Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

To Monsieur Doria

Returning to the French Liszt, I'll give some examples for errors and mistakes. Since there are so many of them, I must - of course - restrict myself to a selection. Without asking for details of the flag (“born in "Doborján, Autriche"” is contradictio in adjecto) and the following introduction (paragraphs 2 and 3 are full of weasel words), I'll start with chapter "Biograhpie, L'enfance" ("Biography, childhood").

The "Statue de Liszt enfant" ("Statue of Liszt as child") is obviously not a statue of the child, but of the mature artist of the Weimar years. Liszt's father was not "violoncelliste dans un orchestre locale", but amateur musician who could play several instruments. His abilities of playing the violoncello were very poor. At occasions, he took part in orchestral performances in Eisenstadt. He was then 2nd cellist. As such he played only simple basses. Calling the names of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is by no means characteristic for the repertoire of Liszt, but boasting with big names. For all of his life, Liszt did not play a single piano work by Haydn or Mozart in public. The child prodigy did not play a single work by Beethoven in public. His true repertoire consisted of brilliant pieces by Hummel, Moscheles and Czerny.

As opposite to the first sentence of the second paragraph, Liszt's lessons with Salieri commenced in August 1822 and ended in April 1823. It was all in all for 8 months instead of "deux ans" ("two years"). The lessons with Czerny commenced in May 1822. Liszt therefore cannot possibly have studied for two years with him. The quotation of the second sentence is from the Parisian Drapeau blanc of March 9, 1824, and - as such - has nothing to do with Liszt's stay in Vienna.

At the beginning of chapter "Voyages en Europe", the image is of August 1832. Liszt was in so far at age 20. In the first paragraph, the order of the names is misleading, since Liszt met Berlioz in the beginning of December 1830 and only about four years later George Sand. The question, whether Liszt made Paganini's acquaintance, is open. It is only known that Liszt heard Paganini's playing for a single time.

According to the second paragraph, Liszt's liaison with Marie d'Agoult commenced in 1833, while it is 1832 according to chapter 1.2.1.2. The statement, Liszt had in 1836 started touring through Europe, is obviously wrong. Regarding Liszt's concert repertoire, please have a look at chapter 2.1 of the English Liszt. Putting the Hungarian Rhapsodies into this period, must be considered as new discovery. Until now everybody thought, Liszt had composed numbers 1 and 2 in 1851, and numbers 3 to 15 in 1853.

Jumping to the more interesting paragraphs about Liszt's love affairs ("La vie sentimentale"), it is true that there was an affair with Caroline Ungher. However, it was not in 1822-23, but in November 1839 in Trieste. In chapter 1.2.1.2, the first sentence after the first quotation from Marie d'Agoult's memoirs is misleading, since during 1833 there was only a single "rupture"; it was in autumn. In the following sentences, nearly everything is wrong. (For the purpose of not wasting space: Please have a look at chapters 1.4.2.3 and 1.4.2.4 of the English Liszt.) The statement, nobody knew Liszt and Marie d'Agoult in Geneva, is not only wrong, but absurd. Liszt was a world famous artist, giving lessons at the Conservatoire, and Marie d'Agoult was very prominent too. Both of them had acquaintances in Geneva from earlier times. Concerning the cited concert ("Pierre Wollof" is "Pierre Wolff"), I cannot see, exactly which concert might be meant.

Coming to the Thalberg encounter, it is somewhat hard to understand what it might have to do with Liszt's "Vie sentimentale". (Maybe, both artists were homosexual?) Liszt did not leave Geneva for three days, and he did not stay in Paris for two months. At end of April 1836 he went to Lyon where he gave concerts. In Lyon he persuaded Marie d'Agoult to join him, and afterwards persuaded her to let him go to Paris where he arrived on May 13. He left on June 3, returning to Geneva on June 6. (At least this date is correct.) His stay therefore was not for two months, but for three weeks. Liszt and Marie d'Agoult did not leave Geneva "l’année suivante" ("the following year"), but on October 13, 1836.

In the subsequent sentences of the long paragraph, there are lots of further errors and mistakes. Instead of correcting all of them, the following sentence may be taken as example: "Désormais leur union n’aura plus qu’un caractère formel : Marie le rejoint lors de sa tournée à Londres, et tous deux passeront leurs vacances trois années successives à Nonnenwerth." ("While of their relation nothing more was left than only a formal character, Marie joined him during his tour to London, and for three subsequent years the two of them spent their vacations at Nonnenwerth.") Concerning the "formal character", please read chapters 1.6.2.3 to 1.6.2.4 of the English Liszt. To give some additional hints: In the beginning of 1846 Liszt visited Marie d'Agoult in Paris. His subsequent letters show that he still hoped, he could arrive at a happy end with the lady. It was not earlier than in October 1847, when he wrote a farewell letter to her. Btw, Liszt and Marie d'Agoult only spent their summer vacations of 1841 and 1843 at Nonnenwerth. (Both stays ended catastrophic.) In 1842, Liszt passed Nonnenwerth for a further time, but all alone.

I could continue, filling this page in similar kinds, but I'm getting a little tired now. When in my posting of last Tuesday I wrote, your article was crowded with errors and mistakes, it was certainly not meant as aggression against you and your friends, but only as fact. Trying to get knowledge of Liszt is just a hard task for everyone.80.145.136.82 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one quick point concerning Caroline Unger : Liszt already met her while he was making a concert in Viena in 1822-23, and already developed sentimental feelings for her. He met her again in Trieste in 1839. Concerning the d'Agoult's point, most of my sources agree that their affair was merely formal since the beginning of the forties. Your letters are not proving anything : are you sure Liszt was writing the truth ? Let me on the other hand quote you a letter from Marie d'Agoult to George Helweg in 1844 : "Ce que vous me dîtes de Liszt ne me suprend pas (…) Il serait vraiment trop naïf de conserver l'ombre d'une espérance , et qu'ai-je à faire avec un Don Juan parvenu, moitié saltimbanque, moitié escamoteur (…) Dix ans d'illusions… n'est-ce pas le sublime de l'extravagance" (two year earlier than your 1846).

In brief, even is the French version is, to some extent, "crowded with mistakes" (though not significant, and often controversing), it is readable. Remember we are on wikipedia, and that our aim is not to give an exhaustive account of Liszt, but an introduction to him, understandable by most people. Alexander Doria (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Altogether many points! At first: Concerning Liszt's sentimental feelings towards Caroline Ungher of 1822-23 (7 year old!), it was certainly your task, giving reliable sources. At second: Your sources concerning a "formal character" of their relation (Exactly which sources are meant?) cannot be more reliable than Liszt's and Marie d'Agoult's own letters. Since during winter 1839-40 they wanted to get married, and in October 1840 even became engaged, it is obvious that their relation still was somewhat more than only "formal". At third: Your quotation of Herwegh is well known and of end of March or the beginning of April 1844. Liszt had not yet arrived in Paris, and much happened until the beginning of 1846. Of course, I did not claim that Marie d'Agoult still wanted to live with Liszt. (The opposite is true.) But it was Liszt who still hoped he could arrive at a happy end with her. It can be read in his letters and, besides, was confirmed by other aspects of his attitude. At last: An article, being crowded with mistakes, is not only useless, but contradicts fundamental rules of every encyclopaedia, including Wikipedia. Nobody will have an idea of taking such encyclopaedia earnestly. However, since this is not the talk page of the French Liszt, please feel free to keep your article's version if you still like it that much.85.22.31.61 (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Say… For a so-called Liszt specialist, saying that Liszt was 7 year old in 1822-1823. Even in my mistaken and stupid French article I would not have dare to make such a mistake… You accuse me for changing three weeks into two month, while you give Liszt four years more. I'm therefore wondering if your article is not as crowded with mistakes as mine.Alexander Doria (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, have a look at the following quotation from your fascinating article: "Le premier émoi amoureux de Liszt remonte en fait à un concert donné à Vienne le 1er décembre 1822 où se produisait également une cantatrice hongroise de 7 ans son aînée Caroline Unger."80.145.131.137 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To Alexander - Obviously he meant seven years OLDER. It's stated clearly in the French article. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.66.231 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again "New German School"

There are still many things to be done. As one of them, an article about the "New German School" must be written. I'd like to do it now, but need some help. Since I have no account at this site, I can't create a new page for an article. So, it would be nice if someone of you did it. (It can be called "New German School".) As soon as the page has been created, I'll start filling it. Since an empty page will rather soon be deleted, you may copy and paste the following paragraphs as introduction to it. Thanks in advance.

"New German School" is a term of European music history which 1859 was introduced as "Neudeutsche Schule" by Franz Brendel, editor of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. While since then the term has frequently been used in publications about music history of the 19th and early 20th centuries, there is an astonishing difficulty to it. Still 2006 Detlef Altenburg wrote:

When in musicology it is being spoken of the "Neudeutsche Schule", it is - similar to using the term "Programmusik" - by no means certain which phenomena and which composers are meant. Not even the question of the chronological definition can on foundation of hitherto existing scholarly literature be clearly answered.

It can be added that it is neither sure whether a member of the "New German School" had to be musician. The term, thus, is a problematic one which has been used by different persons at different times with different meanings. Searching for constants, it was never disputed that Franz Liszt was one of the leading members of the "New German School". There is also a consent that Johannes Brahms did not take part in it. Nearly everything else is in flow.

85.22.16.150 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply register? It's completely free you know. That would make it easier to keep track of your changes too. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

85, if for some reason you do not want to register an account, you can make a request at Articles for creation, and someone will start it for you. There's a good article on it in the New Grove online (it's actually in the Opera subsection, and it's titled New German School). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, go typing "New German School" to the Wikipedia search engine.80.144.78.230 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There it is! Antandrus (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, sentence construction etc?

Whilst the debate about content continues, perhaps it would be a good idea to try and clean up the article's grammar and syntax? Some of it doesn't really make much sense. I've started changing minor things in the first few paragraphs but I'm reluctant to do anything major like rewriting / re-ordering whole sentences (as I think needs to be done in some places) as I'm wary of inadvertently changing meanings. Floccinauccinihilipilificationist (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as it doesn't change the content. I'm constantly changing bad grammar and (to a lesser extent) misspelt words. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:48 1 August, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.80.144.123.22 (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Under "Liszt in Geneva" an angel appears: ... building located in the angel between Rue Tabazan and Rue des Belles-Filles ... Presumably it's an angle? Perhaps an acute angle? Is it merely the corner of the two streets? Or is it an intersection so complicated that guidance of an angel is necessary? Snezzy (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TOO LONG, too idiotic, too full of empty gossip, too chaotic

Liszt's relationship with Princess Caroline Elisabeth zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Ludwigsburg lasted for 40 years, yet the article couldn't even get her name right.

65.206.122.30 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please go to a library and get a book about Liszt. The lady's first name was "Carolyne", and she was "von Sayn-Wittgenstein."85.22.3.198 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Franz Liszt and/or/vs Life of Franz Liszt

See Composers Project discussion. --Kleinzach 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I made several minor changes. I hope they are improvements. I tried to explain them in my edit notes.

Regarding the wording:

"a suggestion that may have lost its potential for presumptuousness by Liszt's personal example."

I think this needs an explanation of the example set by Lizst. Is it meant to refer specifically to him not charging for lessons, or to something else?

