Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Liszt as a good article

I'm glad to inform you that I, and some french colleagues, have succeded in upgrading the french version of Liszt's article to a good article level. So, if you want, I can translate into english the plan for or some informations from our article.

Good day.

Alexander Doria 18:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour! At this point, I think we need all the help we can get. K. Lásztocska 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, wow--I've just had a look at the French version and it is excellent. (I can read French well enough to understand much of the article.) Definitely something to pattern our English-language efforts after. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Doria! :) K. Lásztocska 19:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good actually! --Funper 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is the plan that we have tried to follow. It isn’t achieved yet, and I put a * to each paragraph that isn’t written at the moment.

First part: the man

1) His life: a short biography .

2) The significant features of the man

a)Sentimental life

• The lover : The great love affairs of his life: the three Carolines and Marie D'Agoult.
• The seducer : His charm for his students (Olga Janina), and ephemeral love affair (the countess Laprunarède).*

b)Cosmopolitism and nationalism.

• Nationalism: The issue on Liszt’s nationality.
• Cosmopolitisme: the permanent travels around Europe with mainly: Paris-Weimar-Pest-Rome*

c) The Looking for commitment

• Religious: catholicism, Franc-maçonnerie
• Social: St-Simon, charity concerts (Pest)

Second part: the musician

1. The virtuose pianist

2.The professor

a) Liszt's musical methods

b)Liszt and his students

• Paris 1827-1834.
• Genova: 1836-1838: Valerie Boissier
• Weimar: 1849-1858
• Budapest: 1869-1886

3. A composer of his time

• The commitment to the musique de l'avenir (I don't know what is the english equivalent to this concept: Music of the future?): Weimar.
• Relations with other composers. That is to say, by descending order of size: Wagner, Chopin, Berlioz*, Schumann*, Brahms*, Borodine, Rossini*, Verdi…

Third part: Liszt’s aesthetics

1. A conception of music: does a liszteism exist?

2. The style

3. Musical forms

• The symphonic poem
• The sonata
• The transcribtion
• The rhapsody

Fourth part: The work

1.Piano work

• The transcendal studies
• The Paganini Studies
• The B-Minor Sonata
• The Années de pélerinage
• The rhapsodies
• The transcribtions
• The religious pieces
• The youth works (N.B.: I translated this paragraph from the parts works from his youth and works from his childhood which are in your article)

2.Works for several instruments

• Pieces for piano and orchestra
• Symphonic works: Symphonic poems and Symphonies

3. The lieder

Fifth part: the posterity

1. Liszt's influences on:

• Impressionism
• Richard Strauss*
• Hungarian music*
• Dodecaphony*
• Russian music*

2. Homages paying to Liszt:

• Liszt's societies
• etc…

P.S. If you are interested in a particuliar paragraph, I may give you a sum up of it.

Szervusz - Bien à vous - Guten Tag - Sincerely Yours

Alexander Doria 10:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Marie D'Agout? Cosima?????

I've moved this anon post from the top of the page. They've got a point, actually. We mention Wagner but not that he was Liszt's son-in-law. And no mention of Marie d'Agoult either. Anyone up for it? -- JackofOz 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has not half the information of the one in the German wikipedia. I will expand it as soon as possible. Kraxler 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph from the Wiki article on Marie d'Agoult and amended it accordingly. This should do as a stop-gap until Kraxler finishes his work, especially since it also mentions Cosima and her relation to Wagner. Jonyungk 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, there is nothing about Liszt's religious committment. The article don't even mention that he became a franciscan. Alexander Doria 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It does now. Jonyungk 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

works list(s)

Is it really necessary to have two different articles (part one and part two) for the works list? This isn't a paper encyclopedia, so I see no need to break it up into "chapters", and it will be much easier to deal with if it's all in one place. I'd love to get that giant list of works out of the main article, but splitting up the lists between the two articles will be a major pain. K. Lásztocska 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't know about moving all that info into the work list's; they will be hard to browse if there is going to be facts written all over them. might i suggest that the info in this article's worklist should be moved to articles about the work instead? --Funper 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Liszt's compositional output was so large and new works are still being found among his papers, having all his works on one list sounds unwieldly. How you might want to split it up (by catregory, perhaps?) is entirely up to you. But I think you have the right idea getting the list out of the main article to free up space for what else you might want to put there. Jonyungk 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just dump it in my sandbox for now until we figure out what to do with it. K. Lásztocska 01:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Liszt, Don Sanche and the 1820s

I think that the article is lacking much of Liszt's 1820s. Particulary his love encounter in the 1820s. I will track down the story of this... It's in Project Gutenbergs, I will try to find it. Also, it would be interesting to mention: How did Liszt continue artisticly after the commercial failuer of Don Sanche? --Funper (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The following remarks about Liszt's early love affairs might be interesting or helpful for you.

Looking at the stories told by Liszt's biographers about the affair with his pupil Caroline de Saint Criq, they are in most parts fairy tales, taken not from reliable sources but from fantasy. In fact, only very few sources are available. There is a remark by Liszt in one of his early letters to Marie d'Agoult, „Je n’ai été qu’un enfant, presqu’imbé­cible pour Ca­ro­li­ne“. ("I have been nothing more than a child, nearly a fool, for Caroline.") To this comes an account in Gustav Schilling's Franz Liszt, aus nächster Beschauung. The book was published in the beginning of 1844 and authorized by Liszt himself. According to this, Liszt had left the girl without aggressions of any kind from her father's side. Liszt had only presumed or guessed that Caroline's father wouldn’t like her relation with him. (For some reasons, it must have happened in the beginning of 1829.) During the early 1830s Liszt was involved in relations with several women, although nearly nothing of it can be found in prominent biographer's works. Most important were his relations with Adèle de Laprunarede, Charlotte Laborie and Euphémie Didier. (There were several further ladies besides.) In 1831 Liszt became engaged with Euphémie, following his mother's advice. But in October 1831 the engagement was cancelled from Liszt's side. In March 1832 Liszt met Charlotte again. He got a hell of problems from it, because Charlotte's mother tried to force him into a marriage with her daughter. Concerning Liszt and Adèle, nearly everything written by Alan Walker in his Liszt I is wrong. Liszt met Adèle again on July 3, 1835, when he together with Marie d'Agoult was travelling in Switzerland, and in summer 1839 in Italy.80.144.91.162 (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

...despite the fact that no recording of his playing exists, though his works can still be performed ?

