Talk:Les préludes

Pop. culture
I have a vague notion of this piece appearing in a Simpson's episode, but I'm not sure and wouldn't know where to look to find out. Any ideas? M A Mason 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's summer, isn't it? Go rent all the Simpsons DVDs you can find, make some popcorn, grab a beer and get comfy in front of the telly. Hey, I'm not wasting time, I'm doing research for Wikipedia! ;-) LOL


 * In all seriousness, I'm not sure how one would find out (other than watching the entire series). Do you remember if it actually featured prominently in the plotline, or was it just random background music? K. Lásztocska 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any site that has a lot of information about the show should (but will not necessarily) have information about it. Now I don't know why they would use it as I can't think of any way any of the themes would fit in it…we'll end before I get into POV :P &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'd forgotten about this, all I remember is some kind of dinner hosted by Mr Burns, and someone comments on the background music - possibly Homer - and Burns says something like "Oh this, it's Hungarian music." Something like that. M A Mason 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And is that all they have to say about this great master? :P &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts from Les Preludes were used as the theme music for the old Flash Gordon movie serials from the 1930s, such as "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe." I'm surprised no one else mentioned that yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdlitvin (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Klauser's "revised" arrangement
Without giving much importance to it: Klauser's arrangement was published under his name while Liszt's name was left unmentioned. The arrangement thus kept being Klauser's.85.22.30.74 (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Klauser versus Stradal
The piano arrangement provided at imlsp actually is that by Stradal. If you want to access it, take the link at the article's bottom. (The comments concerning Klauser's arrangement are misleading and in parts wrong.) Then scroll down and click at "Les Préludes". After you have opened the pdf of Stradal's arrangement, scroll down to the final bars. You will see that Liszt's alterations are not incorporated.80.144.85.6 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just saw that at imlsp as well the arrangement by Klauser is available. However, calling tis arrangement an "arrangement by the composer" is not only misleading but seems to be insulting for Liszt. The inscription is "Bearbeitung von Karl Klauser", i.e. "arrangement by Karl Klauser".85.22.22.193 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The acronym for the International Music Score Library Project is, for your information, IMSLP. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  13:43 25 July, 2008 (UTC)

New revision
Unfortunately, it has turned out that I must revise, not to say rewrite parts of chapter "Genesis". Reason is that yesterday I received the essay by Andrew Bonner. Since he was cited by Mueller in her Ph. D. thesis, I had thought there was not much difference between both, but it was an error. There is additional information in Bonner's essay, and some of his dates are different from those by Raabe and Mueller. An example is Liszt's sketch for the early version of his Tasso; of August 1, 1849, according to Raabe, and of August 1, 1847, according to Bonner. (August 1, 1847, seems to be correct.) Another example is the part of Raff's catalogue of Liszt's works with incipits of early versions of his orchestral works. Bonner's date is 1853, but without giving any reasons. (In this case, Mueller's date, of about 1849, seems to be more convincing.) In order to avoid further surprises of similar kinds, before doing a new revision I'll wait until I'll have read also the essay by Alexander Main. Until then I must ask you for some patience.85.22.22.193 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the meanwhile I've read the essay by Alexander Main, but found his arguments very weak. He wants to show that there had been two different pieces, the abandoned Overture Les quatre Élémens and an early version of Les Préludes. His main sources are the "Konzertlexikon" of Müller-Reuter, and a letter by Liszt to Raff where a certain "Meditation Symphonie" and the Overture Les quatre Élémens are both mentioned. Since Müller-Reuter wrote, there was a score of Les Préludes with subtitle "Meditation Symphonie", Main concludes, Liszt in the letter to Raff must have meant two different pieces Les Préludes and Les quatre Élémens. Unfortunately, Müller-Reuter's claim was just an error. There is only a single "Meditation Symphonie" by Liszt, an early version of Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne. After this, Main's theory is entirely obsolete. There are several further errors in his essay besides.


 * I also read the Ode by Lamartine. The word "prélude" is only mentioned in the title and in the introduction. In the introduction, the speaking person is a poet who cannot find his inspiration. (The last poem of the cycle is "Adieux à la poésie".) He thus asks the muse to come to him. The last words of the introduction are, "Esprit capricieux, viens, prélude à ton grè!" ("Come, willful genie, prelude as you like!" The muse then comes down to him.) While this is rather close to Liszt's hint, the "Préludes" were only the prelude to his own path of composition, there is not the least resemblance with the published preface, "What else is our life but a series of preludes to that unknown Hymn, the first and solemn note of which is intoned by Death?". The rather stupid opinion in the preface, a man had to take part in every war, not asking of which kind the war might be, is neither included in the ode by Lamartine. Neglecting the titles, the introduction of the ode "Les Préludes" could as well be taken as program for Liszt's Orpheus.


 * At moment, I'm still waiting for additional sources, among them the "Konzertlexikon" by Müller-Reuter (with information concerning the genesis of the preface), and the essay by Haraszti (with examples for musical parallels between Les Préludes and the former chorus pieces). Concerning the time when the chorus pieces were composed, there are traces which are leading to Lamartine. Liszt visited Lamartine in July 1844 and at end of May 1845. Lamartine also attended the concert on August 6, 1844, in Marseille, where the piece "Les Aquilons" was performed. Hoping to find additional information, I'll try to get a "Correspondance générale" of Lamartine. As momentary impression, writing this particular article has turned out as a very hard task. I'd never expected that there was so much of mystification and confusion around a popular piece like Les Préludes. On the other hand, it is a typical example for the pleasures of modern Liszt research.80.144.121.43 (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I yesterday received the essay by Haraszti, which gives a plenty of information. Haraszti found letters by Liszt and Princess Wittgenstein to Joseph Autran. They show that the title "Les quatre Élémens" still existed in 1856. It is also clear that the musical motifs of Les Préludes were taken from the chorus pieces "Les Astres", "Les Flots" and "La Terre". Concerning the preface of Les Préludes, Haraszti gives four different versions which he took from the "Konzertlexikon" of Müller-Reuter. The earliest one, written in March 1854 by Princess Wittgenstein, is very long. It is composed of own reflections of the Princess into which some lines of quotations from the ode by Lamartine are incorporated. In the final version, the reflections of the Princess are drastically shortened, and nearly all of the quotations are omitted. Only a single one has survived. It is the sentence with quotation marks, "the trumpet sounds the alarm". Of the entire preface, solely this (and the title) was overtaken from Lamartine.


 * Unfortunately, Haraszti's translations from German to French are not always reliable, and there are some further minor defects in his essay. While he made use of micro film copies of the chorus pieces, his only source with regard to Les Préludes is the published score. There are also some errors in his presumed dates of composition. His imaginations of the kind of the collaboration of Lina Ramann with Princess Wittgenstein are wrong. (He had no knowledge of Ramann's diaries, which were published not earlier than in 1986.) In any case, I must still wait for the "Konzertlexikon" of Müller-Reuter. It can only be a matter of a couple of further days, perhaps a week.80.144.123.22 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just started rewriting chapter "Genesis". In order to avoid confusing contradictions with parts of the prior version, I deleted the prior version, but saved it.85.22.31.76 (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I have seen that you speak German as well as English; could you also perhaps work the German Les Préludes article as well? I would help, but my command of the German language is hardly adequate for the project. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:25 3 September, 2008 (UTC)

"No. 3" or "the third"
As far as I saw contemporary editions of Les Préludes, it was always called "Symphonische Dichtung Nr. 3" ("Symphonic Poem No. 3"). "No. 3" thus is a part of the original title and should better be kept.85.22.22.122 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see why, if for no other reason than that it is the third that he wrote. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:46 27 July, 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I started this page as a stub back in 2007, and I'm extremely impressed at what it has become. You've all done a great job. Slystoneisback (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

Form -- first phrase in G?
The article says that the first melodic arpeggio unfolded in the strings (C-E-G-A) "can be heard as the subdominant of G," and claims that the absence of the pitch F undermines C as the tonic. I notice that this analysis does not cite a source and I strongly suspect it to be original research, thus should be stricken. F's absence is irrelevant; one could equally say that the lack of Ds (as the dominant of G) undermines G as a possible tonic. No credentialed music theorist would analyze this first phrase in G. 76.90.232.8 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination?
Let's! This article is very extensively researched, judging by the 100-odd footnotes.

60.54.27.253 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a magnificent article, although the fact that the instrumentation is nowhere given is both glaring and puzzling. 216.228.100.250 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This entry is far from magnificent. There is a lot of information about the origin, development and meaning of the piece, but little about the music itself and nothing about its critical reception or important performances/recordings. 82.36.129.101 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd sentence
Directed by Liszt himself, [2] In April 1856 the score, and in January 1865 the orchestral parts, were published by Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig.


