I'll just say a few words on this because it is one of those pieces many musicians might not necessarily enjoy playing.
What I like about it could perhaps be resumed in 3 main "ideas":
1. It is strikingly original. But my view of "original" is very "complicated"! It is relatively easy to write something that contains elements that are "different". The history of music is full of composers that "innovated" but nobody knows them now. In some way, one could argue that almost any "original" aspect of a "major" composer was anticipated, if not preceded by some minor composer in a now forgotten piece. Even today, modern music is full of "innovations" everywhere, but it is rarely actually original! I think there are at least 3 aspects of originality that must be satisfied, for it to really count as such. First of all, the "new" and original must arise from a need to express something genuine, and not as a gimmick. Secondly, it must make sense artistically, it should be an organic part of a coherent and convincing "whole", not stand against it. Thirdly, it must contribute to the defining "voice" of a composer, or artist. Only when all these conditions are met, a composer and a work is truly original. Many minor composers, instead (today too!) were "superficially" original - the history of music is full of them. But not truly original, because their originality is often a gimmick, or it doesn't contribute artistically to the work, certainly not in a coherent convincing way.
But then comes a truly original composer, for example Berlioz - and he is inspired by the "originality" in a Mehut or a Spontini, and maybe even "steals" some of it! But then when he uses it, it suddenly it is art! Because it is an organic part and it becomes a convincing element in his "voice" unlike when the "other composer" attempted it.
Same with Liszt! He might have heard the "Concertos symphoniques" of Henry Litolff and been influenced by them. And many other things: bits of Weber, Schubert, etc But what he absorbed and came out in the second piano concerto, was truly "Liszt"! And despite being a piece with a structure like no other, certainly for the time, it is a convincing "whole". There is a clear thematic unity in it. Motives continually transform and metamorphose into something else. But it is more like a symphonic poem, in its structure (Liszt championed the genre after all) than like a concerto, And it is clearly "Liszt"- his "voice". You can easily hear the mephistophelian Liszt, and the asphixiatingly beautiful, almost Wagnerian sugary moments, ha! Anyway...
2. It has moments of great beauty. Usually the lyrical ones. The beautiful French Horn Solo at the beginning, the Cello solos, the 2 violin solos, the divided violin line in the high register (that is almost like a "Lohengrin" moment!), and some of the piano cadenzas. etc. Well, those are some of my favorite, at least...
3. It is so typically Romantic - restless, and unsettled, and it has plenty of musical ambiguity, which Liszt was very good at. It never really stays anywhere for long. Themes are not really completed, when you think you are safe in a tonality, or in a time signature, you are not! You relax at your own risk!
Anyway - enoughof this, cause I want to do some other work! :D
What I like about it could perhaps be resumed in 3 main "ideas":
1. It is strikingly original. But my view of "original" is very "complicated"! It is relatively easy to write something that contains elements that are "different". The history of music is full of composers that "innovated" but nobody knows them now. In some way, one could argue that almost any "original" aspect of a "major" composer was anticipated, if not preceded by some minor composer in a now forgotten piece. Even today, modern music is full of "innovations" everywhere, but it is rarely actually original! I think there are at least 3 aspects of originality that must be satisfied, for it to really count as such. First of all, the "new" and original must arise from a need to express something genuine, and not as a gimmick. Secondly, it must make sense artistically, it should be an organic part of a coherent and convincing "whole", not stand against it. Thirdly, it must contribute to the defining "voice" of a composer, or artist. Only when all these conditions are met, a composer and a work is truly original. Many minor composers, instead (today too!) were "superficially" original - the history of music is full of them. But not truly original, because their originality is often a gimmick, or it doesn't contribute artistically to the work, certainly not in a coherent convincing way.
But then comes a truly original composer, for example Berlioz - and he is inspired by the "originality" in a Mehut or a Spontini, and maybe even "steals" some of it! But then when he uses it, it suddenly it is art! Because it is an organic part and it becomes a convincing element in his "voice" unlike when the "other composer" attempted it.
Same with Liszt! He might have heard the "Concertos symphoniques" of Henry Litolff and been influenced by them. And many other things: bits of Weber, Schubert, etc But what he absorbed and came out in the second piano concerto, was truly "Liszt"! And despite being a piece with a structure like no other, certainly for the time, it is a convincing "whole". There is a clear thematic unity in it. Motives continually transform and metamorphose into something else. But it is more like a symphonic poem, in its structure (Liszt championed the genre after all) than like a concerto, And it is clearly "Liszt"- his "voice". You can easily hear the mephistophelian Liszt, and the asphixiatingly beautiful, almost Wagnerian sugary moments, ha! Anyway...
2. It has moments of great beauty. Usually the lyrical ones. The beautiful French Horn Solo at the beginning, the Cello solos, the 2 violin solos, the divided violin line in the high register (that is almost like a "Lohengrin" moment!), and some of the piano cadenzas. etc. Well, those are some of my favorite, at least...
3. It is so typically Romantic - restless, and unsettled, and it has plenty of musical ambiguity, which Liszt was very good at. It never really stays anywhere for long. Themes are not really completed, when you think you are safe in a tonality, or in a time signature, you are not! You relax at your own risk!
Anyway - enoughof this, cause I want to do some other work! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment