Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Should I learn Liszt's 2nd ballade before Chopin's 4th?

Kuan: You're changing it.

I have no problem with anything you've been saying, except that the piece isn't that technically difficult, and that "the notes" aren't an issue.

Kuan: You're changing it.

I have no problem with anything you've been saying, except that the piece isn't that technically difficult, and that "the notes" aren't an issue.

[...]Your thoughts?

....You don't want to hear that what's difficult for one person is not for another? It's the truth, sorry.

And 'There isn't anyone for whom this piece isn't technically hard, unless you aren't caring about exactly how well it's played.' is absurd....

You don't want to hear that what's difficult for one person is not for another? It's the truth, sorry. And 'There isn't anyone for whom this piece isn't technically hard, unless you aren't caring about exactly how well it's played.' is absurd. Sorry. You treat your own opinions like fact, while you treat others' opinions as, well, opinions.

I've played Liszt's 2nd Ballade, and it doesn't seem technically difficult until you start working on it , but the Chopin is a devil in difficulty. I would say learn the Liszt now to get used to playing a long emotional piece. It'll help you pull off the Chopin in the future.

For the people that think the Liszt is a "better" piece than the Chopin, or that the Chopin is a "better" piece than the Liszt, what is the reasoning behind this? What aspects of one are better than the other? What does one lack that the other has? I think that both are masterpieces, and both should be appreciated as such.

Etude, Op 25 No 12
(It's interesting to note that the Ballade contains a four-bar passage near the end which is extremely similar to this last Etude.)

Just curious -- what do people find so technically difficult about the 4th ballade? I always hear about it's immense technical difficulties and was intimidated to learn it, but I found that it fits quite well under the hand and didn't think it was particularly difficult to get up to speed at all....

Chopin beats Liszt, not only here, nerely everywhere.

Oh please. I hear that said so often, and as usual it is said by one who finds much of Liszt's music to be empty. Can't we just say they're both great masters and leave it at that? Chopin was interested in different things musically than Liszt, and their music is so different because of it. Their music has a different way about it, and Chopin's subtlety and structural depth, and more melodic writing are no more valid ways of composing than Liszt's extreme emotions, his symphonic textures, his storytelling/expounding on ideas through thematic transformation. Liszt often put the program first and didn't put any more in his music than what was needed to tell the story -completely different than Chopin's ideal- and in his own way he is a master and a revolutionary.

Are the Chopin Etudes really greater than Liszt's?
The F Minor Fantasie and the PF greater than Liszt's Don Juan and Norma?
Are the Chopin Preludes greater than the Annees and the Harmonies Poetiques?
As for the Ballade comparison...they are so different. True, the Chopin has more depth, but Liszt wasn't striving for that in this piece. He wanted to tell a story and added nothing more than the essentials for that story. In its own way it is a masterpiece and has its own marvellous virtues. But, look at a piece like the Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen variations. Is Chopin's fourth Ballade really the greater work? Or is it just a work from a radically different composer?

And, Chopin beats Liszt 'nearly everywhere,' let's just forget Liszt's varied output and innovation, that Liszt wrote many orchestral pieces (of which the Faust Symphony is as complex, structurally deep, innovative and profound as almost anything Chopin wrote, certainly a match for Chopin's second piano Sonata, just as Liszt's sonata is a match for Chopin's third, in their own ways), and works like Les Preludes, Tasso, and Orpheus that show a far more varied artist, not to mentioned the fact that these works, in their way, match most of Chopin's large scale single movement works. What about the vocal music? Chopin's piano works are scintillating, but could he have dreamed of writing a great, 3 hour Oratorio like one of Liszt's greatest masterpieces, Christus? Or the 13th Psalm? or the Gran Mass? What about the fact that Liszt's lieder are probably superior to that of Chopin? What about Liszt's organ masterpieces like the Ad Nos Fantasia and Fugue? What about the transcriptions, showing awe inspiring pianistic ingenuity that had never been dreamed of beforehand? Chopin didn't do any of this. He has his unique music and Liszt has his.

The Chopin fans around here talk as if Liszt is a child compared to their idol, and I acknowledge that he is one of the greats and indeed one of my favourites, but something has to be said for Liszt's own individual mastery that speaks to some every bit as much as that of Chopin, and it would probably be more if people gave Liszt and his entire output/ideas/innovations as much of a chance, not to mentioned his superior versatility as a composer. You might prefer Chopin's style, that doesn't mean he's greater. The different kinds of achievement in their life are not comparable.

I think anyone who doubts Liszt's musical abilities are ignorant or worse. Just listen to some of Liszt's more lyrical music such as his consolations and leibestraums. I don't prefer Liszt's style over Chopin, but he was definitely musically capable.

Yes but on what I've seen dolce is very knowledgeable about much of Liszt's music, much of it just doesn't seem to be to his taste. I overreacted a bit with my post, and I am a bit biased due to my passion for Liszt's music, but I do struggle when told that chopin was flat out better as a composer. It's my problem, getting emotionally involved with something that I know isn't important. Regardless, try asi might, it does get to me.