the grand scheme of things are irrelevant. Here we should be talking about the article, and controversial subjects there, not what Liszt had for breakfast on May 8th 1840 or something similarly rediculous. Yours respecfully, M A Mason 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that he ate French food. Seriously, though, I have to agree with you. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You may both, please, have a look to my posting from March 5, especially to its end, in the Liszt-being-Hungarian chapter above, and afterwards read the lines which were given by our colleague Lastochka afterwards.80.144.113.202 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Tell us who wins. K. Lásztocska 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Lásztocska "wins". —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Anonymus Scholar

Dear friends, it may be allowed for me giving some principle words to some problems concerning your article and to this at the same time adding, that you will please not feel being offended as persons. A first problem is concerning the language. When taking the point of view that everything being said about Liszt has to be said in English and nothing else, and when this point of view has been taken to the utmost extreme, so that even Liszt's own letters and others of his private materials are only to be looked at if having been translated to English before, an understanding of his personality and his life is not only hard but certainly impossible. Liszt research is an international business today, and those who are interested in learning some of the results must inevitably try to get a fluent reading in different languages for it.

A second problem is that you are to a very high degree infected by Alan Walker's Liszt, reading his books as if they were parts of the Holy Bible, and I presume that it will be the same with many readers of your English Wikipedia article concerning Liszt. But the juice which you were drinking with this is nothing more than a picture of Liszt which may have been of interest some 60 years ago. There are all of the old stories concerning the greatest pianist of all times, the Hungarian Liszt and all the other stuff to be found. As a result, your Wikipedia Liszt has apparently been a person who was living for nearly 75 years, and in the last 25 of them doing nothing more but preparing himself for his death. From Liszt's own point of view in his youth he had not much fun doing his virtuoso job but he did it as good as he could, thereby thinking: "I do not mind the hell of critics and aesthetics when giving my concerts because I have got to earn money, and much of it." (I was citing from one of his letters.) Besides this, there was a hidden "ligne intérieure" ("inner line"), and following this line, Liszt arrived at a point at last where he could compose his real masterworks. From this "ligne intérieure", having been the more important and interesting part of him, there is nearly nothing at all to be found in your article at present state. When trying to calculate the moon's way around the earth in a similar way, you would surely conclude that because of the forces of gravity the moon is always falling straight down to the earth.

With the purpose of helping you, I gave a plenty of information and explanations in your talk page, and I corrected this and that in your article besides. But your imagination, it would have been sufficient just clicking at the edit button instead and after some minutes it would everything have been done, is really naïf. When trying to correct everything, my task would have been nothing less than writing the entire article myself. With every single word I had to fight against offended feelings of the one or the other person being until now with all strength of his heart bound to a picture of Liszt which has in Liszt research died a long time ago and has only survived in true scholarly masterworks of the Alan Walker kind. Liszt himself was until his end fighting against it, and he did it apparently in vain. Having already done a hard job until now, it is my pleasure, reading in comments that I am arrogant and mean, have eaten French potatoes and have several further qualities which are altogether also very nice. Concerning the length of some of my postings, there is not more to be said about it, that it was in reality a minimum in order to show from which sources my positions came. It is easy to say: "A. B. is surely the best Liszt player of all times!", to say to this: "No, it is C. D. instead!" and to say to those: "It is neither nor, but it is the most famous E. F., as everybody knows!" If it is this kind of debating which you like, please do it, but for my taste there are some things in the world being more interesting for filling my own time with them. I shall keep trying to help you, but the really strenuous task, writing the article, will keep being yours.80.145.1.82 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Respected colleague, you seem to have very high expectations of this article, probably higher than are possible, or even necessary. If I was to read the grove article about Liszt I would expect to come away with a reasonable grasp of the events of his life, what he did/said, what he composed, what his style of composition is like, etc. No one is going to read an article expecting a complete picture of the man, his psychology, his soul even. It's just not possible, and I'm not sure it's desirable.
Language will always be an issue, if we were to quote Liszt directly I would like to see it in the original language followed a rough translation, yes, what more do you want? We haven't quoted him directly anyway, as far as I'm aware. This is the English wikipedia, aimed at those with English as a first language, adding anything else will just make the article inaccessible. We don't all have the benefit of your multi-lingual skills.
You raise yet another minor point. So Liszt wasn't happy as a virtuoso. Where does it say that he was happy in the article? It doesn't. You seem to be trying to come accross as this great authority on Liszt, proving all others wrong, demolishing all arguments in your path. I find it quite condescending, and even patronizing that you have this view of us as brainwashed, by the likes of Walker and his outdated research. No one even claimed that he was happy. You assume too little of us. We don't just care for the stories, is it possible that someone other than yourself is interested in this "inner thread" as you term it?
And there you go again, accusing us of being naïve. When, again I ask you, did any of us say that all can be easilly corrected? We didn't. We're well accepting that there is a lot of work to be done. I speak for myself when I say that what I resent is you coming here and telling us how wrong we are and doing very little except write huge digressing tracts on this talk page.
I like how you use the phrase "correct everything in the article"... I'm sure as a learned man - I seem to remember you being a man based on the thesis you posted, I'm not sexist ;) - you're aware that there isn't going to be a "correct" version of the "truth" anywhere. All my best to you. Please don't be offended by anything I've written. M A Mason 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


