Hommage to Liszt

I was studing Liszt music and decided to write with some of the same style. I started this yesterday and finished it about 20 minutes ago. I usually write in an atonal and 12-tone style so this was a little different for me. Hope you enjoy, the score is still a bit sloppy.

I've never listened to a whole lot of Lizst nor am I familiar with his music but I do find it rather enjoyable. That being said, I can see the Lizst-esque quality to it. Espically after about the minute mark or so and again at around the 2:10 when the piano wankery really kicked in. For better or worse, this is what I most associate with Lizst and you captured it almost perfectly. I felt like the piece lost most of its feeling when the fast section started at 2:10 but I still found it enjoyable, albeit in a more superficial way. Overall, I liked it espically the slower section in the beginning.

Welcome to YC.
Like Nirvana. Im not big on Lizst, and I'm not big on solo piano music. But it was a nice piece, i enjoyed it. The faster part was nice, but at mes. 81, that felt more Chopin than Lizst. But nice work.

I'm not really familiar with Liszt (apart from one Sonata and Consolation no. 3) or 12-tone style or whatever, so I can't really say whether it sounds like him. But it certainly seems like a well constructed and enjoyable piece (also technically challenging!). I liked it as a whole up until about bar 94 when the left-hand quaver rhythm kicks in. Sorry but I just find the rhythm here kind of annoying and overly comical. Oh, and the section from bar 81 sounds a lot like Chopin's revolutionary etude in C-minor. Great job with this piece, and I'm sure it took you a while to notate and compose. But as I said I don't really like it after bar 94.

It's funny that everybody has said that it sounds like Chopin in the beginning of the fast section cause infact that's what I got the influence for it. I absolutely love Chopin, and being polish like him and I really think what he puts in his music comes through as beautiful as anything. So I took a little bit of his work and decided to throw it in there, then the following part(mm. 94) is taken from Liszt again. The large leaps in the left is particularly what I liked about some of his work.

Thanks for the comments, I was about to take the post off YC because no one had posted anything.

See, give it time. Now that you're staying, go around and comment on others' works and maybe others will return the favor.

I try to comment when I have time. The problem is music takes up so much time with ensembles and everything. But I do try when I can.

Well, after so many comments from those who aren't fans of poor Liszt, I suppose it's high time that a Liszt fanatic gives his two bits, or what have you.

So I'm going to handle this in sections.

PLEASE FORGIVE THE ENORMOUS REVIEW... I'll scale it down if I must, but I honestly have a lot to say, which is unusual for myself...

Section One: The Structure / Form.

It's a wide belief (at least, it seems to be) that Liszt's music wasn't very structured; that he wrote in free form, following no rules, blah blah blah, etcetera, and etcetera. However, this is hardly ever the case... and in the piece you've presented here, I feel as though you were leaning stylistically towards the famous Hungarian Rhapsodies. Because of this, I will basing the large amount of my analysis on the elements of his Hungarian Rhapsodies.

Structurally, Liszt's Rhapsodies had a very basic form which allowed for much variation (piece to piece), and indeed, the untrained listener would feel that there were no structural rules. However, every Rhapsody starts out with a slow section - a Lassan, if you will. Your piece begins with a rather nice Lassan section... the alternation of C# to Amaj7 was an interesting little change. Personally, I felt that it was a bit more along the lines of something that, say, Chopin, might have done; Liszt's harmonic structure was based incredibly heavily off of the I and V chords, with passing chords and the like present but not too terribly important, per se. Also, the two-chord changes found so often in the beginning of his Rhapsodies (C# to g#dim in number 2, f# to C# in... well, a few of them), would be used to set up a thematic element which would be later repeated in the Friska, if slightly modulated.

Take a look at the most popular of all the Rhapsodies, the second. (Often subtitled "Lento a Capriccio, seeing as this is the tempo which he assigned the majority of the Lassan.) The entire section is built around a harmonic shift from I to V (or i to V, i to v, etc), with a very few exceptions in order to allow the modulation. There is a LOT of melodic variation, but it's all over the change from I to V, I to V, over and over.

Your piece reminds me intensely of the second Hungarian Rhapsody (which is why I've quoted it so often). Yours is written in c# (minor) but, using accidentals, played in C# (major). You don't go I to V at all in the first part, but you DO use two chords repetitively to give the structural quality. (Since it's such a C# tonality, I'm going to call it a I to VI change). In that sense, it's very Liszt-like. The rhythm you introduced in the bass at measure 11 is, well... not just "very" Liszt-like, it IS Liszt. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, after all... Moving on. There are lots of non-structural aspects which I will mention in the next section.