Can they really? I think that the last introduction was, albeit not perfect, written in a mature tone of English, and should be restored and reworked. Suggestions? --Funper (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The new introduction is nonsensically written, mentioning trivialities and rambling ungrammatically instead of doing what a lead section should, which is to provide a concise overview of the article's important points. I intended to redo the intro yesterday but ran out of time, and today I was terribly busy...might still get to it later tonight though. K. Lásztocska^talk 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The current article is thorough and informative, but it seems to have been written or edited by someone lacking an excellent grasp of English. There are quite a few instances where the current article suffers from "translation disease." 98.203.242.84 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have throughoutly read the current intro. There are two things of more or less importance that I could find:

1. Representative of the New German School.
2. Musical works from nearly all genres.

I have restored the old intro with the above reworked into. --Funper (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the present version of your intro and taking a perspective which is by some used to be called "logic", the forth sentence "Liszt is frequently credited ... " is nothing else but a sequence of weasel-words. While you want to credit Liszt with the invention of the symphonic poem, it is shown in the article that the statement is false. (In fact, Liszt did not even invent the connotation "Symphonic poem".) Crediting him with the invention of the "modern solo recital" is a weasel-word again, because there is no possible proof for the statement. (A person, who wanted to show it, would claim he had knowledge of all concert programs since the invention of the piano.) But, without doubt, this might be nothing more than only a matter of my very subjective taste. In order to avoid any struggling about such trivialities, please take the very fascinating version of December 24 again and continue working on that. Since you read Alan Walker's books, you must have become great Liszt experts who will in no time arrive at a FA state with your Liszt, without any need of the very poor help I could give. Best wishes.80.144.153.61 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cut the sarcasm. All I have to say to you right now is that saying someone is "frequently credited" with inventing something is not a weasel term, it is a perfectly valid statement of fact if properly sourced. Also, as for the invention of the modern solo recital: was Liszt not the first to play entire concerts by himself? Was he not the first to play entire recitals by memory? K. Lásztocska^talk 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Both is wrong. While German pianists like S. Thalberg and Clara Wieck played from memory since 1830, at least, Liszt usually played from score in this time. During his stay in Berlin in winter 1841-42, Liszt played only a third of his repertoire from memory.

Liszt did neither invent the "modern solo recital". Examples, earlier than Liszt's concrt in London (your article), were the "Classical soirees" which Ignaz Moscheles gave since January 1837 in London. (See: Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 6 (1837), p.98.) According to a review in the Parisian Revue et Gazette musicale of February 11, 1838, p.62ff, Mocheles had on January 27, 1838, in a first part played two pieces by D. Scarlatti, two pieces by J. S. Bach, two pieces by W. F. Bach, two pieces by C. Ph. E. Bach, two pieces by J. Christoph Bach, a sonata by J. Christian Bach, three pieces by Händel, parts of the sonata "Non plus ultra" by Woelfl, parts of the sonata "Plus ultra" by Dussek, two etudes by Steibelt, an etude by Clementi, two etudes by J. B. Cramer, a Romance by J. Field, an etude by Herz, an etude by Potter, an etude by Chopin (c-Minor), a piece by Mendelssohn, an etude byThalberg (h-Minor) and two of his own etudes. In a second part Moscheles had played Beethoven's sonata f-Minor op.57 and Weber's sonata e-Minor op.70. Neglecting the length of the first part (concert programs in London were usually rather long), the program is much more resembling a "modern solo recital" than any concert given by Liszt. I'm also remembering a concert given by Carl Maria von Bocklet in autumn 1838 in Vienna. (I think, it must have been November 1838.) Bocklet played only "classical solo-works", among them an own arrangement of an Overture by Weber. The inventor of the term "Sinfonische Dichtung" ("Symphonic poem") was Wagner, by the way. Famous examples from his works are the Overtures "Faust" and "Tannhäuser".80.144.62.19 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, sir. K. Lásztocska^talk 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear on why this "New German School"... is mentioned in the lead...

What was Liszt's role in the New German School of Music? It isn't necessary to mention something in the lead that isn't central (or lacks an account thereof). I suggest that it should be changed to something similar to: "He was, as a member of the New German School, one of the most prominent representatives of program music." (or whatever this New German School is, I assume it's about program music since this would mean it's a central part and important). --Funper (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "Neudeutsche Schule" was created in 1859 by Franz Brendel. In order to explain the meaining of the term, a special article would be needed. (It is very complicated.) For this reason, it will be a better choice to keep the present version. Just claiming, program music was the central part of the "Neudeutsche Schule", would be wrong. In order to be a member of that school, there was no need neither to be German nor to compose program music. Brahms, for example, could quite well have become a member of the "Neudeutsche Schule".80.144.104.199 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the meaning of the terms is, if the lead is important enough to stay, in order to be understandable, it should be changed into: "Liszt was, as a member of the New German School, one of the most prominent representatives of A, B and C." Where the most central parts of New German School are mentioned as A, B and C. --Funper (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Among all of the books I read about Liszt (I read plenty of them.) there is not a single one in which it is not regarded as characteristic for him, that as a composer he was one of the most prominent representatives of the "Neudeutsche Schule". Following the strictest Wikipedia rules, this should be enough.80.144.171.227 (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We still don't know what the "Neudeutsche Schule" is. --Funper (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

During July 1 - 5, 1859, there was a "Tonkünsterversammlung" in Leipzig. ("Tonkünstler" can be taken as "musician", although there are some further associations to it. "Versammlung" is "meeting".) At the occasion, the “Allgemeine deutsche Tonkünstlerverein” with Liszt as president was founded. Franz Brendel, who had invited, held a speech and during that speech used the term "Neudeutsche Schule". Strong reactions were following. The famous declaration by Brahms of 1860 might be taken as example. (Brahms did not want to take part in that school because he hated Liszt’s music, not asking whether it was program music or not.) During the first half of the 1860s, there was a very heated debate in the "Neue Zeitschrift für Musik". Brendel, the editor, tried to explain what he had meant with the term. Unfortunately, he was very much fond of Hegel's dialectic. For this reason, your imagination of A, B and C is in no sense suiting.