The person, who was thinking that there would have been a "ligne intérieure" and it would have been important, happens to have been a certain Franz Liszt, and it is known from some of his letters. (see PBUS, p.51, for example) The "ligne intérieure" is connected with the genesis of compositions like the Harmonies poétiques et religieuses, so please take this as a hint. So far as you are assuring not to be brainwashed by Alan Walker it is even the better. And since we agree that Liszt had not much fun doing his virtuoso job, please write it in your article and give examples for it. You will find lots of materials in his book about Chopin.

The debating of the nationality question was on March 5 put from my side to an end, and it was done in perfectly tolerant terms. After this I did nothing else but answering to the questions and outbursts from some other side, and I did it after having read in the Wikipedia help that this would be regarded as being polite. Your argument concerning the nationality question in the German Wikipedia Liszt is in parts correct, but it was not me who made that article in its former state. It has been my understanding of Wikipedia politeness not to change everything at a time. If you have a new look to its present state you will see that something has changed in the text. In order to completely remove the nationality hint, some patience will be needed. A Wikipedia article does not belong to a single person but it is works in progress and it is not perfectly ready yet. If you will click to the German talk page (It is really dull in comparison with yours after my entering it.) you may find that an Austrian person has complained. In reaction to this I took the name "Ferenc" away.

From my perspective, your assumption that a person must in all cases be associated with a single nationality is obviously wrong and it is even wrong in our days. There are people who are at the same time legally associated with different countries (some of the Turks living in Germany for example). Then there are people who are living in some country but who are regarded as to be associated to a different nationality. It is the case of the "Russland Deutschen" ("Russian Germans") who are subjectively feeling being Germans and are in an ethnic sens regarded as being Germans and have full rights after having come to Germany. At last there are people who changed their nationality. (Schönberg, Rachmaninoff, Einstein and Thomas Mann for example) Liszt will be taken at best when looking to his living and his music. From this point of view it is obvious that he was a European international artist, and I think that it is much more said about him than only saying he was Hungarian. Looking at him as a teacher, the same result is gained. In comparison with this, the fact that he was born in a place Raiding which was in 1811 a legal part of Hungary is to be regarded as having been per accident. It had in former times belonged to Turkey and it is today belonging to Austria after the people living in the "Burgenland" had voted for this. The Hungary of the time of Liszt's living does no longer exist. Taking the words "Austria" and "Hungary" with present state meanings, and there is no reason for doing it in a different way, Liszt was a person born in Austria and nothing lse. Liszt himself during his long life said this and that and the meaning of it as well as the reasons because of which he did it must be scrutinized in every single case. This is not a solitary opinion of mine but it is the collective experience of all prominent Liszt scholars with whom I was talking. (Alan Walker was not among them.) In order to gain a single inch in Liszt research it is a fighting of the hardest kind afforded. Writing an encyclopedia article about Liszt is certainly a very strenous task. 80.144.103.17 10:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bélá Bartók's opinion

An opinion Béla Bartók's from his famous essay Liszt-Probleme ("Problems concerning Liszt") may be allowed to be heard. Bartók's opinion was shared by Margit Prahács in a note to Liszt's letter to Baron Augusz from May 7, 1873. (see PBUS, p.360)

”Everybody knows today that in Liszt's book about the Gypsies and their music in Hungary there is a statement contained according to which the music played in Hungary by the Gypsies, and even the music of the Hungarian peasants, was of Gypsy origin. But this statement is absolutely incorrect. We all know, and it is from convincing, not refutable proofs, that this music is of Hungarian origin. (...) In the time of Liszt's living all principal conditions being afforded in order to get knowledge concerning this question were missing. The picture which was made of folkloristic art had been yet utmost primitive and absolutely wrong. There had not yet been an imagination that the kind and way in which folkloristic art is manifesting itself is of collective origin, and nothing was suspected of the social purpose of folkloristic art. What was ever known of forms, chances and importance of the reciprocal action! And this is altogether the reason because of which Franz Liszt could not get clear consciousness in questions concerning musical folkloristic art in general, to say nothing about as complicated questions of details as the origin of the so called Gypsy music. (...) It is therefore turning out that Liszt could not find interest in the classical simple melodies of the peasants (Whether he had any chance at all of listening to them.) And we can only sentence guilty his time, the 19th century, for it. Franz Liszt altogether with many of his contemporaries was much more attracted by inflated bombast but by absolutely no pathetic, objective simplicity. It is this the reason because of which he often preferred the pompous, overload and rhapsodic music making of the Gypsies instead of the music of the Hungarian peasants.” (Franz Liszt, Beiträge von ungarischen Autoren, ed. Klara Hamburger, p.127-28)

In other words, Liszt's own point of view when trying to support a "Hungarian" music was and is until today regarded as having been absolutely wrong and of no use at all. In contrast to Bartók's position it is known from Lina Ramann's diary that the same point of view was already taken by Hungarians in 1882. Liszt was not only attacked for a supposed anti-Semitism but in the same time from the opposite side as well.80.145.58.129 10:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

....and what's your point? K. Lásztocska 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are altogether many points, but I shall tell only one of them. If you are listening to the Hunagrian Rhapsodies and getting "Hungarian" feelings from them, you would have taken the wrong kind of music for it.212.29.41.30 11:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHahahahaha now you are even telling me that what I feel/hear/think when I listen to Liszt is the "wrong" thing! I know this essay of Bartók's, I know Bartók's life and work quite well. What Bartók and Kodály were saying about Gypsy music at that time was very important, as until then everybody, Hungarians included, thought that Hungarian and Gypsy music were one and the same. But B and K took the other extreme, that Gypsy music isn't Hungarian AT ALL. Well, surely in origin it is not Hungarian, but it has become such an important and integral part of Hungarian culture (especially urban culture--gypsy bands in coffeehouses etc.) From my perspective that type of Gypsy music which Liszt used in those notorious Rhapsodies is Hungarian, just not Magyar. As much as I adore Bartók, I have to diagree with him a bit as regards Hungarian Gypsy music. Saying Gypsy music cannot ever be considered Hungarian would be like saying jazz isn't really American since its roots are in Africa. Gypsy music was quite literally the folk music of the cities. K. Lásztocska 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


According to some essays by Hungarian scholars which I read, the position taken by Bartók and Kódaly had been somewhat different. There was at first the music played by the Gypsies in Hungary. This music was made for the purpose of entertainment (and of earning money of course) and it was of "Hungarian" origin in a sense that the Gypsies took melodies from Hungarian composers for improvisations. In this sense many of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies may be called "Hungarian" as well. The 10th Rhapsody for example is an elaborated version of a piano piece by Béni Egressi to whom the Rhapsody was dedicated. At second there was a Hungarian folk music made by the peasants, and this music was different. Its common scale was not major or minor but pentatonic, and there were further differences besides. The music made by the Gypsies in Hungary may be compared with Jazz whereas the Hungarian folk music could be compared with a very old kind of traditional music of the American Indians. Bartók and Kódaly took most of their interest in the Hungarian folk music without denying that the music made by the Gypsies in Hungary was of Hungarian origin as well. But from their perspective the melodies taken by the Gypsies were bad. From my own perspective Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies are as little or as much "Hungarian" as his transcriptions of songs by Schubert are "Schubert". They are "Liszt" instead.80.144.193.197 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, there we go--that's it. :) I still think the Rhapsodies are Hungarian also, because that's what they were intended to be, but yes, primarily just Liszt. :) I guess Liszt is like a gypsy, improvising on Hungarian melodies...:) By the way, did we actually just agree on something and come to a reasonable conclusion?! ;) K. Lásztocska 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I hope, you did not forget that there are some problems left. At first there is no reason to exspect that a melody made by a Hungarian composer will sound "Hungarian" in your ears. At second the "Hungarian" part of Liszt's works is rather small. Brahms, who is not used to be suspected as Hungarian, wrote the Hungarian dances (They were very popular in Hungary.), Variations of a Hungarian melody in his op.21, a "Hungarian" Rhapsody in his op.79, the "Zigeunerlieder", the finale of his Violin concerto and much more in "Hungarian" style. In comparison with his complete works the part of his "Hungarian" works is more extensive than Liszt's. The preponderate influences on Liszt were French, Italian and German in most of his works and even in parts of his Hungarian Rhapsodies. Bartók, somewhat exaggerating, wrote in his lecture/essay "Liszt-Probleme", Liszt's works were sounding French in every single bar. The "Hungarian" component in Liszt's works is therefore neither extraordinary nor typical.
An even worse problem evolves from a comparison of the "Hungarian" transcriptions from the 1860s and 1870s with the rest of Liszt's piano works. Looking at pieces like the fantasy on Mosonyi's "Szép Ilonka" (end of 1867), the transcription of the march "Revive Szegedin!" (July 1879) and several others in the same style, they are made in a way that nobody would suspect a great composer as author. They are standing at a bottom level of art instead. (Thalberg's Souvenir de Pest op.65 is comparatively a masterwork.) This could mean that Liszt had lost his inspiration as composer in general, but it is not true because he still made much better things. For examples I am thinking of Bülow’s Dante sonnet "Tanto gentile e tanto onesta" (July 1874), the transcription of Spohr's "Die Rose" (end of 1875/beginning of 1876), the Aida fantasy (December 1878), the transcription of Schumann's "Provencalisches Minnelied" (summer 1882) and others. The conclusion is, that Liszt did not take much pains when he made his "Hungarian" transcriptions, so that he was either not much interested in them or he thought they were nevertheless good enough for his "compatriots".
When reading the words of Liszt's "Ungarisches Krönungslied" (March 1883), it is my only idea that many people in those times must have been mad. (The Huns and Tartars living in Hungary will like it instead.) But it is this context in which Liszt wrote a sentence in Hungarian, and you may take it as source in favour of your most liked theory concerning his nationality. It is "Mint magyar hazamnak hü fia Liszt Ferenc". (See PBUS, p.435; Liszt had made a German draft "Als getreuer Ungar, Liszt Ferencz" which was translated by other people and afterwards copied and signed by Liszt.) My own comment would be that he was in a highly problematic situation and had good reasons to intensify his Hungarian patriotic role. For the same reasons he composed the stupid text of his "Krönungslied", but it was in vain.80.145.64.144 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave me alone. K. Lásztocska 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt, Thalberg and Chopin