The introduction use the word "pedagogue", this suggests that he was strict or pedantic. I didn't see anything in the section "Students" to justify this term being used. I changed "pedagogue" to "teacher". Wanderer57 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Following my own taste, "teacher" is sounding even more strict and pedantic than "pedagoge".85.22.23.126 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading reference

In n.1 the reference to "Fétis: Review of the Transcendental Etudes, 1841" was misleading, since the essay "Etudes d'exécution transcendante" by Fétis, published in spring 1841 in the Revue et Gazette musicale, is no review of the "Transcendental Etudes". In a longer first part of the essay Fétis gave a sketched history of piano music, culminating in Liszt and Thalberg. According to Fétis, there was no doubt that Thalberg had created a new piano style of great artistic value. Liszt had overtaken certain devices from Thalberg as well as certain ideas concerning a so-called "ordre omintonique" from Fétis. (Liszt perfectly agreed with this.) At the end of his essay Fétis mentioned Liszt's Paganini-Etudes (in February 1841 published as "Etudes d'exécution transcendante") and three volumes of the Années de Pelérinage (only one volume existed). The essay has absolutely nothing to do with the question whether Liszt was the greatest virtuoso of all times. In fact, claiming this would have been stupid since neither Fétis nor anyone else among the contemporaries could possibly know future developments of piano playing. For reasons of such kinds I deleted the reference.85.22.23.126 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

From the Essay:

Those whom at the concert he gave in Liège, heard him improvise, as I did, a marvelous caprice upon apparently incompatible themes suggested by members of the audience; those who saw him read at sight music laced with death-defying technical abilities and hastily set down in all but unreadable hands, playing at speeds that surprised even the authors, with such effortlessness as to suggest the performance of mere bagatelles; those, finally, who know that all music of any value what-soever is stored away in Liszt's mind in such a way that he is able instantaneously to perform whatever piece by whatever composer that one might care to name-those persons, I say, know that Liszt is the most complete musician of our time as well as the most accomplished virtuoso.

This certainly sounds relevant to the point that is being made in the first sentence. Restoring the reference. -Unsigned, 12:00 PM, 21 October, 2008.

Thinking this over, perhaps a better assertion would be that Liszt was one of the greatest pianists of the Romantic era. This statement seems to be more useful. Thoughts? Also, on an unrelated note its not exactly sure whether Fetis was referring to the Paganini studies or the Transcendental studies. Many think it was the transcendental studies simply because its doubtful that arrangements would get such praise. It would be quite remarkable that the essay would be the reason that Liszt switched the "Transcendental" in the titles of the final versions. -Unsigned, 3:06 PM, 21 October, 2008.

The Paganini-Etudes (first version) were published in February 1841 by Schonenberger, Paris. The title on the title page is "Etudes d'exécution transcendante" without any hint to Paganini. (I have a copy of the edition.) In August or September 1841 an edition by Haslinger, Vienna, appeared. This edition has the title "Etudes d'exécution transcendante d'après Paganini". Only the Haslinger edition contains a dedication to Clara Schumann, by the way.85.22.11.94 (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Two additional remarks: At 1st: There is an announcement of the Paganini-Etudes in the Revue et Gazette musicale of February 11, 1841. They are called "Etudes d'exécution transcendante" without reference to Paganini also there. From this it should be clear that with the title of the essay by Fétis actually these Etudes were meant. At 2nd: Taking your quotation literally, Liszt gave his three concerts in Liège. He played several transcriptions and operatic fantasies and, besides, a single original work, the Galop chromatique. From then on he was the most complete musician of that time, while artists such as Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz, Meyerbeer and many others had instantly disappeared as if they had never existed. Isn't it obvious that the quotation is full of exaggerations of the worst kind?85.22.11.94 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To the first point: Fetis was known to attach the term "Transcendente" to Liszt, an example of this was in the Revue et Gazxette musicale of 25 April 1837 on his article defending Thalberg from Liszt's scathing comments. Its not completely improbable that Fetis may have also connected this term to the Grandes Etudes. Again, you are probably right and this is really based on wishful thinking, but it would certainly be nice as this would explain the titles in the final version. As the second point the only way we can rate Liszt's status as a pianist is from eyewitness accounts. The quote is such an account which is strengthened by the fact that its from one of the most important critics of the era. It may not contribute to the notion that Liszt was the greatest pianists of all time but it certainly shows us that he may have been the greatest pianist of that era. I do believe that saying he's the greatest pianist of all time is a somewhat absurb/unverifiable statement but I feel this is a really important reference as it shows us where Liszt may have ranked in that era. Once again changing the assertion may solve all these problems. Thoughts? -Unsigned, 3:23 PM October, 2008.

There is a fundametal problem to the Liszt literature of a let's say "traditional style". The authors collected reviews in which Liszt was praised and quoted nothing else but only the most praising parts, neglecting all of the rest. Looking at Liszt's situation in 1841, there was still his rival Thalberg. Thalberg gave a concert on February 8 in Leipzig, met Schumann and Mendelssohn and was enthusiastically praised by both of them. He then went to Breslau and Warsaw where his concerts were sensational successes. In April 1841 he gave two concerts in Vienna. He received enthusiastic reviews again and was especially praised as leading virtuoso of that time, i. e. as better virtuoso than Liszt.

