2nd version of Liszt-Paganini Etudes.

[justinrp97]

Has anyone else heard these versions, especially the Ab minor take on No3. They're very interesting, and i think very good.

[Goldberg]

Sure, only those are the *first* etudes. The second version etudes aren't as good, in my opinion, even though there are relatively few changes musically. They are both fine sets of etudes, however, both rewarding to play and enjoyable to hear.

But, yeah, the second editions are the more popular ones mostly because Liszt went back in and "watered down" parts of the pieces in the first set to make them easier for the standard pianist to play, and try to bring out the music even more. There are some parts of the first set--like, for instance, the 2nd version of etude no. 4--that are almost mind-bogglingly difficult, and there's hardly any of that kind of stuff in the popular versions.

Also, you may be interested in hearing Schumann's Paganini Etudes--he did two sets: the first one, op. 3, and a later one, op. 10 I think, with little relation between the two, except they are both based on Paganini caprices. The etudes are practically unknown, but then again I wouldn't consider them as good as the Liszt PEs.

[justinrp97]

Thanks Goldberg for the info. I didn't realize they were the first versions. Liszt seemed to create super difficult music, and then water it down cause it was too hard for people to play. Kinda like the Grand etudes vs the Transcendental etudes. Anyways...i like the first version of the PE"s much better. I just listened to them while following the score and wow. you're absolutely right about version 2 of no. 4 being impossible. Leslie Howard is a machine to play all of this!

[Goldberg]

Incidentally, there is also a wonderful CD of the original P.E.'s by Petrov floating around...somewhere...I don't have it myself, but I hear Petrov really did a superb job.

The Grandes Etudes and the Transcendental Etudes are somewhat different than the P.E.'s, in my opinion, inasmuch as the Transcendental Etudes are actually more enjoyable to listen to for the most part. Whereas the complexity adds to the original P.E.'s, in the Grandes Etudes the technical demands are so immense that the pieces are typically inundanted with clunky notes and they can sound clumsy in even the most capable hands..though, that said, I have a video of Alexander Paley playing the G.E.'s as if they were actually the T.E's, that is, fluidly and powerfully.

But there are just a few G.E.'s that I prefer to the T.E. versions, really, whereas I like all of the first P.E.'s marginally more than the latter versions (especially the much-transformed La Campanella).

[Mephisto]

Why wouldn`t you even compare Schumanns P.E to Liszt`s?
I have sadly not heared the first version of the paganini etudes exept number 5. And I must say that the first version really is better.

This is a little of topic but I just wanted to ask Goldberg. You often say that you hate the popular la campanella. Is it because it is overplayed. I like most overplayed pieces the first I time I hear them but when I find out that they are overplayed and I hear them a hundred times I get a little anoid of them. But I definetly don`t hate them. Did you really hate la campanella the first time you heard it or do you hate it because it has become "to" famous. You also hate HR no2. Did you hate it the first time you heard it, or did you when you learnd that it was famous and that everybody played it and turned it around to a circus piece. In my oppinion la campanella and HR no2 is both really nice pieces. BUt one can get upset because the others i the set liek HR no11 hasn`t become that popular as no2. But in reality I don`t think Liszt was thinking when he wrote la campanella and HR no2 that he shouldn`t write them because Goldberg from Ireland would become upset of these pieces because they achived so great popularity.

Just my little off topic post.

-The Mephisto

[Goldberg]

Well it's interesting to say that even Liszt was annoyed with HR2 before long, and he banned the piece from performances by all his students, except on select occassions (he also banned Chopin's 2nd Scherzo because he felt it got too much attention). The reason I dislike HR2 is certainly not because it is too damn popular, though. I used to like it a few years ago, when I was first discovering Horowitz and didn't even know of Cziffra, for that matter. My first recording of the piece was indeed Horowitz's own, and I felt that there could hardly be a piece with more excitement and so on..

However, once I started listening more to other pianists like Cziffra and hearing other pieces, most importantly the other Hungarian Rhapsodies, and even, for that matter, doing some moderate research in the history behind the real Hungarian Rhapsodies of the nomadic gypsies, I felt I developd a considerable understanding for the compositional style which Liszt was trying to emulate, though I will not claim to be anywhere near expert. However, when I started listening to the HR2 with knowledge of other pieces, especially the Rhapsodies, I started to hear a truly *ridiculous* piece, unlike any of the other HRs...the thematic material itself irritates me and I have grown extremely bored of it, and it isn't because I've heard it too many times, or because I know "everyone" plays it.

My dislike for the HR2 then is really a highly personal matter...interestingly, Cziffra wasn't excessively fond of the piece himself, and played it without a cadenza and with reservations to counterbalance the typical flamboyant performances of the piece. But that alone isn't reason for me to dislike it either, of course.

I did like LC the first time I heard it too, of course, because I spent a long time after that learning the piece...but again that was back in a time when just about anything would impress me, and I had never even heard of some of my current favourite pianists. Now, I realise I don't care much for the popular LC because I see the original violin concerto, which is very creative and interesting, and the original Liszt etude, which is nicely spread out and draws from other sources, and am disappointed that the 2nd version is a loose theme and variations outline, which I find greatly limits the usefulness of the piece in this case. I also think it's annoying that so many people play it slowly to try and imbue it with who knows what, yet the violin rondo is quite fast and elegantly devillish!

I think if I dislike any of the two pieces based on popularity, if one is so intent on making that accusation, it would be LC--but I think that it's even more possible that it's because I spent so long on the piece myself, when I wasn't ready for it, and eventually gave a mediocore performance of it and harmed my wrists...

And I just don't like listening to it as it rarely strikes me as effective.

It all just comes down to, basically, whether you enjoy listening to the piece or not. I've really given up on disliking pieces that are too popular, or at least for the most part.

And I guess it's kind of hard to compare Schumann's etudes to Liszt because for the most part they both used different caprices/other works...I do like Schumann's, sure thing, but I just find that in this case Liszt's are more effective and practical. I'd still love to play Schumann's in a recital, though.