In current musicology there is a consent after which Berlioz, Wagner and Liszt are considered as leading members of the "Neudeutsche Schule". Further members were Felix Draeseke, Rudolf Viole, Hans von Bülow (as composer), Joachim Raff (only in parts), Alexander Ritter, and several further artists. But, regarding the concrete meaning of the term, there are different opinions until today. (My own opinion would be that the intellectual originator was Fétis. This opinion is shared by Serge Gut.) It might be a good choice, to imagine the “Neudeutsche Schule” as group of artists who wanted to support each others. (In reality, Berlioz was one of Liszt’s worst enemies.)

Btw, "Neudeutsche Schule" is somewhat different from "New German School". "New German School" could be "Neue deutsche Schule" or "Neudeutsche Schule". In the first case, the school is new while the meaning of "German" hasn't changed. In the second case, the meaning of "German" as well as the school is new. “Neudeutsch” can be taken with meaning of being more cosmopolitan. However, there are newer publications by some American Liszt scholars who want to see “Neudeutsch” as national socialistic. (A very stupid opinion, from my own perspective.)80.144.149.124 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so that's all great, but after all the above comments, there's still no explanation as to what this term means. Even the most complicated ideas can be boiled down to a few "A, B, and C"-type representative statements; thus, I think it's a pretty reasonable demand by some editors here that we not use a term that isn't explained anywhere. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is your opinion, the connotation "Neudeutsche Schule" can be boiled down to a few "A, B, and C"-type representative statements, it might be a good idea, you do it by writing an article about that school. I'm looking forward to read it.

Coming to the tags at my previous posting, I'm a little astonished, since usual talk page style is quite different. But if you’d like to get such references, why not? The origin of the declaration by Brahm's is known from his correspondence with Joseph Joachim. Brahms, from his perspective, had tried to write the declaration in a kind so that only Liszt, but not Wagner, was attacked. After Joachim had suggested giving some concrete details of the critique, Brahms wrote to this, it was superfluous because all of Liszt's music was "Scheißmusik".

Concerning the case Berlioz, it is known by everybody being involved in current Liszt research that he agitated against Liszt in Paris and in St. Petersburg. If you want to find sources, you may try to get an edition of Hans von Bülow's letters. Bülow visited Paris around 1853. In one of his letters he reported that Berlioz was agitating against Liszt. Also, a well known example is Berlioz' reaction to the performance of Liszt's "Gran Mass" in 1866 in Paris. It was Berlioz, who distributed the opinion, Liszt's works were the negation of all music. Berlioz' agitating against Liszt in St. Petersburg is known from several sources. For example, you may take the diaries of Cosima Wagner, and in the index search for "Berlioz".

In order to find a source for the national socialistic theory, please try to get a list of the volumes of the "Franz Liszt Studies Series", edited by Michael Saffle, Pendragon Press. You will find a volume concerning a congress at Bellagio in Italy. (It might be No. 7 or 8.) The volume includes an essay by Saffle about the "Legende von der heiligen Elisabeth" and a further essay "Deconstructing the New German School". (I don't remember the author's name, but it was a lady.) Reading those essays, you will find everything you were asking for.80.144.145.166 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, since you don't have an account I must say this here, I think that you are doing a great job on the article! :) But when something difficult is mentioned in the article, especially in the lead, it must be explained further so that all people can understand. --Funper (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!:) In order to give a momentary solution, I'd suggest giveng a link to War of the Romantics. However, there are still many mistakes in that article too.80.144.87.234 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of "New German School"

The following is an excerpt from the History of Western Music, 7th ed., which should help clarify some of the apparent confusion over the meaning of the term, "New German School". I quote at some length:

In 1859, music critic Franz Brendel proposed the term "New German School" for the composers he felt were leading the new developments, primarily Wagner, Liszt, and Berlioz and their disciples in the next generation. Although he acknowledged that neither Liszt nor Berlioz was German, he claimed they were German in origin because they took Beethoven as their model. The term crystaliized the polarization among German composers between Liszt, Wagner, and their followers on one side, who believed that music could be linked to the other arts, and on the other side the advocates of absolute music such as Brahms and music critic Eduard Hanslick ...

Composers [who] identified with the Wagnerian side of the debate include Liszt himself after he abandoned his career as a virtuoso; Anton Bruckner, Brahms's contemporary; and two in the next generation, Hugo Wolf and Richard Strauss. Wagner's view that music should subordinate itself in a collective artwork with drama, poetry, and other arts posed problems for those who composed orchestral music, songs, and choral works. Each of these four composers found individual solutions to this dilemma -- and to the more general problem of how to compose for an audience now steeped in the classical tradition. (p.726)

Thus, there we have it -- the term boiled down to its core elements. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Liszt's playing with lid open

The question seems to be not really important. But since it is apparently of interest for you, I looked at E. Burger's splendid Liszt-iconography (650 pictures). At p.68, there is a famous drawing by Achille Devira of 1832. Behind Liszt, a grand with score and closed lid is to be seen. At p.122, there is a sketched drawing of January 1840, showing Liszt on the stage of the theatre of Pest, waiting to receive the famous "sabre of honour”. The lid of the grand behind Liszt is closed, although he had shortly before played on it. The first picture I could find, showing Liszt with a grand with opened lid, is on p.142. It is a drawing by Th. Hosemann and shows Liszt, very much gesticulating (like Lang Lang in his worst moments), but playing from score. It is from January 1842. At the same page, there is another picture from Berlin, showing Liszt who plays from score again. A further picture on the same page is a caricature with two parts. In the first part, Liszt is being invited by a very beautiful lady with words, "Möchten Sie nicht spielen?" ("Won't you like to play?") Liszt seems to have agreed, since in the second part he is shown when playing on a grand with opened lid, but in front of empty chairs. For this time, he has no score. The painting by Miklós Barabásat at the article's top shows Liszt and, again, a grand with closed lid. The manuscript score is one of Liszt's own Hungarian pieces. Looking at Liszt's virtuoso colleagues, there is a famous litography of spring 1836, showing S. Thalberg who plays without score on a grand with opened lid.80.144.91.188 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the guidelines at WP:TALK, this entire section should be removed as irrelevant "general discussion not directly related to the article." K. Lásztocska^talk 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, have a careful look at the article's chapter 3.3. You will find it there.80.144.65.229 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, he played with lids open. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Funper (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert to Lehmann Portrait