In case that you like to add a little anecdote to your article you may take the following one which I found in an essay "Liszt et Thalberg" by Ernest Legouvée in the Parisian Ménestrel from May 11, 1890. In April 1842 Thalberg had given two concerts in Paris and Chopin had given one. Legouvée wrote to this in a review for the Parisian Gazette musicale: "When the eternal question will arise again who was the greatest pianist of today, was it Liszt or was it Thalberg, it will come from the public's side the same answer as the answer given by me: It is Chopin!" According to Legouvée he had been visited by Thalberg on the next day. Thalberg shook hands with him and said: "Bravo! Your article is nothing more but only just." In contrast to this, Liszt who had arrived in Paris some weeks later was heavily angry, refusing to talk to Legouvée for a long time.

Liszt had in June 1842 a Russian pupil Wilhelm von Lenz who later wrote a book about the golden age of the virtuosos' times. (You can find it in the bibliography given by A. Walker.) In the chapter about Chopin there are astonishing aggressions contra Chopin to be found, and it is hardly to be doubted that the aggressions had come in main parts from Liszt's side. There is a last chapter about Adolph Henselt, living in St. Petersburg, by the way, and from the point of view taken by Lenz it was Henselt who was to be regarded as the true champion of all of them.80.144.122.132 11:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that they became rivals. If you'd like to illustrate it with this anecdote, go ahead. Reference it though, of course. My only concern is that the article is long enough as it is without a huge paragraph about a fairly insignificant article. M A Mason 11:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A French "New German School"

I'd like to give a further hint to our French colleague (as well as to all of the others of course), and I am thinking of R. Wagner's essay "Das Publikum in Zeit und Raum" ("The public in time and space") from 1878. It is mainly concerning Liszt's Dante symphony (dedicated to Wagner himself) but it is altogether an essay about Liszt as a composer in general. Wagner reminded of the two decades around the year 1830 and of the eminent elevation of the superior minds of the Parisian society in those times. Liszt was surrounded by them in his youth, and it was Wagner's opinion, that Liszt had imagined an assembly of persons of this kind as an audience when composing his Faust and Dante. Some days before Wagner wrote this, he had in his Villa Wahnfried in Bayreuth heard the Dante symphony played by Liszt himself, and it is known from Cosima's diary that Wagner was very much admiring it. The "Neudeutsche Schule" ("New German School") is therefore turning out to have been French after all.

Looking at Liszt on October 22, 1849, it can be read in a long letter which he wrote to Jean Francois Fétis on that day, that he was busily thinking of his Symphonic poem Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne after Victor Hugo, a French sujet. (I am relying on a copy of the letter which I got from the Goethe- and Schiller Archive in Weimar.) Liszt and Hugo had been close friends in the Saint Simonists' times of the early 1830s. In a long letter which Liszt wrote to his mother on October 22, 1849, he was as well busily thinking of the money he had deposed in Eisenstadt and in the bank of Rothschild in Paris. Unfortunately there is in both letters not a single word concerning Hungary to be found with the only exception of the money in Eisenstadt, so that I cannot precisely tell you what Liszt was presently thinking in this respect. But I can assure that he was gratefully thinking of the new cigars which he got as a birthday gift.80.144.122.132 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in a nice place called Saddleworth, which was in Yorkshire, but now claimed to be in Manchester. And every time I have a birthday I write letters to people, thanking them for this or that/whatever. Do I mention where I was born? No: Important to me though it is, I don't mention it in every piece of correspondence. Liszt's letters are quite well described as voluminous. There are hundreds of them - I don't need to tell you that. Why you are mentioning that 2 of them don't mention Hungary is completely beyond me. M A Mason 11:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you when you say that Liszt wasn't ONLY an Hungarian. He was also French, German, and maybe Italian. But I don't follow you when you say that he wasn't Hungarian AT ALL. Actually, Chopin, more than Liszt, stood as a difficult case for nationality: he was a perfect Franco-Polish (his mother was Polish, his father French, he spend one part of his life in Poland, and the other in France). Even though the French government doesn't blame Poland when the latter built an airport in Warsaw with Chopin's name. Why? Because it was undeniable that Chopin see himself as a Polish (he wrote so much "Polonaises"). I think that Lizst's issue for nationality is the same: did Austria react when Hungaria created musical institutions with Liszt's name? No because he wrote 12 Magyar Dalok, 19 Hungarian Rhapsodies, a lot of Csardas and Ungarish Romanzero, and transcriptions of Hungarian composers (Hunyadi Laszlo's Opers for instance). Anyway, it's also true that Liszt never knew hungarian speaking, that he behaved as a native French during the twenty years he spent in my country, and that he almost only spoke German from his settlement in Weimar to his death. All that shouldn't be occured.