You begin the accelerando at measure 69. At 81, you state "Vivace," and this indicates the beginning of the Friska. Here, you immediately begin a I to V harmonic basis which you carry through to the end fairly well... but, there's a small problem. This isn't what you set up in the Lassan. Granted, Liszt himself didn't follow every little thing that he'd laid down in the Lassan once he got to the Friska, but there was always some influence. My ears had gotten so used to your pseudo I to VI changes in the Lassan that the sudden emphasis on tonic/dominant was really quite a shock.

Also, your Friska seemed to be a bit more "stream-of-conscience" than the Lassan... Measures 83 to 86 produced a nice theme... that never came back again. It's the same story with 87 to 92. Then, at 94, you introduce a new theme which you carry through to the end fairly uninterrupted. I have only one structural complaint about all of this. In Liszt's Rhapsodies, you'll most likely find two main themes in the Friska - a slightly hectic theme (like your 94-onwards theme), and one that is more down to earth, subtly interwoven over variances in the same harmonic structure. You didn't really do anything with the themes that you did introduce; I would have LOVED to see that long idea from 94 onwards replayed in different ways.

All of that said (gosh, I've been long-winded, and I'm not even through yet), I honestly think you've done well. You should consider studying Liszt's music a bit more; you've obviously got a grasp on the key elements, and all you really need to do now is see how Liszt messes around with said elements himself. Despite all my critical analysis, though, I honestly do think that you've done well for a first-time attempt at Liszt.

Part Two: Musical (Personal?) Elements.

Okay.

This is where you're allowed to disagree with every single thing that I say. Well, almost.

Breaking away from structure, you have taken the time to throw in just about every single Liszt-like feature possible. The grace-notes at the beginning, giving double-statements of the chords; the grace-notes later on, interrupting the flow of the melody with octave-jumping breaks. The aforementioned rhythm you introduced at 11; another wonderfully Liszt-like element that you only touched once (and, in my opinion, not really in the right place)... measures 91 and 92. I'm sure that there's a name for this musical effect, the offsetting of the melody in big, martellato octaves between the two hands, but I don't know it. All I know is that Liszt was a MASTER of this technique, especially on the piano, and none of us today could really hope to perfectly emulate his employment of such brilliant passages. However, you've come close. Think, however, about the ways in which Liszt used such an element; most notably, AGAIN, in the 2nd Rhapsody: he used it as the basis for the Coda, running up and down and all around the piano in a repetitive figure (which he'd already introduced in the Friska), building up to that famous IV - V - I cadence in C# Major. You, on the other hand, have throwin it in... rather randomly... in between two sections of one theme.

I give you endless kudos for attempting to employ this effect, but the strength of such a passage is simply too resolute, too finite, for this usage. (In my opinion.) When I heard that the first time, I honestly had to pull back the recording and listen again. It simply interrupts the theme, without really adding to it at all. This was the one screaming bad spot of the whole piece for me; again, you've shown that you know how to do what Liszt has done, but I would seriously reconsider the way in which you've done it. If you really want the martellato octave jumping, it should honestly be part of a final cadence (or cadenza) or something along those lines, for the already-stated fact that it's such a powerfully resolute figure.

And I'm done talking about that; I think you get it.

The only other problems I had were in the same venue as this; you've thrown in so many Liszt-like elements, but you're not giving them the life expectancy they deserve. I understand that writing something of Liszt proportions is incredibly difficult; I've tried myself, and never once succeeded. For your efforts, you've done incredible. I'm not sure how much personal experience you have composing, but one thing that you'll develop is a sense of development... and honestly, development is all there is to Listz. So many times I've said that his harmonic basis was so simple... so how does this result in ten or fifteen minute piano solos? He developed the heck out of everything. Work on your development, allow your (honestly, brilliant) themes to thrive to their fullest, and I can see an incredible composer coming out of you.

My Final Words.

This is a decent "hommage" to Master Liszt, in my opinion. You've obviously studied his music enough to understand his techniques; the bottom line is, you simply need to allow yourself to let these techniques flow more freely, more "livingly," into the music.

I thank you for taking the time to suffer through this boring, though passionate, little diatribe of mine. I hope that I've provided some insight that you'll find useful, and I sincerely hope that you continue your compositional studies. You've got the groundwork, I tell ya - now you just need to build on it.

~Dallas