On 9 January 2008, the annonymous 80.144.136.239 replaced the old painting by Lehmann with another by Miklós Barabás, and placed this edit under the heading of "some cosmetics". I don't see any reason for changing this part of the article, and in my opinion (and the opinions of a few others -- see this archived discussion), the Lehmann one is better. Because this appeared to be the consensus, I've reverted the changes. --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I like both paintings and think either would be appropriate--it's just a matter of preference as far as I'm concerned. The Lehmann one might be a bit more "iconic," for what that's worth. As far as I can see the earlier discussion was about the old lead picture, which was a very unflattering photograph of an elderly Liszt with a strange grimace on his face and a big wart on his nose. Ick. K. Lásztocska^talk 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the Lehmann picture to the new place since it was better suiting to the Italian years.80.144.115.162 (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. --Todeswalzer|Talk 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would actually like to see the Hanfstaengl photo of 1858 as main picture, since it is a well-taken photography. --Funper (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hanfstaengl photo of 1858 is better suited for the lead and there was a void in the Concert tours section where Lehmann's go perfectly well. This picture is also interesting but I am unable to reach the link as it looks two pictures have the same name.... [[1]] --Flying tiger (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now seriously. The photo by Franz Hanfstaengl that has now taken the lead section is neither an improvement on either of the two previous portraits, nor even of proper shape/size for its location. I fail to see why this was chosen as a replacement. --Todeswalzer|Talk 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the two points : size and nature of the picture... I fail to see how someone would prefer a painting to a real depiction of the man as neither a youngster or senile.... as for the size, its long shape fits perfectly beside the text... --Flying tiger (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the photo is better but it may need slight recropping. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration, here are two other excellent photographs: [2] [3] (well, I think the second one is a daguerrotype and not an actual photograph, but the point is it's an image taken from real life, not a painting.) K. Lásztocska^talk 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know them. The first one is from the same session by Hansftaengl. The second is one of the two daguerrotypes taken while Liszt was in his early thirties. You can see the other on Brendel's Deuxième Année de pélerinage, Philips 420 169-2. I would agree for the second one if you prefer it for the lead but, if so, mine should be put back in the text and not deleted.--Flying tiger (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are determined to use a photograph, then I would also prefer the second one suggested by Lastochka. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Only a small minority could speak and understand Hungarian

There is this sentence in the article: "The main language was German, while only a small minority could speak and understand Hungarian." Here the article speaks about the Hungarian Kingdom generally, which was part of the Habsburg Empire back then. I think this is just simply not true. It might have been true in the Eisenstadt area, where Liszt grew up. However, generally in the Hungarian Empire, German was the elite language, but at least about half of the population still spoke Hungarian primarily. Others spoke Slovakian, Croatian, Serbian, German, Romanian. I am pretty sure, that most people (peasants) didn't speak German at all. So, unless some citation happens here, I am going to delete this sentence. Pzs (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, have some patience. I'll add a source the other day.80.144.90.197 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Scholar: for your reading pleasure and enlightenment I most kindly direct your attention to this guideline. K. Lásztocska^talk 14:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Being myself as kind as you, I may very politely ask you to show me the "Only Alan Walker's books must be used"-paragraph in the Wikipedia rules. Without boasting, I may add that the knowledge I'm sharing with you for free is actually huge. Why not being a bit more grateful for it?80.144.171.227 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not mentioned anything about Alan Walker for quite some time. My reason for directing your attention to WP:OWN should be obvious, and it has nothing to do with the extent of your knowledge or the sources you prefer to cite. Moreover, I have never intended to disparage your knowledge or intelligence: rather, my complaint is that you still seem unaware of what is and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a PhD thesis) and an unwillingness to differentiate between trivia and major important points. Your grasp of neutral writing style also still seems suspect. Also, your boundless arrogance infuriates me. So you see, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Alan Walker. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As everybody can see, your reply is full of personal attacks.80.144.110.206 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Had you never attacked me in personal terms, I would be worried. But given the nature of many, many messages you left on my talk page last year, I think I still hold the high ground here. K. Lásztocska^talk 14:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for avoiding a misunderstanding: I never put personal attacks of any kind to your talk page.80.144.87.234 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. For the better part of a month you harassed, tormented and insulted me. Claiming now that you did not is not only a lie but rather offensive in itself. K. Lásztocska^talk 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I may most kindly remind you that the contents of your talk page is not among the issues to be debated at this place. If someone takes interest, he might investigate your archives, making up his own mind from them.80.144.97.226 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. K. Lásztocska^talk 15:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Expand "Musical works"-section

This section must be expanded since it in current state only covers works direcly related to Années de Pèlerinage, a non-existent portion of Liszt highly varied oeuvre.--Funper (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everything can be done at once. (The article's parts which I did not yet revise are still crowded with mistakes.) Please have some patience, and everything will be done.80.144.171.227 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Sections of this article are non-sensically written and since they lack references, it will be assumed that they're all original research ("Il peneroso, means Liszt[?!?]"). Those who made these additions; please add references or these sections will most likely be tagged. --Funper (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite clear which kind of a thing you presently want. Should it be a reference for "Thoughtful" as nickname for Liszt himself, you'll get it. But the rest of the paragraph is understandable from itself, and, besides, is obviously true. Even in most pedantic scholarly works such arguments are allowed. Btw, the example was given in order to show that Liszt's understanding of program music was of a highly associative kind. I could have given dozens, not to say hundreds of further examples instead. (To give a further hint: In the first piece "Sposalizzio" of the second volume of the Années de Pèlerinage, with "Mary and Joseph" Marie d'Agoult and Liszt are meant.) Liszt certainly did not bother with reflecting your rules when composing his works. From his own perspective, you have to take his works just in the kind of which they are or leave them.80.144.171.227 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can report facts (?) all you like but you must CITE PUBLISHED SOURCES to back them up. Talk-page theses do NOT count as citations. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To explain further, it's one thing for a commentator to claim that "Liszt meant X when he wrote Y", but it's quite another for us to present that as if it were a fact. It's a fact that the commentator said this about Liszt (whether it's true or not), but not a fact that that was what Liszt actually meant. The only source for what Liszt actually meant is Liszt himself. Another point: if you come to Wikipedia and edit an article, you agree to abide by Wikipedia's rules, or you'll get blocked. That makes "you" part of "us", so please don't remove yourself from the equation by talking about "your rules". In any case, it's not a matter of requiring Liszt to obey our rules. He wrote his music and lived his life according to his own rules, and we're writing an article about him according to our rules, which prohibit editors from adding material that is not backed up with an authoritative external source. I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that. Without such a rule, we'd have to allow all manner of unimagineable rubbish, and we'd be a laughing stock. It's all about quality. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'll give a published example instead. The author will be one of the most prominent kind.80.144.110.206 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a reference concerning "La Notte", and for this reason changed my mind.80.144.87.234 (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Four ages of Liszt