I believe, like you, that Liszt was a multi-faceted figure, and I developed this idea in the French article. Actually he was in the same time a churchman, an international pianist, an administrator in Weimar, and a Magyar (a Leslie Howard's anthology used the same system). The issue of Liszt's nationality only stood, for me, in the following terms: was he an Hungarian or a "Kosmopolitaï"? I'm glad that you developed more interesting outlets to this issue, but I think we should put one end to this controversy : do you agree with my compromise? And if you don't, what disturb you?

P.S. I once read an article from Fétis about the fact that Chopin was merely superior to Liszt in the "Gazette musicale de Paris", and I don't find it anymore. do you know what it could be?

Alexander Doria 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


There may have been some misunderstandings concerning the "New German School". It was founded in June 1859 in Karlsruhe by Franz Brendel and it was in connection with the foundation of the "Allgemeine deutsche Musikverein". Liszt was the first member of this "Allgemeine deutsche Musikverein" and its president. He was also one of the most prominent members of the "New German School". (Hector Berlioz was another one of them.) There is no connection with the nationality question at all. My on point of view to the nationality question can be found in the first chapter of the German Wikipedia Liszt, and I do not like giving any more comments to it.
Another misunderstanding might have occurred concerning the two letters from October 22, 1849. Liszt had not gotten the cigars from his mother or from Fétis, and he was not thanking for them but he wanted to give some of them to Fétis. The letter to his mother was already published in the old edition of Liszt's letters to his mother by La Mara but heavily censored, which is to say that about four fifth of it had been cut. Reading the complete version in the new edition by Klara Hamburger, everybody will get the impression that notwithstanding the actual catastrophes in Hungary Liszt was very much interested in his money in Eisenstadt and in nothing else. (Klara Hamburger, a Hungarian scholar, is very much lamenting about Liszt in her comments by the way.) The letter to Fétis was cited in order to show that Wagner in his opinion concerning the French origin of the "New German School" was right.
A short answer to the other question whether Fétis had written, Chopin would have been superior in comparison with Liszt, may be that Fétis was living in Brussels. For the reason of old debts he could not dare to go to Paris in most of the 1830s because he would have went to prison otherwise. He therefore had not much opportunity for comparing Liszt and Chopin as pianists. (On November 6, 1836, he secretly visited Liszt in Paris. Chopin was also present, but only Liszt played some of his own compositions.) From the early 1840s there is his essay Etudes d'exécution transcendante in the Revue et Gazette musicale from Mai 9, 1841, which was read by Liszt and to which Liszt heavily applauded. Fétis gave a short history of piano playing since the 1820s in which Chopin is not even mentioned. But the same goes for the first edition of Liszt's transcription of some organ works by J. S. Bach. There is a preface by Siegfried Dehn, giving a short history of piano music as well, and Chopin's name is also missing.80.145.33.143 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources concerning Funérailles

Since I got the impression that it might be difficult for you to get certain sources whereas it is easy for me, I shall give the sources from which the well known story of Funérailles being correlated with the death of the Hungarian Count Batthanyi on October 6, 1849, is used to be drawn. The sources are described in: Mueller, Rena Charin: Liszt’s „Tasso“ Sketchbook: Studies in Sour­ces and Re­vi­si­ons, Ph. D. dissertation, New York University 1986. (Mueller's thesis was published on micro film. If you like to read it yourself you can get it from the library of a university and make an own copy from the micro film. Mueller's writing style is sometimes somewhat confuse, but the impression from reading her book is in in so far correct as Liszt was an utmost confuse person himself.) The pages 251-277 are concerning the genesis of the Harmonies poétiques et religieuses.

Concerning Funérailles I am looking at Mueller’s p.270f. According to this, there had been a sketch "Magyar" from which materials were taken for the later Funérailles. (I have never seen the sketch "Magyar" myself.) For the sketch "Magyar" there is not a single date given, so that nobody can tell in which time it was made. It is known from a letter Liszt's to Joachim Raff from December 1850 that Liszt wanted to finish his Harmonies poétiques et religieuses before returning from Bad Eilsen to Weimar in January 1851. It should contain 6 pieces, but not Funérailles. On the other hand it is known from a further source that in the second half of 1850 Liszt had made or planned pieces "Marche funérailles" and "Cantique d'amour" for his Harmonies poétiques et religieuses. It is the impression after this, that Liszt was still uncertain of the cycle's final conception, and since 1834 there had been lots (a dozen at least) of different conceptions before.