Liszt, on the other hand gave concerts in Leipzig in December 1841 and afterwards in Berlin. He too met Schumann and Mendelssohn. It can be shown that neither of them liked his compositions and his playing style. In 1842, in Paris, Thalberg was the winner again, while Liszt lost nearly everything. While Thalberg's fame as composer was steadily growing, Liszt's fame as composer kept being beyond zero.10:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.91.86 (talk)

Is this some sort of joke? I don't remember ever talking about whether Liszt was better than Thalberg. I'm asking whether or not we should change the comment from ONE OF the greatest pianists in history to ONE OF the greatest pianists of the romantic era! Whether or not people enjoyed Thalberg more doesn't even matter in what I'm trying to do! One cannot deny that many people also saw Liszt as one of the greatest virtuoso's of the time as well. Why does everything about Liszt's stature always start some sort of Thalberg/Liszt flame war on these pages? Why do I even bother trying to add anything when something like this happens? - Unsigned October 26 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.16.210 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you admit that that there were people who enjoyed Thalberg more (Their number was actually huge, and nearly all prominent musicians of that time shared their view.) your former arguments are no longer valid. However, for the purpose of wanting to be constructive I'll return to Liszt himself by adding some examples for the problems of the Liszt literature of the "traditional style". I'll take them from from Michael Saffle's book Liszt in Germany. On p.133 there is a quotation from a review by Ludwig Rellstab of Liszt's concert of January 5, 1842, in Berlin. Liszt had played (as usual) his transcriptions of Schubert's Ave Maria and Ständchen. Regarding the Ständchen Rellstab wrote (in Saffle's translation):

The gentle yet lively touch with which [Liszt] handles his instrument, especially in the delightful passage where the melody is presented in imitation, was enchanting.

Saffle's translation from German is not perfect, but sufficiently correct. However, there is still a problem, since Saffle let his quotation end with this. Had he quoted Rellstab's next sentence as well, the impression would have been somewhat different.

Mit der intercoupierten Auffassung der Melodie hat sich unser Vortragsgefühl jedoch nicht einverstanden erklären können.

The meaning of "intercoupiert" is not perfectly clear, but Liszt apparently had played the melody notes not on the beats as printed in the score, but in the style of the classical tempo rubato between them. Hence a translation of Rellstab's sentence, as omitted by Saffle, could be:

With the tempo rubato style of the melody, however, our performance sense could not agree.

As opposite to the impression from Saffle's incomplete quotation, Rellstab had in so far not liked Liszt's playing style.

Another example is Saffle's quotation 15 on p.287. It is concerning a concert on January 7, 1844, in Weimar. Liszt had directed Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Besides he had played Hummel's concerto in B Minor and his own Don Juan Fantasy. Saffle in his quotation from the Leipziger Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung restricted himself to a rather short part where Liszt was praised because of his directing the Symphony. However, the complete review is rather long. Saffle did not tell that much can be read about Liszt's piano playing. Especially in the Don Juan Fantasy his playing had been of a kind that the reviewer had liked to run away if that had been possible without provoking a scandal.

To Saffle's honour I add that there is his quotation 16, from the Signale für die musikalische Welt. It is concerning a concert on February 21 in Dresden. For this time Liszt had played the "Konzertstück" in F Minor by Weber and again the Don Juan Fantasy. According to the review he had played both pieces in an unnatural, absurd, unmusical and disgusting style. While, according to the review, he never had had a beautiful touch, it had been even worse on that day. A similar review can be found in the Leipziger Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung. According to this, Weber, had he heard Liszt's playing the "Konzertstück", would never have accepted it as his own work. Of all piano virtuosos of that time Liszt was the only one who received reviews of such kinds, and there is a plenty of more of them.

An additional remark concerning Liszt and Rellstab might be of interest for you. Rellstab's brochure Franz Liszt (1842) has been cited by many authors as classical source with regard to Liszt's concerts in Berlin. It has turned out however that Rellstab had received 100 bottles of finest Rhine wine as gift from Liszt before he published the brochure. The same kind of gift went to Fétis in Brussels. Liszt had further "friends" at the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, a journal of strongest influence in all Europe. Then there is the book Franz Liszt, aus nächster Beschauung dargestellt, in late 1843 written on Liszt's order by Gustav Schilling. In this book Liszt has grown to the most intelligent, most genial and most generous person of all times. With an oeuvre comprising merely of transcriptions and fantasies on popular melodies he has reached a rank as composer that even Beethoven could hardly match. While it is still not clear whether Liszt was the greatest virtuoso who ever lived, it is at least sure that among all contemporary piano virtuosos he was the champion of public relations and advertisement.85.22.4.51 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all I don't ever recall myself admitting that there were people who prefered Thalberg over Liszt. Second of all that doesn't affect my argument either way. I'm not quite sure you understand what I'm trying to do. You're trying to prove that Thalberg was a much better virtuoso than Liszt and that's fine but thats not the point I'm trying to make. Even so, don't you think this sort of argument would be much better suited for academic journals? You obviously have a handle on the research. Either way I'm not a full-time musicologist so I don't have the resources or time to continue this argument. -Unsigned October 11:54 PM, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.16.210 (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From my impression this debate is more and more becoming a fruitless one. Thus I may remind you of the beginning of this thread. It was concerning the last sentence of n.1 with a reference to a so-called review of the "Transcendental Etudes". The so-called review is the essay "Etudes d'exécution transcendante" by Francois Joseph Fétis in the Revue et Gazette musicale of May 9, 1841. You can try to get that issue of the Revue et Gazette musicale from a library (I have a copy of it.) and then read it. If you'll do it, you will find that the content is precisely of the kind as described in my posting of October 21. As far as you don't like a mentioning of Thalberg, you'd better not have added the reference in n.1.

N.1 is an annotation to a sentence in the introduction where it is stated that there were persons who still regard Liszt as greatest piano virtuoso of all times. I myself wrote this sentence, some months ago, and I did it because it is obviously true and characteristic for Liszt. The sentence does not claim that Liszt actually was that greatest virtuoso, but only that by some he is regarded as such. After I had written the sentence there was a request for a reference. For this reason I added n.1 (without the last sentence), and everything of this version of n.1 was true again.