I put the image to a new place because there is no connection with the Liszt of the 1820s and early 1830s. The first part "As a boy" actually is of 1842. (In Hamburger's edition of Liszt's correspondence with his mother, p.145, an exemplar of the original with autograph line of a Hungarian march, signed by Liszt, can be seen.) The second part is of May 1838. For reasons of style, I don't like that image very much. But if your taste is different, it might be a good idea to put it to the article's head. It shows Liszt in different periods of his life at least. For the moment I put it to the head of "Works". (It is not well suiting to that place either.) The painting by Barabás is suiting to its present place. However, your Liszt is Hungarian, and the painting was the only image I could find in Wikipedia, which shows him as that. It was this reason for which, some weeks ago, I put that image to the article's head. (Liszt had his warts already in his youth, by the way. They can be seen on a mask, taken in spring 1839 in Rome from his face.)80.144.110.206 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Liszt-admirer Template

This user is a fervent admirer of Franz Liszt.

--Funper (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article's size

For several reasons, an article about Liszt must be of larger size than an article on a bird like the Barn Swallow. At first, his biography actually was most complicated and complex. All books, with some relevance, about Liszt are therefore very thick. At second, there is a plenty of literature about him, taking this or that point of view. Unfortunately, all books (at least all of them which I know) include many mistakes. Alan Walker's books, representing a very old fashioned point of view, are crowded with them. (Not just some dozens, but literally many thousands of errors and mistakes are included. However, as I must admit, "popular" books about Liszt are even worse.) For this reason, there is no possibility of relying on a single author. Everything must be taken from original sources instead. At third, forth, etc. there are further reasons besides. A usual solution of the problem regarding the article's size might be, to separate life and work. In order to spare space, you could also take a critical look at chapters 3, 4 and 5. Much of them seems to be superfluous. (From my perspective at least.) Besides, many weasel terms are included.80.144.145.120 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...except Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning it is a tertiary source, meaning it should be based on secondary (not primary) sources. Incidentally, I am more willing to accept the reliability of published and respected authors than an anonymous gentleman on the internet--no personal offence meant to yourself of course. K. Lásztocska^talk 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But there is a difference between original research and research based on primary sources. Primary sources are the original sources of information, in this case probably written during the life of Franz Liszt. If something is taken from one of these sources, it is found out secondhand. Original research in this case would be finding something out about Franz Liszt firsthand and then putting it into the article. If a piece of information is recorded for the first time, it is a primary source, rather than being based on one, and that is what is unreliable. I think that the anonymous editor is referring to information from primary sources, rather than original research. Someone the Person (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Alan Walker's books, representing a very old fashioned point of view, are crowded with them. (Not just some dozens, but literally many thousands of errors and mistakes are included." This is "somewhat" debatable. Alan Walker's book is exemplary - it has been reviewed as such by the academic communities all around the world, one of the most positive points about the book is its NEW approach (how is Walker old-fashioned?). Talking about hundreds and thousands of mistakes in Walker's biography is non-sense. If it is good enough for the leading British, American, Hungarian, French and German music-scholars then I think it is good enough for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, relying on Walker is not equal to relying on a single source - Walker sums up 150 years of Liszt-scholarship. And what on Earth do you mean by "everything must be taken from original sources"??? What is an original source? Primary sources are used by scholars to write full-scale biographies - which are in turn used to supply information to encyclopedia-entries. I.e: The Liszt-article in "The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians" - signed by Alan Walker, Maria Eckhardt and Rena Charnin-Mueller - arguably three of the top5 in current Liszt-scholarship.

Best, G from Conn.

on second thought...

...how about we all just sit back, get out of the way, and let this anonymous gentleman write the article himself. There's certainly no point in arguing with him, and the project must be more than half-over at this point anyway. Anonymous Scholar, please feel free now to do whatever you like with the article: when you are finished, I strongly encourage you to submit it as a Featured Article candidate. That process should be very illuminating for all concerned. K. Lásztocska^talk 13:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why this negative tone of voice? He adds verifiable (!) sources so there is nothing wrong with his contributions as far as I understand. He has expanded the article significantly during the course of a few months. I appreciate his work, so should everyone else. --Funper (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have several problems with the recent contributions--incidentally, these objections are from a purely professional standpoint and have nothing to do with my history of not getting along with 80.144. Firstly is a simple matter of style and scale: it's all quite wordy, which admittedly can be trimmed down, and goes into unnecessary detail for this encyclopedic format (recounting every stop along the way of a dozen concert tours? Fine for a book, but not for an encyclopedia article.) Secondly, I am troubled by the very heavy reliance on primary sources (Liszt's letters, contemporary reviews etc.) Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that while primary sources are by no means prohibited, they should be used with caution, and secondary sources should be used whenever possible. Finally and perhaps most important, our anonymous contributor has stated quite clearly the philosophy behind his edits to this article, which in Wikipedia terms amounts to pure and simple original research. I stress again that there is nothing wrong with that sort of research and writing--it might make for an interesting contribution to a musicology periodical, for example, or a thesis, or what-have-you--but the point is that such writing is inappropriate for Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. We are a compendium of the world's knowledge as it exists, we are not a testing ground for new theories and hypotheses.