Coming to the supposed correlation between Funérailles and the events on October 6, 1849, the only source which was given by Mueller (and in all of the other books I read) is a reference to Peter Raabe's book "Liszts Schaffen" ("Liszt's works"), p.248. Looking at that book it is to be read:


"In Br. VI, p.266, there is a hint given by Liszt that it (Funérailles) is concerning Hungary. The only victim of the Hungarian revolution was Batthanyi, who was on October 6, 1849, executed because of martial law." (comment: the ONLY victim of the revolution was Batthanyi?! WTF is he talking about? K. Lásztocska 16:40, 18 March 2007 )(UTC)


This is absolutely everything which had come from Raabe’s side. Looking at "Br. VI, p.266" (It is a letter Liszt's to Princess Wittgenstein from 1870.) it turns out that no victims of the Hungarian revolution are mentioned at all. According to the letter the Hungarian minister Horvath had recited an old poem by Vörösmarty from 1840 in honour of Liszt, and Liszt had "responded with compositions like Hungaria, Funérailles and some others" to it, whatever this "responding" might have meant. (Alan Walker in his Liszt II, p.71-72, n.31, gives a reference to LLB, vol. 6, p.266 (i.e. "Br. VI, p.266") as well, but cautiously avoiding to tell what the reader of the letter will find.)

The only source for a connection between Funérailles and the events on October 6, 1849, is therefore a guess Peter Raabe's without any foundation in sources. Raabe's supposition, Batthanyi would have been the only victim of the Hungarian revolution is obviously wrong, so that the question of the meaning of Funérailles in 1853, when the cycle was published, is in all respects open. People in 1853 who bought and played it could not find a single hint pointing to Hungary in general or especially to October 6, 1849 (There was no title of the "Funérailles, October 1849" kind but only "Funérailles"), and no sources even of private kind existed from which they could get knowledge of it. So far as they had read Liszt's book about Chopin before (It was written 1850-51 and published 1851-52.), they had from its last chapter good reasons for the assumption that he was altogether thinking of the death of Felix Lichnowski and Chopin instead, and that it was for this reason that in October 1849 a new period in his own life had begun. (In Liszt's subjective reminding they had both died in one and the same year, as he wrote in his book about Chopin, although the dates in the real world had been quite different.)

The cycle was published in 7 parts, and Funérailles was altogether the 5th part and the 7th piece. Without explicit explanations (It would be very long.) I add to this as a last remark, that the numbers 5 and 7 in Liszt's works have an autobiographical importance of the highest degree and are in most cases pointing to him himself. Stating it even more explicit, the numbers are pointing to an imagination Liszt's of living together with the Countess d'Agoult again. (His idea concerning the numbers might have been that the name "Marie" had 5 and the name "d'Agoult" 7 letters.)84.61.63.73 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Raabe. Herbert Westerby in The Piano Works of Franz Liszt (pp. 155-6) also talks about the Hungarian influence from the disturbances of 1849, mentioning three of Liszt's friends being killed. M A Mason 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I did some new brainstorming concerning Funérailles in the last days and especially tried to find out from which source the added title "October 1849" had come. In the editions which I saw until now it is not contained and even the New Liszt Edition made in Budapest gives only "Funérailles". But there are several books claiming that the subtitle "October 1849" was a part of Funérailles, so that I shall take this version now. My next idea was that "October 1849" is also the title of Heine's famous poem concerning the benighted Franz who remained unscathed while Hungary was bleeding to death, and the sabre of honour which was lying in the chest of drawers. It is known from Heine's letter to H. v. Campe from November 16, 1849, that the poem was made four weeks ago and afterwards (in the time of Liszt's birthday) circulating in copies in Paris. (It has 15 stanzas and only the 6th, 7th and 8th of them are concerning Liszt.) It was published in the No. for September 1850 of the "Deutsche Monatsschrift für Politik, Wissenschaft, Kunst und Leben." I put to this a written answer by Liszt from November 1875 given to Lina Ramann which can be found in her diary. After some remarks concerning other pieces of his Harmonies poétiques and religieuses Liszt wrote:

The Funérailles are pointing to the tragic event (1850) in Hungary. This kind of music is of no use at all, and I confess that it had been my fault not to have prevented its publication.

While the second sentence is apparently indicating that there had been something embarrassing in connection with the piece, the date 1850 is at first sight looking like a mistake made by Liszt. But from the sources which I gave some days ago the date is known to be correct because it was the second half of 1850 when Liszt composed or planned to compose Funérailles. The piece might therefore have been a part of a response to the poem by Heine which had been very angrily read by Liszt. He had to defend himself and to explain for which reasons he had not taken part in the events of the revolution in Hungary. In order to do this he wrote the last chapter in his book about Chopin. Felix Lichnowski is only mentioned at that place and there was no further connection between him and Chopin at all. Lichnowski was praised by Liszt in many respects, and afterwards Liszt wrote that he had lost all of his interest in things correlated with Lichnowski after his death. Since Lichnowski had been killed because of political reasons, the thing for which Liszt had lost his interest was politics. It could be given a letter by Liszt to Joachim Raff as a source in favour of this. The things are altogether suiting perfectly, so that the tragic event of 1850 concerning Hungary which was in November 1875 remembered by Liszt would have been the publication of the poem by Heine. After this we may arrive at the compromise that Liszt was in connection with Funérailles altogether thinking of Lichnowski and Chopin but in some respects of Hungary as well.80.145.61.60 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Béla Bartók's opinion, part two