In comparison with this, the added last sentence is of no help of any kind. You can of course find large amounts of contemporary sources where Liszt was described as greatest virtuoso of that time. However, you can also find large amounts of reviews where he was criticized and heavily blamed. So, there were different opinions. Since an annotation is certainly not the appropriate place for discussing those opinions and deciding between them, I repeat that the only reasonable solution is deleting that last sentence.85.22.5.56 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do have a full copy of the review and I have read it. In a way I was hoping that this review could be used somewhere in this article as it does offer some good insight in the early compositional careers of both Liszt and Thalberg. 198.166.16.210 (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For the purpose of gaining better insight in the Liszt-Thalberg rivalry you may try the Wikipdia article Sigismond Thalberg which I wrote a year ago. (I hope Wikipedia folks did not change too much of it.)80.144.109.136 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Liszt's transcriptions and his concerts

In the present version of the introduction there is the following (hidden) statement with reference to Humphrey Searle:

He [Liszt] used both his technique and his concert personality not only for personal effect but also, through his transcriptions, to spread knowledge of other composers' music.

Statements of similar kind can frequently be found in parts of the older literature, for example in P. Raabe's Liszts Schaffen (1931). However, an inspection of Liszt's transcriptions oeuvre shows that these statements are not only wrong, but absurd. Characteristic examples are the arrangements of Beethoven's 5th, 6th and 7th Symphonies. Already in Liszt's time Beethoven's Symphonies were in all Europe played and unanimously regarded as masterworks. In the early 1830s in Paris Beethoven was the most frequently performed composer of instrumental music. Especially the 5th, 6th and 7th Symphonies were mega hits. The same goes for Schubert's songs as transcribed by Liszt. Since the early 1830s they were most popular in Paris. Even the Sinfonie fantastique by Berlioz had been performed with great success before Liszt made his piano score. The operas from which Liszt took melodies for his fantasies, among them operas by Meyerbeer, Donizetti and Bellini, were huge successes. Not a single one of those composers needed any spreading knowledge from Liszt's side.

From several sources, among them the book about Chopin, Liszt's leading idea is known. He wished to connect his own name with the names of most prominent other artists. As main part, he used his technique and his concerts for the purpose of gaining personal fame and money. (In his best time he spent an amount of about 300,000 Francs a year.) When a concert piece was not an immediate success, he dropped it and - as usual case - never played it again. There are some exceptions since Liszt took part in advertisement strategies of his publishers. In connection with the publication of a new edition of one of his works, he sometimes - very rarely - played a work although it was not a success. There is a famous letter by Liszt to Schumann's biographer Wasielewski of January 9, 1857, in which Liszt admitted that he himself had been a bad model for others. Since he had feared he would not gain applause, he had not played works by Schumann in his concerts. Liszt's favourite genre of piano music, as can be seen from his works as well as from his edition "Das moderne Pianoforte" of the 1850s, was salon music, by the way.85.22.23.126 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Liszt and Berlioz

According to the present introduction, Liszt was a benefactor to Berlioz. Can perhaps someone explain, exactly what is meant with this? I for one don't believe that the statement is true.80.144.123.224 (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's referring to Liszt's championing of Berlioz's music, which proved very beneficial to Berlioz in his career. But of course now here you come with your claims that no such thing happened, and that everything every published scholar and author has said about Liszt's association with Berlioz is wrong, and I for one can no longer muster the energy... K. Lásztocska^talk 13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See for instance the two Berlioz's weeks organised by Liszt in Weimar (during the 14th to the 21th of November 1852, and the 17th to the 21th of February 1855), with Berlioz directing his own Works. Alexander Doria (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If this was meant with Liszt's being a benefator to Berlioz, it would at least be an unusual kind of language use and as such misleading. To give an example for it, there was the conductor Habeneck in Paris who since the second half of the 1820 very frequently performed Beethoven's symphonies. Of course, nobody has the idea of calling Habeneck a benefactor to Beethoven for it. Why not just writing, "Liszt as conductor occasionally, rather rarely, performed a selection of works by Berlioz." The claim, Liszt's performing works by Berlioz proved very beneficial to Berlioz in his career is wrong, since Berlioz had already been a most prominent and successful composer since the first performances of the Sinfonie fantastique in December 1830 and the sequel Lelio in December 1832, and this without any beneficial help from Liszt's side. The above claim concerning "everything every published scholar and author has said about Liszt's association with Berlioz" is polemical (I'm sorry for it.) and besides wrong. If you want to find true benefactors of Berlioz, you may think of Paganini with his gift of 20,000 Francs (Liszt strongly opposed against this gift.) and Schumann with his praising articles in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. Liszt from his side did nothing of similar kinds. In Berlioz' Memoirs he is not mentioned as benefactor.85.22.123.78 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Liszt, Berlioz had Benvenuto Cellini created (1852, in Weimar) and received acclaims all over Germany : it seems to me much more important than praises from Schumann. The main problem with your argument is that you only take into account Liszt's life before 1848, while his floruit occured after. Alexander Doria (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Benvenuto Cellini was composed in 1839, thus in 1952 already rather old. Looking at Liszt's activities as conductor of works by Berlioz, the following figures, taken from someone's favourite author's published masterworks, can be taken as clarifying hints. In A. Walker's Weimar years, p.285ff, there is a catalogue, comprising of 231 concerts as directed by Liszt. Of this total amount there were not more than 13 performances of a total of 6 works by Berlioz. Hence it is true that Liszt as conductor only occasionally, rather rarely, performed works by Berlioz. For a comparison: Liszt as conductor performed 9 works by Schumann and 5 works by Mendelssohn. Liszt's most frequently conducted composer, with huge distance, was he himself. The next ranks were hold by Beethoven and Wagner. Your claim concerning a presumed impact of performances of Benvenuto Cellini in Weimar on contemporary German musical life is, of course, only a guesss without foundation in sources. Since Liszt was very controversially disputed as conductor (to say the least), the actual impact, if there was any, of his conducting activities was most likely only small. 80.144.71.163 (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Some necessary corrections: Benvenuto Cellini was premiered on September 3, 1838, in Paris, and "1952" was meant a "1852". Nevertheless, nothing has come to light that shows Liszt as benefactor to Berlioz.80.144.92.78 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Liszt in "popular culture"

