| |
Van
Cliburn Competition
&
the Star-Telegram's Interview with Rich DiSilvio
The
2005 Van Cliburn Competition focused much attention on Franz Liszt,
and for good reason...Liszt's works are featured on the program more
than any other composer.
As such the Star-Telegram's reporter Punch Shaw contacted me
(Rich DiSilvio) for an interview for this special article. Although
only small excerpts were included in the final article, which is very
nicely written and
I thank Shaw once again for interviewing me,
I felt it was necessary to publish the full interview below, along
with these cordial comments.
Shaw's
final article describes me as one "...who maintains a worshipful
Web site devoted to Liszt and his music." To the readers
unfamiliar with my work I would like to clarify this worship of Franz Liszt in that my worship is not blind, as many stereotypical
fans might be, but well developed by many long years of study, and
most importantly listening to the master's works. Here in lies one
of the focal points in my Commentary, which has made this site the
premier site on Liszt since its inception back in 1996. The mere fact
that many today read volumes of material about Liszt, some of which
is plagued with bias, yet fail to sit and listen to a broad selection
of his works before passing final judgment on his works is crucial.
Shaw clearly researched well and made many sound points, yet the headline
of the article claims to reveal the truth. And some of these
truths need a rebuttal. For it's understandable that Shaw could not
have manufactured the many months and years necessary to listen to,
and properly assess, Liszt's works under such a short deadline, and
was therefore forced to rely upon the written opinions and assessments
of others, which is understandable when assessing Liszt's record of
acheivements and failures, but not enough for judging his works. Therefore
I can't fault any commercial writer forced to work under such restraints,
and I commend Shaw on a job well done under such circumstances, especially
since my dispute is with only some points, not the majority. As mentioned
it was nicely researched and professionally written, but this lack
of personal familiarity does shine through especially in the realm
of Liszt's works.
Hence
the sad fact remains that many are familiar with Liszt's war horses,
i.e.. Hungarian Rhapsodies and Liebestraum in particular, but the
majority never engage or explore the vast ocean of work that this
man composed, that runs as deep into one's soul as the ocean itself.
This difference gives the well acquainted an indisputable edge and
will validate my words that follow.
Shaw
makes a solid point that since no recordings of Liszt are available
the often heard claim that Liszt was the greatest pianist that ever
lived is unsupportable. I must contend that in this respect Shaw,
at first, seems absolutely right. For music, like art, is in the eyes,
or ears, of the beholder. And we today would love to assess Liszt's
abilities for ourselves. Then again, there are no recordings of Jesus'
voice, nor do we have any actual writings by his own hand. But his
deeds were recorded and carried on despite those who hated and even
crucified him. This analogy, although not meant to compare The Lord
and Liszt personally, does drive home a basic point. Similarly Shaw
even astutely points out the disparaging remarks about Liszt by Clara
Schumann, who certainly bemoaned out of jealousy, or by Joseph Joachim,
who was once a close friend and student of Liszt and then switched
camps moving over to the Brahms school of traditionalists. I certainly
hold no grudge against these people who were drawn to Liszt's stardom
and then turned, returning perhaps to their innate and more traditionalist
temperaments. Again, everyone is entitled to their core direction
of tastes, be it avant-garde or traditional. Yet, interestingly enough
Shaw never used my quote by Chopin that praised Liszt. But the bottom
line is... What determines the greatest? A very difficult honor
to assess for any individual in any field of endeavor...even in the
Van Cliburn Competition. But let me state my case, one earthshattering
elucidation after another...
Fact
number One is that Liszt clearly invented the Piano Recital, regardless of Shaw's
so-called precedent by Johann Christian Bach. For J.C. Bach still
shared a stage with other performers, hence this misses the whole
point, and the monumental impact, as to what a Piano Recital is, or
more importantly what modern stage performance is. Today it is easy
to underrate, or not fully comprehend, the importance of this single
contribution. But if we can block out for a moment our ingrained concept
of stage performance and go back to a time when performers were an
extension of the Aristocracy's fine court of jesters and other miscellaneous
talents who entertained their high and mighty masters this begins
to wash away the colorful blinders we wear today, revealing a grey
past. Musician's of that era performed with an ensemble, while soloists
were allotted just one segment of a full program. Liszt was not only
the first to perform solo, but was also the first to perform entirely
from memory. Additionally, and most importantly, he took this solo
concert out of the Aristocracy's court and into the public arena.