As for the grumpy tone of my earlier message, I'd been having a very unpleasant day in real life and I apologize for allowing it to spill over into my Wiki writing. K. Lásztocska^talk 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:17 15 February, 2008 (UTC)

Complaining about "original research", you might have overseen a tiny aspect of the affair. I know those Wikipedia rules quite well for myself and have always kept perfect congruence with them. Everything I wrote until now was actually published before. Did you really think, a person could possibly have done all of the monstrous work of that "original research", working through entire libraries of original sources, and this during nothing more than the previous two months? When taking about a “quite wordy” style, a critical look at Alan Walker's book might be enlightening for you. In contrast to him, I gave precise, solid facts, and nothing else than that. Btw, your statement concerning "every stop along the way of a dozen concert tours" is by far not true. (In fact, you are trying to equalize an ant with an elephant. Liszt’s biography has a couple of further details to offer.) If you think a detail was superfluous, this very talk page is the appropriate place for debating it. But, please, do it by giving concrete points instead of weasel terms.80.144.144.105 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can talk this over?

Lásztocska: You certainly make a valid point that we should be keeping our primary sources to a minimum, and making use of secondary sources wherever possible (and this is, of course, reaffirmed in Wikipedia's guidelines). Both you and 80.144 have added a great deal to this article, and we should be careful not to dimiss anyone's contributions wholesale, for the effort is very much appreciated by the Wikipedia community. I think our discussion here would be aided considerably if you could point us in the right direction, so to speak, regarding your concerns about 80.144's sources. (As an aside to 80.144: people on Wikipeida have a tendency to feel that annonymous users are not [as] accountable for their edits; for this reason, our discussion might helped along if we could attach a "face" to you.) I'm sure we can all come to an amicable agreement. --Todeswalzer|Talk 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate for myself, coming to an amicable agreement. Concerning the question of original sources, the main idea is that a reader of the article must have a chance to to decide, what is right and what is wrong. He can take the quoted sources and compare. In contrast to this, citing "See: Walker: Virtuoso Years, p.so and so" says nothing more than that Walker's opinion was taken over. During the previous 25 years, Liszt research has made huge progress. While nobody knows, of which kind the picture of Liszt of 2025 will be, it is absolutely sure that it will be nothing of the Alan Walker kind.80.144.92.161 (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment about the "dispute". The article is too long. By a large margin. However, the information contained therein is very valuable. I suggest that the article be split, and the various chapters transformed into articles of their own, with only an outline left in the main article. As for primary/secondary sources I believe that since there is no real controversy on what is being said, the debate is more or less moot, once the splits have occurred...CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last read this article, so I was quite shocked to find it has grown to such colossal proportions. As I understand it, work is underway to make the text more manageable, but I would like to add my opinion on this comment:

Concerning the question of original sources, the main idea is that a reader of the article must have a chance to decide, what is right and what is wrong. He can take the quoted sources and compare.

It's not expected of either editors or readers to make sense of primary sources. That's the job of serious, academic literature, which is what this article should mainly refer to. The fact that some of the current opinions regarding Liszt may be out of fashion by 2025 is besides the point. An encyclopedia should not be a repository of raw data for the reader to evaluate. On any given subject, it should ideally present the prevailing expert/academic view. Quoting primary sources is okay insofar as the statements or either 1) uncontroversial or 2) intended to illustrate a controversy. But even then, they should be kept to a minimum, especially for the sake of brevity. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pianists other than Leslie Howard who attempted the complete piano works of Liszt

To my knowledge, only one other person has attempted this massive feat, the French pianiste France Clidat. She still turns up on Google with misleading claims to have completed the project – [4]. However, she only completed 26 CDs, as against Howard’s 95-odd, and Howard certainly made many premiere recordings of various works. (actually, Clidat's recordings were made back in the LP days of the late 60s or early 70s, before CDs were invented – I still have 6 boxed sets of LPs of Clidat’s performances that I bought in the early 70s.)

However Clidat has a fantastic technique and I still get great enjoyment from her playing, so although she’s on the jury of the International Franz Liszt Piano Competition [5], I’m surprised she’s not better known to the public at large - as judged by not only Wikipedia having no article on her, but also her name appearing only twice in Wikipedia at all – [6]. I’ll add her to my list of articles to create. Is there anyone else who has ever set out on a complete recorded survey of Liszt’s piano works? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning All Above Discussions

This article is too long. It is too detailed for an encyclopedia article. Even the discussion about the article is too detailed. On one hand it seems like there is too much information, but I believe there can be a happy medium found with some restructuring.

It would be best to consider an alternate structure to the article than linear chronology. Perhaps separating sections on his love/personal life, stylistic and compositional contributions to music, etc.

The entire point of an encyclopedia article is to provide critical facts and context for a subject, with an especial aim toward an audience who is *unfamiliar* with the subject. It is inarguable that someone unfamiliar with Liszt would feel daunted and exhausted trying to sift through this wonderfully detailed and cited article for "essential" information and a brief life summary. For decent (though everything needs work) examples of length and division, in the canon of classical music, see Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Frédéric Chopin, Felix Mendelssohn.LeRoytheKing (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, thank you. I completely agree. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. I think the reader would be more interested to read a paragraph about Liszt's rhapsodies rather than knowing how much Hungarian magnates gave him for his studying. An article devoted to liszt's life ought to be created and only a simple sum up should be written on this matter, in the main article. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I aggre with Doria. We should create separate articles instead, like Beethoven's article. --Funper (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, talk is talk, but this needs to get done. It would be ideal with someone who originally wrote the article (80.114), or someone who has invested time in knowing intimately Liszt's life. If no one responds to this in the next week, I will plan and begin executing a division of pages. I will probably publish it here before I implement it; feel free to comment.LeRoytheKing (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote myself a sum up in the French version of the article, but I haven't enough time, currently, to translate it. So, good luck… Alexander Doria (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the bulk of this article is the biography. If you split that out, it would shorten things enormously, maybe making a Life of Franz Liszt article. Once that's done this will be much, much shorter and you can turn your attention to the later sections. --Masamage ♫ 04:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Miroslav Demko?

I'm wondering whether this sentence should be deleted: "While in the vast majority of the newer Liszt literature he is regarded as either Hungarian or German, there is a small minority that views him as Slovak."