The chapter "In popular culture" (i. e. "The posthumous prisoner of Hollywood") should better be deleted. It provides no information at all about Liszt, but nothing else than infantile stuff. If a person cannot live without watching Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry, starring in "The Cat Concerto", there are other parts of Wikipedia (or the Kindergarten) that will give more pleasure to him than bothering others who want to work on an article about Liszt. The Second Hungarian Rhapsody is not a song, by the way.80.144.115.63 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. This kind of stuff stands as a real nuisance in the English Wikipedia and ought to be deleted in most articles. Alexander Doria (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete that chapter. Let's see what happens.85.22.25.251 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Remarks to chapter "Students"

While it is true that Liszt, since the Weimar years, did not charge for his lessons, nothing can be known, whether he was the only one with this habit. There were many thousands of contemporary piano teachers, and nobody can possibly claim, he had investigated their charging habits. Between Liszt's habit of not charging for his lessons and the motto "Génie oblige!", not the least connection can be verified. (Claiming such things is just the oldy-moldy unthinking Alan Walker style.) Kullak, from Liszt's perspective, was certainly no artist of genius. The motto is for itself problematic enough. It is part of Liszt's essay about Paganini of 1840. Unfortunately, as known from his letters, by that time it was Liszt himself who was only thinking of earning money, and of nothing else besides.

The true reason for which Liszt later did not charge for his lessons can only be guessed. Nearly no professional teacher of our days will follow him in this respect, since even most genial teachers need money for their living. (Liszt's own situation was in so far better since he had sufficient income in Weimar as well as in Budapest. As further advantage, his living and also his pianos were free.) The same goes for Liszt’s habit of giving nearly no technical advice, but coming with "witty" remarks and anecdotes instead. Lessons of such kind are usually regarded as very bad. As main part they are attended merely for the purpose of being called "student" of the most prominent master X. Y. In Olga Janina’s scandal novel Liszt was with right criticized for it. Speeking from own experience (I attended about half a dozen masterclasses for piano playing.), at least some professors of our days are doing a better job.

In the Gnomenreigen, according to the score, the passages must be played as fast as possible. However, a player may have problems of synchronizing both hands. There is no doubt that this was meant with the "mixed salad". Concerning the "clopping beefsteak", Liszt himself, during his tours, had in all Europe been famous and frequently criticized for it. Many contemporary images show him playing that way.85.22.111.7 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't truly agree with you : after all, some of the most well-known pianists and interpreter were Liszt's pupils : Anton Rubinstein, Hans von Bülow, Emil von Sauer, Klindworth, Cornélius, Tausig… Liszt did not give technical advice, mainly because his pupils were beyond technical difficulties. As said Alexander Borodine in a letter to his wife : Liszt gave little atention to technic and fingering, but is mainly concerned with the expression. There is truly a Lisztian school in piano playing, which can still be heard with recording from Claudio Arrau (pupil of a Liszt's pupil) and others. In fact I believe the main problem with you, is that you only see the Liszt of the 1830s and the 1840s, who might have been unscrupulous, and ignore the posterior Liszt, who is far more interesting. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning my missing knowledge of the later Liszt, just wait and see! Claudio Arrau's piano playing had not the least resemblace with Liszt's (Arrau played Liszt's works as if they were by Brahms.), by the way, and Anton Rubinstein can hardly be viewed as Liszt's student.80.144.97.9 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of Sources

Edits made by one user (User:Wizzard) claiming that Liszt is Slovak is questionable for several reasons. Unfortunately, this edit outright violates Wikipedia policy. Firstly, it seems that these edits are clearly POV (see WP:NPOV) as user is from Slovakia; second, although user unnecessarily cites an excessive amount of sources, none are in English (see WP:NONENG); third, even these Non-English sources are NOT verifiable (see WP:QS). From doing superficial research on the subject, I cannot find any credible sources that would substantiate this user's edits. In fact, there seems to be absolutely no debate on the subject that Franz Liszt was a "Hungarian virtuoso and composer" (citing BRITANNICA http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/343394/Franz-Liszt)(others: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Liszt-Fr.html , http://www.bu.edu/archives/holdings/historical/liszt.html). Liszt was born in Raiding, Hungary (now Austria). He moved to Vienna and spent much time there as a musician. There is no mention of Slovakia anywhere. However, I did not remove this edit because, ONLY IF a verifiable English source (i.e. peer-reviewed journal, encycolpedia, etc.) can be found, then maybe it could be incorporated into this article (although I still disagree with putting it into the lead). Do not put back this edit until issue has been resolved under this discussion. Thank you. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 19:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

First, do not remove references with no discussion. Britannica is not so relevant, cause it does not tell about nationality. He was not born in Hungary, he was born in present Burgenland, Kingdom of Hungary, with strong Slovak population. Liszt himself claimed he was Uhor, what means Slovak, not Hungarian. --Wizzard (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Second, I added a book source. This is the only relevant source about his Slovak origin, so at least it should be mentioned in the article. --Wizzard (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Your edit was not removed it was temporarily crossed out.