Gentlemen of the Wiki, scholars and students, Lisztians and Brahmsians, Leipzigers and Weimarites, Florestans and Eusebiuses, Germans and Frenchmen and Magyars and Brits, pro- and anti-Alan Walker, progressive or reactionary, the words of the immortal Béla Bartók have recently been posted on this page to support one editor's point of view. I would like to offer, reproduced here verbatim, with no edits, elaborations or omissions, some more of Bartók's words concerning Liszt. This is, in full, a letter written by Bartók to the Budapest newspapers to summarize a speech he gave at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The letter is dated February 3rd, 1936, and may be found on page 246 of the English-language hardcover edition of Bartók's Letters.

"The lecturer considered 4 questions relating to F. Liszt.
The first question was that of the response of the general public to Liszt's compositions. In the lecturer's opinion, even today, the general public did not sufficiently appreciate Liszt's important works and preferred the less significant ones, e.g. the rhapsodies. According to the lecturer, the reason for this was that audiences lacked the capacity to see what was really essential in musical compositions and were unduly influenced by superficial elements. In other words, it was precisely that which is most valuable in Liszt's works that the general public did not like, while at the same time favouring that which is of least value.
The second question was that of the impact of Liszt's works on the further development of music as an art. In the lecturer's opinion, Liszt's oeuvre was more important in this respect than Wagner's; not that Liszt's works were more perfect than Wagner's (for, actually, just the opposite was the case), but Wagner, the lecturer said, had exploited and developed to the full all the possibilities arising from his own inventiveness. On the other hand, much of Liszt's invention indicated possible developments which he himself failed to exploit, and which were only fully utilized by his successors.
The third question referred to Liszt's book Gypsy Music in Hungary, i.e. to the erroneous statement which this contains. According to the lecturer, Liszt was only partly to blame for his errors. These were more to be attributed to 19th-century conditions--a fundamentally false idea of musical folklore; the romantic fondness for excess in all things, for superfluous ornaments, for pathos and a corresponding disregard for classic simplicity. In addition, we could blame our grandfathers, too, who had not been able, or had not wanted, to help Liszt to find the truth: the truth of life in a Hungarian village.
The fourth question concerned our right to consider Ferenc Liszt a Hungarian. Here it was Liszt's own attitude which was decisive; for on countless occasions he had declared himself to be Hungarian. The whole world owed it to Ferenc Liszt to respect his wishes in this respect and not to go against them."

K. Lásztocska 04:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I cannot see which new aspects are given with this posting. The citation in "Béla Bartòks opinion, part one", was not an opinion of a pro- or anti-Alan Walker editor. The immortal Bartòk's own words were given instead. Your paragraph "The third question (...)" is nothing else but a short summary of it.80.145.61.60 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I know English isn't your first language, but there clearly is a difference in what paragraph three here states and the opinion of part one. You (seemed to) use Bartok's opinion that the music isn't Hungarian in origin as evidence against Liszt writing Hungarian music. Well here he is saying that that isn't Liszt's fault. Liszt was for whatever reason creating and writing about what he believed to be Hungarian music. Whether it was or not makes no difference. M A Mason 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a perceptive comment on the public's reaction to Liszt, which I just found interesting. I might add that when Mr. Bartók (A.S., please get your accent marks right) mentions "lacking the capacity to see what is really essential" and instead being "unduly influenced by superficial elements," he could just as well have been talking about our debates here...just something for all of us to keep in mind.

The second paragraph, just an interesting tidbit. No real relevance here, just thought you guys might like reading it. I also was very conscious to copy the entire letter, even parts that might seem irrelevant, to avoid the common fallacy of taking things out of context.

The third paragraph, as Mason has already said, clarifies the issue of Hungarian/Gypsy/Hungarian-Gypsy music. Liszt's mistake concerning the origin of gypsy music was simply that, an honest mistake, and his use of music that everyone (Magyars included) considered "Hungarian" music is hardly evidence that he was not or did not consider himself Hungarian, even though we now know that Hungarian music is a very different thing. Why should we punish Liszt for not being Bartók?