The "small minority" consists of one (1) man: Miroslav Demko. I was trying to find other articles or works by him, but nothing else shows up on JStor, RILM and WorldCat. I am working on my post-graduate degree in musicology with a focus on Liszt, and thus have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles about him but I have never come across mr. Demko's name. Likewise I could not find another scholar who was propagating a Slovakian connection in Liszt's genealogy. I believe that it is a disservice to the article to include such marginal views. Unless someone gives me a reason why Demko should be referred to in this article I will delete it later this week.

Best, G from Conn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.167.127 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually think this sentence ought to be deleted. Some analysts also believed liszt to be Italian or Austrian or Czech, and their argument was not weaker than Demko's. We cannot mention all these minor viewpoints in the article, which stands already long enough.

Besides, in order to put one end to all these nationality debates, why shouldn't we write that the idea of nationality did simply not exist in the 1811's Hungary. Liszt lived in a time when one could be as well French, Hungarian, Germanian Austrian… The only valid identity was European and Christian. Therefore most arguments over this issue sound a bit nonsensical. Alexander Doria (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to raise the question, based on the same nofinding. Based on your comments I must up my courage and delete it. :) --Rembaoud (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Republic of Hungary, and there were The Kingdom of "Hungary". Actually, at origin, there were only about one third of Hungarians in the Kingdom. And then there were other nations. But in hungarian and english, everything is "hungarian". And that´s the same problem all over again.--Michalides (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"lisztes molnár"

The last sentence in the "Origins" paragraph must be a joke. The "lisztes molnar"-argument DOES NOT exist. It is a well-proven and commonly accepted fact that Adam Liszt changed the spelling of the family name because in Hungarian "List" would be pronounced as "Lisht" and "Liszt" as "List." "List" is also a quite common Austro-Germanic last name, while "Liszt" is extremely rare in Hungary (I would go a far as calling it unique). "Lisztes" is somewhat more frequent - however there would be no reason whatsoever to drop the suffix "-es." "Liszt" does indeed mean "flour" in Hungarian - but "List" also means "slyness, cunning" in German.

It is commonly accepted that Liszt's traceable ancestors are of Austro-Germanic origin - it is even more of a common place that Liszt himself thought of himself as a Hungarian. This is all we know at this point. So I would like to delete this "lisztes molnar" sentence as well as the above-mentioned Demko-reference. Let me know if anyone has a valid reason why it should stay. (I am still hoping that it was put in there as a joke...)

Best, G from Conn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.167.127 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to get the book: Óvári, Jósef: Ferenc Liszt, Budapest 2003. You will find it there. Your assumption, "Liszt" was "extremely rare", even "unique", is wrong, btw.80.144.88.65 (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please would somebody more prolific in English add to/adapt the family name issue: I researched white page telephone directories of Hungary, Austria, and Germany for Liszt and List. There are over 2000 List entries all over Germany; about 680 in Austria (practically no overlap to the Hungarian border: 8 persons in small Burgenland, the state along the Hungarian border; 21 in even smaller Vorarlberg on the western border 800 km away and across the Alps; but 220 in large Styria and 205 in even larger Lower Austria, both instances - none near Hungary - dispersed all over their territory; also among the rural population). These can not be interpreted as Hungarian emigrants. (There are four(!) "Liszt" in Germany, two of them with distinctly Hungarian first names; 60 in Austria, 30 of them in small rural Burgenland (obviously autochthonal), 20 in Vienna (capital, main destination of migrants).

Hungary: LIST: 1(!). LISZT: 390.

Austria: LIST: 680, everywhere. LISZT: 60 (concentration: Burgenland, the state along the Hungarian border)

Germany: LIST: over 2000, everywhere. LISZT: 4(!)

This speaks cleary for a German name "List". (If it would be derived from Hungarian, the Liszts would be the only Hungarian clan of which its great mayority dwells abroad and has dispersed in the German and Austrian countryside.) "List" is more frequent in east-of-central-Austria (1 out of 7000) than in Germany (1 out of 37.000), where it is more frequent in the south (Bavaria: 1 out of 23.000).

If the Hungarian "Liszt" (1 out of 39.500 in Hungary) has an independent origin or even not (it could have come with German immigrants Maria Theresa of Austria ordered to settle in ravaged areas of Hungary) remains to be researched by onomatologists (please, no nationalist layperson intrusion here).

German white pages (in English), Austrian yellow and white pages (in German), Hungarian white pages (in English)

Best greetings, WaldiR - Please answer here to keep the discussion together, but notify me of it at my talk page so I hear about it. 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental error in the above kind of "List versus Liszt" research. In older times, a distinct kind of spelling of a name just did not exist. For official purposes, people in Hungary went to their church where the priest wrote their names in the kind he thought he had heard it. In Óváry's book there are examples from old registers where the names of members of a single family were written as "List", "Liszt", "Lyst", "Lüschd", "Listl", etc. During winter 1839-40 Liszt thought, the name of one of his ancient forbears was "Listius" or "Listhi". (Or, maybe, "Listhius" or "Listi".) In other words, a conclusion from a specific spelling of a name to a distinct family was impossible in those days.

An additional remark might be useful for the purpose of avoiding misunderstandings. Looking at the present state of the article’s chapter "Origin", some editors have added statements being taken from sheer fantasy. Examples are the theories, Liszt's children would have been Hungarians, Adam Liszt and Franz Liszt had both solely Hungarian passports etc. While all this is actually only stuff, I did neither correct it nor did I enter a new debate on those fascinating issues. I was just remembering former explosions of stupidities in the archives. Speaking earnestly, if a person's interest in Liszt is restricted to questions of such kinds (Yes, I know! Liszt’s piano works are very virtuosic besides.), he should better choose a different occupation, instead of wasting his own as well as other persons’ time.80.145.131.137 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed answer! Spelling rules being well or not understood or applied in those days is not the issue. Words are sounds in the first place, letters are subsidiary. Adam Lis(z)t's - a well educated man's - switch from s to sz under the circumstances (drawing attention by "exotic" nationality of rising self esteem amid the blooming period of the Hungarian literature reform, see German wp for content) rules out every doubt: The name had to sound for him "List". (Also the Latinisation you mention points out the "st"-quality.) Now how would you "hungarize" a name? Would you want the sound preserved? Or keep the old spelling and get a foreign pronounciation of it? (The third option: It is a Hungarian name, was understood by Adam L. as Hungarian, but looked too little Hungarian for the Western target audience? Naw...) From the shere fact that spelling was changed, to me, follows: The intention was to keep the sound. Who intends to have his lifelong and his forefathers' name mispronounced for the future?

It is unthinkable, that a Southeast-German speaker would pronounce end sounds "-ist" (st like in street) as "-isht". Every German speaking school-child, even in those days, would know to spell a "sh"-sound differently (sch).

On the other hand: Every Hungarian s sounds "sh" if not followed by z (then it sounds "s").

Conclusion: Adam List made his and his son's name Hungarian (in writing), which before it was not (to his understanding), and kept the pronounciation as it was before.

The hint to priests' orthographical practices is not so compelling. Priests change, priests have different levels of literal and linguistic abilities and interests. If a priest was a nationalist of either side, his record keeping about the half-literal peasants may even have been biased... But here it is the very well educated Adam Liszt (studied philosophy, worked as higher ranking scribe; son of a teacher, notary, and scribe) himself taking action! If we presume that he did not know what he was doing... well.

By the way, there are other examples after the same pattern. ("Pauss", a German name spelled in Germany Paus, Pauss, Pauß, becomes only in the easternmost area of Austria, at the Hungarian border, and in Hungary: "Pausz".) And finally let us not loose sight of the undisputed fact: Liszt father and son only knew a few words of Hungarian.

"A person's interest in Liszt restricted to..." - think that over. It could well be that general knowledge comes first, and the more you know, the more your interest extends to details. I have read two biographies of his', and my interest is into his personality as one engaged in the cultural sector, almost avant garde in his time. His musicianship bears no more surprises for me. I'm at the stage of seeing the big picture and picking out details. Objectionable? And: We all use/abuse our time here voluntarily. Nobody is forced to delve into this issue. By the help of headlines, we can skip this crap.

WaldiR (talk) Please answer here to keep the discussion together, but notify me of it at my talk page so I hear about it. 15:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Much could be said to it. For example: When the spelling of Adam List's (or Liszt's) name was changed he visited the gymnasium in Preßburg. However, exactly at that place there was no need for fearing, his name might have to be heard as "Lischt". People coming to Preßburg could as well have come to Stuttgart or München, since practically everyone spoke German. The theory, Adam Liszt had changed his name's spelling for reasons of the said kind, is old. But nobody gave a contemporary source for it. The question is therefore open. BTW, since I got the impression, you took my last posting as an offending attack, I'm sorry for it. It was certainly not meant in this sense.85.22.20.109 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

changed

I was wrongly thinking (bad memory) that it was at the start of his son's career only that Adam List baptized himself and little Franz "Liszt", as a marketing measure. But I must forget this. Thanks for pointing out the correct chronology. Although Preßburg's population was German, the adolescent Adam L. could sketch out a future when he, a Hungarian subject, might be living a professional career somewhere else (as it happened) in the state of Hungary, which was overwhelmingly Hungarian-populated, and where nationalism was on its rise. After all, being in Preßburg itself is already a dislocation from his native place, and a hint on commonplace mobility that would not stop there. But then, the reason for Adam L. becomes more obscure, that's for sure.
No offence reached me. I really only meant - because you were maybe unaware of it - that trying to silence annoying contributions by insinuating a too narrow mind and trying to debase "wrong" focusses without any further ado is no reasonable argument. "a person's interest in Liszt ... restricted to questions of such kinds ... should better choose a different occupation, instead of wasting his own as well as other persons’ time" is just a more flowery phrase for an inane "he is/you are stupid" - a distractive conversation trick to replace content and reason with emotion and the issue of personal legitimacy and authority. And then I added the example of my own approach. And yes, I am really very convinced that our discussion is over the length of the prophet's beard, to avoid ruder words, and that we could spend our time much better, easily :-) For instance: sleep.
WaldiR (talk) Please answer here to keep the discussion together, but notify me of it at my talk page so I hear about it. 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Too long? Separate bibliography?

There is a 'too long' tag on this. Would it be a good idea to make the bibliography into a separate page? --Kleinzach 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From my own point of view it will be the best idea to complete the article first and afterwards seperate "Life" and "Works". The bibliography should better be kept since the short titles, as being used in the notes, were otherwise not understandable.85.22.22.132 (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are any other composers organized in that way - with seperate "Life" and "Works"? --Kleinzach 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See Beethoven. Seems plausible enough. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks more like a parallel text to me. I think a clean, clear division is necessary or alternatively a main page/subpage arrangement.--Kleinzach 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, we should what's best for the article, if we can summarize the life of Liszt in the main article and create a subpage, it would definitely increase readability. If a casual reader wants to find out more, they can then go to the sub-page. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I made such a summary in the French version. But I haven't enough time, at the moment, to translate it into English. If some French-reading user is ready to do this useful task… Alexander Doria (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "summary in the French version" is hardly usable since it is crowded with errors and mistakes. (No! No personal attack is being intended. It's just the truth.)85.22.22.149 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

it is crowded with errors and mistakes : what do you mean exactly ? My French version is a "good article", and a lot of French Lisztians help me to write it. Of course, my article does not say what Liszt thought on the 25 of july 1842, but anything that is said seems to be true and useful, with a lot of quotations of ancient documents. Could you give me some examples, or is it mere libel ? Alexander Doria (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the talk page of the French, but that of the English Liszt. However, if you want to get examples, it can be done. For this purpose, I'll add a new chapter on this page the other day. Please, have some patience until then.80.144.118.159 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that separate "life" and "works" articles a la Sergei Rachmaninoff would be a good idea. How hard would it be, though, to pull a summary from what is already in the article instead of pulling from another source? Jonyungk (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is so long it's unusable. People use wikipedia to get an overview and then launch into whatever details they find necessary. I don't need to know where his name came from or every last detail about his father. Will someone please use Ockham's razor on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.26.100 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Too long by any measure. This definitely needs to be trimmed down. Every single love affair and coverage of every year in his life is not needed. Large portions of this article could be put in separate, new articles. --Aksnitd (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. FYI this is the 35th longest page on Wikipedia (Special:Longpages). Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now dropped below #1000, the last rank shown by Special:Longpages. How much more should we trim in your opinion?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)