Listen, I am not going to argue with you. But, you being a fairly new user, you need to know that there are guidelines and policies you have to follow on Wikipedia. I mentioned three of them (that your recent edit on Franz Liszt violates) above. You answered none of them but simply reverted. I warned you not to revert until this issue has been discussed and you can verify your sources. The source you have used now is still not valid. I am also going to remind you, however, that you are one edit away from violating WP:3RR. You are blatantly POV pushing and your edit will most likely be removed. I'm now going to get a third opinion and, if need be, RfC. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a new user at all, I am active at Slovak Wikipedia since 2005 and since 2006 as a sysop. I know very good what the guidelines and policies are and hope you know that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit without flooding the discussion page. This page is not locked so I do not see a reason to discuss every single edit. I just added the fact that I found elsewhere (did not mention the fact that he even did not speak Hungarian at all, his parents and grandparents were Slovaks, etc.). So please tell me why this book source is not valid and others are valid? Why it is me and not you who violates 3RR? It is not me who reverted some edit, I am trying to find a consensus, because when we say that he was Hungarian just because he was born in former Kingdom of Hungary, this is strong POV. Thank you. --Wizzard (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe on Slovakian Wikipedia you can label anyone you want a Slovak or do anything, for that matter, without credible/verifiable sources but this is English Wikipedia and you still have not answered any of the issues that I have raised. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 20:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot label anyone a Slovak on sk.wiki :) Only the people that was Slovaks. The nationality of Franz Liszt is also disputed, because most of sources just simple tell he was a "Hungarian". But as you can see, on sk.wiki he is labeled as "uhorský", what just means he could have Hungarian or Slovak or other nationality. It is a pity that I don't have that book of Miroslav Demko, but I found a lot of informations about this book, as I said before, like the area when Liszt was born, had strong Slovak population, he never spoke Hungarian at home, but Slovak nationality was not accepted that time, so he used name Franz instead of Slovak name František. --Wizzard (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Liszt was a Hungarian composer. This has been argued ad nauseum in the archives of this page. The overwhelming consensus among reliable sources in English is exactly this. Arguing that he was German, Slovak, or something else, is beside the point -- the point being his reputation as a musician -- and related to the similar silliness that renders Chopin as French, Ravel as Basque, Tchaikovsky as Ukrainian (or Polish), Haydn as a Slovene, and Beethoven as an African. It is incredible how much time people waste on these sterile ethnicity and nationality wars. Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian that did not speak Hungarian, but rather spoke Slovak, German and French, very interesting, but as you wish :) Yes, it is incredible, this "he was born in 'Hungary', so he was 'Hungarian', or ever 'Magyar'". Everyone forgot about the nationalities in 'Hungary' till 1918? Slovaks, Serbians, Croatians, Romanians, "all of them was Hungarians, of course". Hungarization was very successfull, we know, but it was not the case of Franz Liszt. --Wizzard (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. "Wizzard", we had this nationality debate already, and for a plenty of times, and enough of it, and there were certainly better arguments than just claiming, Liszt was Hungarian because he was born in the former Kingdom of Hungary. Concerning the Slovak theory, please look above on this very page at chapter "Miroslav Demko?". More materials will be found in Archive 1. After all this, and much more besides, had been written, a consensus was reached which you will please respect. You can of course use the talk page and at this place try to gain a new consensus. (It will be a hard task, though, since you admit that Demko's book is your only source. Thus it is not "relevant", but a most eccentric exception. In an article about Earth you could as well claim that it was flat with seven Heavens above.) However, as far as you don't want to do it this way, please disappear with wizzard speed and leave us alone. Without doubt you'll find more pleasure at the Slovak site. Thank you very much for your understanding!80.144.119.174 (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonym, who are you? I do not remember a talk with some IP like yours. I am waiting for the administrators statement and of course, I will try to find a "new" consensus, because it is not possible to ignore everything that you don't like. --Wizzard (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you gave nothing more than personal arguments, I may remind you that it is not enough, "knowing" the Wikipedia rules. You will, please, respect them or leave.80.144.119.174 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid the personal attacks and read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, because it seems that you are new on Wikipedia. Thank you very much. --Wizzard (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are using primary sources of questionable reliability to advance a novel synthesis. Consensus among reliable independent non-partisan sources is that Liszt should be identified as Hungarian. Wikipedia is not the place to fix this real-world fact. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont care if this composer will be treat as Hungarian (it is partly true, as I explained before, from some point of view). But, we must mention the cardinal fact about this book source. For example, like "Swiss historian Miroslav Demko in his book Franz Liszt, compositeur slovaque" certifies, that Liszt was ethnic Slovak." It would be enough for understanding. --Wizzard (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also recommend to take a look to the references at Hungarian Wikipedia. (How Hungarian was Liszt? and "Demko, Miroslaw: Franz Liszt, compositeur slovaque, Lausanne 2003.") --Wizzard (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like this subject continues to be beaten into oblivion. Wizzrd, I'm not sure that you understand what everyone else is saying. So, if I write a book "certifying" that Tom Cruise is an alien, does that make it true? What sense does that make? There are definitely some wacky authors out there, but the idea is to delineate between good and bad sources and try to find the consensus. I don't know what your "agenda" is against this Franz Liszt article or Hungary-related articles in general but trying to change historical facts could be viewed by some as propogating cultural genocide. Apparently, this is a sensitive subject for some people. So, Wizzard, if I may make a suggestion: if you find yourself fighting an overwhelming consensus: your edit is probably not productive. I agree with you that Magyarization, Slovakization, Russification and Romanianization were all dark times in history but unfortunately, whether you realize it or not, your edits on English Wikipedia so far have eerily resembled one of the former. Now, let's try to move on from this. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope you are not really serious about Slovakization, Romanianization etc. but Magyarization. Fortunatelly, the important is, it is not Anubis3 who decides which book source is relevant and which is not. --Wizzard (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizzard. please read the discussions on this topic in Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive1 and Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive 2. Kingturtle (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain me why was this relevant source and contiguous statement deleted? --Wizzard (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I require this text written in the article:

His nationality is disputed, however, for example a Slovak musical pedagogue and historian living in Switzerland Miroslav Demko claims, that Liszt was ethnic Slovak.