The fourth paragraph needs no explanation, as its meaning should be perfectly clear. K. Lásztocska 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Bartók's letter from February 3rd, 1936 (Alan Walker was about 6 years old in this time.), is well known as a short summary of his first lecture given as member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Besides this there is a complete version of the lecture, and it is this complete version which is well known as essay "Liszt-Probleme". In the chapter "Bélá Bartók's opinion" above, the complete version was used as source. After this still claiming, the summary in comparison with the complete version would contain something new, seems to be obviously absurd.
A comparison of the paragraph "The fourth question ..." in the summary with the complete version may lead to a remarkable result. Bartók in his summary refers to a note, which he added to the essay, so that it had not been a part of his lecture. It is only the note where the "countless occasions" are mentioned and for the "countless occasions" it is exactly one example given. It is a letter Liszt's to Baron Gábor Prónay from 1862 which was only published in a rare Hungarian paper from 1862 in a translation to Hungarian. As second source a reference to the "Speeches of the Chief Albert Berzeviczy" from 1935 is added, and this was apparently Bartók's real source. But according to Bartók it was not Liszt's letter but only its (so called) contents which was given in those "Speeches of the Chief". In Margit Prahács' "Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen" the letter it is not included, so that nothing can be verified. The "countless occasions" in Bartók's summary are therefore reduced to zero, and this may be called "countless" indeed.
Bartók's main purpose in the last part of his lecture/essay and in the last paragraph of his summary was of highly political kind. In 1836 there was a kind of Austrian-Hungarian war in the papers and the fighting for Liszt's nationality, whether he was Austrian or Hungarian, was only a part of it. Shortly afterwards several dark, not to say brown years of Austrian and Hungarian history were following. (You may read Bartók's letter to Annie Müller-Wiedmann from April 13, 1938, in this respect.) The full story is interesting for itself but unfortunately much too complicated to be told at this place. (Liszt's uncle Eduard Liszt, a son of Liszt's grandfather with Austrian nationality, was in parts involved.) The fourth paragraph of Bartók's summary does certainly not speak for itself. Imagining Liszt in 1862, a person who was starting to compose his Christus oratorio and who was preparing himself for living in a monastery, and imagining the same person to be taken 74 years later as a part of the preparation of a war, the result may be called astonishing. Liszt himself would have thrown all of his versions of the Rácóczi-march to the fire if he had had knowledge of it.80.145.29.159 10:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I give up. I f***ing give up. Do whatever the f*ck you want with this article, go ahead and say "Franz Liszt was an Austrian/German composer, and any attempts to claim he was Hungarian are the work of fascists and Great-Hungarian chauvinists." or "Franz Liszt thought he was Hungarian, but he was wrong." There is no point in arguing further with a Great Scholar such as yourself. Never mind that in the course of this entire debate you have never shown conclusive, positive, tangible evidence that Liszt did NOT consider himself Hungarian, you have only showed instances where he did not mention nationality at all. And this lack of mentioning nationality, according to Your Highness, is proof that he did not consider himself Hungarian?? (I must remember from now on to add to every single one of my letters the sentence "I am and always will be Hungarian first and last", so there will be no doubt among the scholars who sift through my letters a hundred years from now!) But of course, I clearly have nothing to say, "blinded" and "brainwashed" by my enjoyment of most of Alan Walker's books, "naive" and "trapped in my emotions", and whatever else you called me--on these accusations along with everything else you are clearly and incontrovertibly correct, so I will humbly return to my proper place, like a Magyar under the Habsburg yoke. Good-bye, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, and viszontlátasra! K. Lásztocska 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "complete fiasco" of the Clochette-fantasy

The fact that the performance of the Clochette-fantasy was a complete fiasco is known from several sources. There is a remark in the French paper "Le Pianiste" from November 11, 1834, p.16. Then there is an answer given by Liszt to Lina Ramann from December 1876. "Ich spielte damals die Fantasie (eigentlich Variationen) mit Misserfolg in ein paar Concerten." To this comes a letter by Liszt to Jules Janin from May 1846 which is also stating the complete fiasco from November 1834. The letter has been published by Jaques Vier in: L’artiste – le clerc, p.145.84.61.27.11 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Please feel free to add that as a citation to the article. M A Mason 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Raiding" or "Doborján"

The place where Liszt has been born was "Reiding" according to his birth certificate. Liszt himself and all the rest of his family called it "Raiding". For example there is a letter by Adam Liszt to Count Eszterházy with the original handwritten date "Raiding 13. April 1820". Hungary was a kingdom in those times, and since 1741 the Hungarian King was the Austrian Emperor. In 1809 the Hungarians got an offer from Napoleon according to which Hungary should have become independent from Austria, but it was not accepted by them.84.61.27.11 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this is surprising given that the Austrians had official influence. Over the church, over the language that his family would've used. As for the offer from Napoleon, who exactly turned it down? I'm doubtful that they held some kind of plebiscite. Much more likely is that the aristocracy turned it down, the ones with a vested interest in the maintanance of the Empire, economic benefits during the war for example. It's irrelevant anyway. Again, please feel free to change the article and source it if you're not happy with it. Otherwise, don't waste our time. M A Mason 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If the Hungarian people, rather than the Austrian nobles who ran the place back then, had been presented with an offer of freedom, they would have run to it with open arms. As for Raiding/Doborján, there is a convincing case that can be made either way, for once I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Maybe "Raiding (also called Doborjan)" or something like that? K. Lásztocska 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)