 * How could Liszt have "directed" the publication of the score and the parts? This sounds more like a reference to the composer conducting the 1st performance, no mention of which event appears at all, an odd omission for such a detailed article.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dissertation?
The article is very impressive, but when I read it I had the feeling I was reading someones dissertation rather than an encyclopedic article.Graham1973 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where can I hear it?
Certainly a recording can be heard. Why, where can I hear it. Link please. Bcwilmot (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Even a short segment might be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcwilmot (talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
I reviewed the whole thing, cutting out swathes of irrelevancies and obscure academic arguments, to address the problem of WP:ESSAY. I corrected as much as possible of the English (seems to have been written by a German speaker). I separated out some material to a new article, Les quatre élémens. I reordered the sections of the article so that they were more or less sequential. I added up to date references. I provided wikilinks to a variety of names and technical terms. I hope that the reader can now get a clear idea of what Les préludes is and how it came to be written.--Smerus (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Notable recordings

In order to justify the plural, it might be a good idea to include Furtwangler's (post-war) revival of the work with the Vienna Philharmonic, and even better, Felix Weingartner's, since Weingartner had known Liszt and his musicianship personally at first hand. A 1922 New York recording under Mengelberg, a friend of Mahler, can be heard on YouTube in a good transfer, but the scoring had to be adapted to acoustic recording techniques2A00:23C7:5A19:CB00:A5CE:8A03:3D2:B3E5 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Detailed musical analysis
I have tried to complete the article, despite my poor English, without taking anything away from what existed (possibly moved from one paragraph to another), and by adding several elements:

A consideration of Bonner's 1986 article, which provides a definitive answer to questions that did not seem 100% defined in the previous version of the wiki article (Wouldn't the very latest revision between the overture of "Les quatre élémens" and "Les preludes" have been a little bit influenced by Lamartine...? As Bonner says: " The answer is emphatically no").

More important, a detailed analysis of the work, which had not yet been proposed and can serve as a listening guide, considering first and foremost the score, and not the countless speculative interpretations, most of which date from a time when the manuscripts found by Bonner were not yet known. Most of the observations are taken from published musicological works and accompanied by the corresponding citations. As for the thematic links with the choruses "les quatre élémens", only one parallel has to my knowledge never been brought to light in a published article: the link between the beginning of the chorus "Les Aquilons" and the music of "allegro tempestuoso" mes.131-133. But the accompanying extract from the score speaks for itself, just read the music. (And it would have been surprising if Liszt had not used at least one motif from the chorus "Les Aquilons" in the Overture of "les quatre élémens", while he uses motifs from the 3 other choruses)

As it is naturally not possible to dismiss out of hand the "philosophical" or "literary" interpretations that have accompanied the work for decades, attached to the ambiguous appellation of "symphonic poem", I have brought them together in the paragraph "the first symphonic poem", by comparing several interpretations, each with their arguments. (Although Taruskin is a leading musicologist, his statement that the introduction of "les préludes" represents "The Question" is an interpretation, not an objective analysis of the score as Bonner does. In the previous version of the article, this interpretation was presented as the only reading grid, thus supposed to be a definitive truth. In this version, I simply include this interpretation among others.)

Finally, I have proposed a discography, with comments in which I have resisted the (strong) temptation to leave personal opinions, and by only paraphrasing extracts from reviews published by journalists or recognized musical personalities. With an exception for 2 recordings which seem to me to be really interesting, even if they are probably not the very first choices, and for which I have not found any published review: I. Fischer, which received an award in France at the time of release, and V. Neuman in concert in 1979, released in the form of a concert-conference followed by a performance of the work. For those who appreciate the Czech Philharmonic, this is knowledgeable)

I'm sorry I had to make so many successive edits to improve the accuracy and clarity of the explanations, without being really fluent in English. (It's a pity there is no "save" function without publishing, it would have allowed to work without polluting the "edit history" so much: perhaps an administrator could suppress most of the intermediate edits).

I'd be happy if other contributors could improve the probably still numerous English mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musico73 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Move orchestration
I think talking about the orchestration in Genesis is fine, but only specifically where Liszt got help from. Perhaps a new subsection (e.g. "Instrumentation) would better fit that information. DpMusicman (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)