--Wizzard (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't personally require anything. But it might be of use to mention the dispute in the article, either in a sentence or in a section. Kingturtle (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care where it will be mentioned. It was in the "Early life" section and it was deleted. Now I dont want to be blocked, so I am afraid to write anything to this article. What can I do? --Wizzard (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A very prudent idea, as hard as it may seem, would be to move on and make constructive edits elsewhere. I understand that it can be frustrating but, unfortunately, as Kingturtle said, you can't personally require anything on Wikipedia. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So you and some other users want just to ignore these sources and facts at all? Do I understand it right? --Wizzard (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it gives undue weight to a single source which contradicts virtually every other source in existence. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. We should give every point of view and every source, because if we do not, the article is not written neutral. --Wizzard (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Leading back to reality, your only source is a single book which you didn't even read. Your above claim, Liszt had claimed that he was not Hungarian but "Uhor" is wrong. Also wrong is the claim, Liszt's main language had been Slovak. (He was fluent in German, French and Italian, knew a bit of English and some Spanish words. During the early 1870s he learned Hungarian, while skills in Slovak are nowhere mentioned.) Your claim, Liszt's parents and grandparents had been Slovak, is as well wrong. Should all this not be enough?85.22.25.135 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Useless to talk with anonymous IP addresses, because you have no proof to anything you just wrote. Whom sock puppet are you? --Wizzard (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

← Wizzard, we know you think that "every" (i.e. this one) point of view and source should be represented, but when only one source says something, and that source appears to be pursuing a particular nationalistic agenda, and when every other source says something else, then to report that one source is almost always giving undue weight to a fringe point of view. We do not do that, it violates one of our core policies. You've now been told by an awful lot of people that this one source is not significant when taken against the enormous number of sources which it contradicts, those sources including Grove, Britannica and many others. The argument you advance has been defeated, and repeating it will not change that. To continue to press for a change against what looks to me like unanimous and substantial opposition is usually considered disruptive, especially where there are overtones of nationalist activism as there are here. This can go one of three ways, I think: you can accept that your arguments have failed to persuade; you can bring better arguments; or you can keep restating the same thing until you get blocked for disruption. Your call, really. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I come perhaps too late, but still, this revival of the eternal issue of Liszt's nationality shows, once more, the necessity of devoting a whole chapter, in the article, on this matter (as I did in the French Wikipedia). There, it could be argued that : 1) Liszt was born in Hungaria, and recognised himself as a Hungarian. 2) Yet, he was an ethnic German 3) Other thesis on the subject : he was a Slovakian (Demko) French (Haraszti) etc… The paragraph would be easy to write, as long as most arguments had already been expounded in the Talk pages. PS. To Wizzard : you're obviously new here, and ignorant of the very particuliar culture of the Liszt Article. The IP you're talking to is nobody's puppet, but known as the Anonymous Scholar : that is to say the most talented, intelligent, and annoying Liszt's expert that even come to earth. This is also this IP who wrote much of the article. So : don't disdain to talk to it. Alexander Doria (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am new here, but not new at Wikipedia, I have worked at more than 50 thousand edits at Slovak Wikipedia (it means I am the second most active at sk.wiki at all). Also, I do not see a proof that Liszt considered himself Hungarian. According to Miroslav Demko, he considered himself Slovak. If that IP is someone who is registered, I do not understand why he did not log in to discuss. --Wizzard (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean you were ignorant of wikipedia, but of this article and this talk page, which stand both quite specials. We had already several, long wars over this matter, and all the arguments you can seek had been expressed in the archives. For instance, let me quote you this phrase from Liszt I put in the French article (N.B. this is a quick translation from the French) : there is nothing which can stop me, despite my pitoyable knowledge of the Hungarian tongue, to consider myself as a magyar by heart and mind (Letter to the baron Antal Augusz, 7th of may 1873). That does not mean Liszt was only an hungarian, but, yet, put the hungarian thesis in the first place, along with the German thesis. The other, exotic thesis (French, Slovakian, Austrian etc...) being much minors. Besides, the anonymous IP had never registered : that is why we used to nickname him the anonymous scholar. Alexander Doria (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizzard is an interesting user, his edits to this article and talk page need some context. I found the following by him very revealing ":I have nothing against Hungary at all. If you are not a Hungarian, I may tell you, Hungarians are generally very similar to Slovaks. I have a far family in Budapest born there and even visited them." [1]. Did this ring a bell to anyone? The similarity to the common lines is striking. "I have a black friend, ... [hateful speech against blacks]" "I have a jewish friend, I even visited them, ... [hateful speech etc]". "I have far family in xy country ... [etc]". Wikipedia is not for spreading hatred against any one group, unfortunately what I've read so far, were huge red flags in this regard, I hope things will change in this regard. It were nice if there was no need to resort to this "typical defence" because there would be no need in the first place for magical friends and far families to prove how much someone "likes" a certain group. Hobartimus (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what is your problem with me? I know you are a Hungarian and I dont care, just dont try to make the problems everywhere. You are just trying to pretend, that I am some strange nationalist and you know it is just the opposite, you are trying to turn the attention where you want. It is useless to listen to you. --Wizzard (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I must point out that we are now getting way off topic regarding the Franz Liszt article. However, I do agree with you that that is one very disturbing statement on behalf of Wizzard. It is eerily reminiscent of a Serb talking about an Albanian Kosovar...and we all know what that led to. Unfortunately, cultural ignorance and ethnocentrism has and will continue to exist. There is no way to eradicate it. However, that being said, I believe that this discussion should probably be ended here as the issue has been settled. But, somehow, I do have a feeling this will not be the last of it on other articles. It's often difficult and hopeless work here on Wikipedia but hopefully the costs will not outweigh the benefits. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 02:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh PLEASE don't bring up Kosovo.....in any event, it is very well documented that Liszt was German by ethnicity and Hungarian by nationality. He did not speak Slovak, his parents were not Slovaks, etc. Mr. Demko seems to be quite isolated in his opinion--in general I would suggest that any claim regarding nationality or other such sensitive issue should require at least two sources to be considered even remotely verifiable. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok...well I'm not quite sure why all caps "shouting" is necessary or the redundancy of repeating the consensus for that matter. But Ok. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 07:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)