Dana Gooley, The Virtuoso Liszt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). xv + 280 pages. £45

Abstract

Almost everyone who has ever read an eyewitness account of a performance given by Franz Liszt during his concert years (c. 1833-48) comes away with a strong sense of irrevocable loss. As the premier pianist of his day and perhaps the most lauded performer ever, Liszt seems to have had an uncanny ability to take hold of his audience in ways that few performers today-even outside of the classical idiom-can approach. Robert Schumann's oft-cited observation to his contemporaries that Liszt 'must be heard-and also seen' now seems like a cruel and impossible exhortation to twenty-first-century readers, reminding them that they can no longer retrieve the virtuoso Liszt. Perhaps as compensation for this loss, biographers have repeatedly described Liszt during his concert years as an unstoppable musical force before which France, the Austrian Empire, Germany and the rest of Europe joyously bowed. Indeed, the transcendental profile of Liszt and his 'Triumphzug durch Europa' can even help turn biographical compensation into collective consolation, for while he is continually challenged by scholars for his activities as composer, conductor and writer, the historical and cultural significance of Liszt the pianist has remained uncontested. His virtuosity appears immutable and timeless. But as Dana Gooley argues forcefully in The Virtuoso Liszt, this virtuosity has now become inaccessible. Far from a natural grace that remained consistent through time, Liszt's transcendentalism, his virtuosity, was rather a construct of interactions with his audiences. For a musician so embedded in his social milieu, Gooley contends, Liszt's virtuosity has been severely decontextualized by his biographers. The traditional narrative of the pianist's dealings with Sigismond Thalberg in the salon of Princess Cristina Belgiojoso on 31 March 1837, the Pest 'sabre of honour' episode on 4 January 1840 and the sensation of 'Lisztomania' in Berlin in the winter of 1842 often assigns a subordinate role to Liszt's audiences. By deconstructing these high-profile events of Liszt's concert years, however, Gooley argues for a shift in hermeneutic focus: 'The gravest consequence of working Liszt into idealist paradigms is that his audiences, the very social fabric of his virtuoso career, become wooden and irrelevant' (p. 266). To seek out a singular 'virtuosity'-indeed, even a homogeneous audience-is fruitless, if not altogether disingenuous and damaging, in positing an accurate picture of the pianist. Gooley relies almost entirely on primary sources, allowing him not only to sidestep current debates in Liszt scholarship, but also-and much more importantly-to expand the number of voices that constituted Liszt's audiences. To be sure, major publications such as the Revue et gazette musicale and the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik are heavily tapped for their insights, but Gooley broadens the critical spectrum considerably by including selections from lesser-known and often non-musical journals such as the Frankfurter Konversationsblatt or France musicale. He is espe...

Rewriting Mazeppa: Meaning and communication in Liszt’s virtuoso and program music

“…But he never inserted the Hero and Leander story in the paratext of In der Nacht for reasons related to the performance context of the piece and to the intentions that the listeners would have attributed to him with such a title. Kregor (2015, p. 97) synthesizes these reasons as follows:The specificity of this recollection explains the reason why Schumann kept it between him and Clara. His version was of two lovers separated, “a beautiful romantic story”.…”

“…Also after the composition, he confessed to Clara: “I found, to my delight, that it contained the story of ‘Hero and Leander’ in it. […] When I play [ In der Nacht ], I always think of this image” (Letter to Clara Schumann, 21st of April 1838, quoted in Kregor, 2015, p. 97). But he never inserted the Hero and Leander story in the paratext of In der Nacht for reasons related to the performance context of the piece and to the intentions that the listeners would have attributed to him with such a title.…”