This is major. This is the birth, or should I say, "unshackling"
of the musical artist. For the first time a musician could go out
on stage, all alone, and dazzle a large public audience! Hence Liszt
is the father of solo stage performance, and why he became such a
public figure that was adored by fans and covered by the tabloids.
This single contribution alone is enough to make Liszt the greatest
pianist, since not only can this never be duplicated, but Liszt never
could have achieved such a miraculous feat without the skills and
talent to pull it off. This leads to our next fact.
Fact
number Two focuses
on the fact that Liszt could never have achieved his solo recitals
without star talent. Granted there were virtuosos in his day, many
with abilities that rivaled Liszt's, yet at the end of the day, or
era, one name remained shinning while others slowly waned. For how
many today know the name Thalberg? Not many, yet he certainly put
up a great battle, even going head to head with Liszt and achieving
admirable accolades. So, why did Thalberg wane and Liszt remain? That
beautiful rhyme leads to our next amazing attribute....
Fact
number Three is that Liszt not only could perform like a wizard,
but composed his own music. And not just good music, but great, amazing,
and transcending music. A term even the master prophetically attached
to his stellar Transcendental Etudes. Yet, these etudes don't even
show the full breath of Liszt's genius. For his long and industrious
life bequeathed too many musical miracles to mention here, yet some
are examined in my Commentary for the curious. But, this last and
all important fact adds the undisputed crown upon this man that so
many have documented and ultimately has earned my utmost respect,
which others label worship. And I don't hesitate to decline that label,
for beings of such magnitude are deserving of such respect for their
monumental contributions to progress and civilization. So we may sit
back and honor, and even judge, these new eagles of the piano at the
Van Cliburn Competition, but none of them invented the piano recital,
or solo stage performance in general, and none will be performing
their own creative works at this competition. This last remark is
perhaps the strongest comment, and one that may ruffle many feathers
of these fledgling performers, yet that prophetic fact remains. This
all points to a whole other issue...the lack of new composer/performers
on the Classical stage. This in essence is what I see as being the
most unfortunate and crippling aspects of Classical music today, and
its uncertain future. I deeply applaud the long and hard dedication
that these young talents have cultivated in that star arena of performance,
but The glory of the old masters will never be surpassed as long
as we don't cultivate original creativity, in the arena of composition,
in our youth.
On
closing I would just like to say that selecting the greatest in any
field is not only difficult but subjective, yet some in certain respects
have earned our majority vote as the greatest. Whether one
calls it Greatest or Most Important the core essence remains the same.
In this regard I can even say that I truly believe that some pianists
today most likely have the skills to outplay Liszt, just as athletes
surpass the greats of yesteryear, but some names deserve the highest
honor because of deeds that exceed just the performance. And Liszt's
revolutionary compositions and invention of stage performance adds
immeasurable weight to this equation.
Being
first, on a grand scale, has always held a place in human's hearts
just as George Washington, Neil Armstrong, Elvis Presley and others
attest. Despite the always present faction of detractors their records
rise above into that sphere of sublime greatness. Henceforth, the truth does prevail...as does the claim of Liszt being the greatest
pianist to ever live!
The Interview
Punch
Shaw
We noticed that Liszt was probably the most popular composer
among the pianists trying out for the Van Cliburn International
Piano Competition which begins here in a few weeks. Do you think
there is any particular reason that Liszt is popular with this
generation of pianists or is this just another example of his
enduring popularity?
Rich
DiSilvio
Different generations may go through brief phases, but Liszt
has certainly
proven to have an enduring popularity. Even in times when others
were in
vogue, Liszt remained a hidden pleasure for many pianists who
were still
drawn to his alluring works and contributions to the music industry.
The
fact remains that if one stops to consider just how many great
pianists
after Liszt were drawn to his works, such as Horowitz, Bolet,
Wild, Cziffra
or even Watts making his debut playing Liszt's Piano Concerto
#1, conducted
by Leonard Bernstein, one becomes cognizant of the fact that
Liszt has been
with us all along. Many pianists look up to Liszt due to his
stellar
career, and contribution to the piano literature. For not only
did he write
the most avant-garde music of his day, but he invented the piano
recital and
performed his, and others, works better than anyone else. Even
Chopin is
quoted as saying, though I paraphrase, "I wish I could
steal from him how to
play my own works." Hence these star qualities are why
he was called the
"King of the Piano". As such, Liszt has become the
pinnacle of achievement
for any aspiring pianist. And rightly so.
Punch
Shaw
Your web site does an excellent job of pointing out the contributions
Liszt
made to music. But, can you single out any one thing that you
feel is his
most important legacy?
Rich
DiSilvio
The more one studies Liszt the more one realizes just how versatile
and
unorthodox a thinker he was, which is why I associated Liszt
with Leonardo
Da Vinci in my commentary. They both had extremely fertile minds,
and
although Da Vinci was more diverse, by engaging many different
fields of
endeavor, Liszt's contributions to the music field alone is
vast, but more
importantly revolutionary in each area of endeavor. As a young
man Liszt
began by tackling the piano and took it to its pinnacle, by
orchestrating on
the piano, writing the most advanced harmonies of his day, and
introducing
the master class and piano recital, thus becoming the first
mega star who
could perform solo, rather than share a stage with other performers.
Then at
middle-age he delved into orchestration and invented the Symphonic
Poem, and again developed the most avant-garde harmonies of
his day, which Richard
Wagner keenly studied, adopted, and as many now realize enabled
Wagner to
construct his mature operas. And in his latter years Liszt developed
impressionistic and atonal music preceding Debussy, Schoenberg
and others by
many years. So, it's extremely difficult to focus on just one
of these major
contributions to the field of music. Yet, I can not help feel
that every
stage performer today, of any genre, be it Classical or even
Rock, is
indebted to the long haired Liszt, who wrote captivating music,
mastered his
instrument, toured extensively, and drove crowds wild.
Punch
Shaw
Is it fair to say that Liszt's compositions are the most challenging
and
difficult to play, as compared to the works of other great composers
of
piano music from the Romantic era and early 20th century?
Rich
DiSilvio
Liszt's works were extremely challenging in his day, going beyond
just the physical fingering, yet as he grew older he did go
back to simplify some of his pieces, which achieved the same
or better result, yet with much less difficulty for the pianist.
Virtuosity alone was not what Liszt is all about, for the art
and poetry of the piece was paramount. Even Liszt's Transcendental
Etudes, which demand extreme virtuosity from its performer,
are strategically structured with their own unique challenges
yet with great poetry - creating a wordless opera soaring with
exhilaration, pensive interludes, tender romance and transcending
visions. Other composers have written more difficult pieces,
even in Liszt's day, such as Herz or Dreyschok, so it exceeds
just the difficulty factor as to why Liszt still remains supreme.
No other composer generated as much amazement at the keyboard,
for Liszt had superior skills, was the first to perform entirely
from memory, made drastic advances in piano composition, wrote
penetrating melodies that emotionally captivated his audience,
and had that magical quality called charisma. As an energetic
youth he made sure he remained supreme by openly challenging
his rivals, like a prize fighter, thus becoming a super hero
that always made the headlines. I can almost equate Liszt's
persona in his youth as a Muhammad Ali, Elvis Presley and Vladimir
Horowitz all wrapped up into one super idol. And because Liszt
invented the whole modern practice of stage performance, featuring
his own compositions, which were an astral leap forward, no
other pianist that followed could ever match, or surpass, his
lead. So, in total that can never be duplicated, only admired.
|
The Star-Telegram article can be see here: Liszt
Article
|
