Talk:Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt)

Untitled
"The Sonata has had many champions over the years, and has been performed by virtually every major 20th century pianist. Pianists as diverse as Alfred Brendel and Vladimir Horowitz have performed it, and it seems to be one of the few works that appears in every repertoire. This may be because the sonata's considerable technical and interpretive challenges place it as one of the most difficult and rewarding works a pianist can undertake."

This should be removed, I think.

1. Is it strange that Brendel recorded it? Otherwise I don't understand the point...

2. "one of the few works in every repertoire". This should be explained, if not removed...

Anders Båtstrand


 * There's every reason to remove it? Schissel : bowl listen 17:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is perceived by many to be strange that Brendel recorded this work, since he has been associated, by his own repertoire, with the German classics, for nearly the last 40 years of his career. Most people are unaware that he recorded many Romantic virtuosic pieces in the earlier part of his career, displaying a quite ferocious technique indeed, in works like the Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies (which are arguably even less "serious" works than the Sonata). In fact, he has recorded the Liszt Sonata twice.66.108.145.155 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

About the link's download...
When I downloaded the song (performed by Alberto Cobo), instead of the whole 34 minutes of the sonata, it cut off on the 30th minute (not exactly 30th). Is anyone else having this trouble? Or just me? If so, we should look for another download of the same song. It will be difficult to find though.
 * It's possibly for copyright reasons, I'll look into it to-night M A Mason

Will somebody more knowledgeable than me please try to link to Evgeny Kissin's performance of the sonata on Youtube? It's divided into four parts and does much greater justice to the sonata than the recording that is presently in this article. For one thing, Kissin's piano is in tune! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkt (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Title
Nobody disputes that it is a piano sonata. However, it is always referred to as Liszt's "Sonata in B minor". I understand Wiki naming conventions, but I think in this case the title should be Sonata in B minor (Liszt) or perhaps Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt), with Piano Sonata (Liszt) as a redirect. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After all, we have Mass in B minor, not Mass (Bach). --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would probably agree&mdash;as a pianist I don't think I've heard anyone calling it "Liszt's piano sonata". In [//www.google.com/search?q=liszt+sonata+in+b+minor&tbm=bks&tbo=1 this Google books results page], all but one (which is half in caps so I would probably doubt the title's well thought out) say "piano sonata in B Minor".  Best wishes, Rain City 471  (whack!) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I assume the page move isn't contraversial, and since there doesn't seem to be much activity on the talk I'll move the page. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss on this talk page.  Rain City 471  (whack!) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Major Deficiencies
I am doing an overhaul of the article. It seems as though the article would be well served to be redesigned. The headings background and composition seem to be fairly unrelated to the subject matter located therein. Also some of the material seems dubious so I will remove it, if anyone can find a reliable source feel free to replace anything I remove. For instance, it seems unlikely that Schmumann would have been familiar with the sonata considering his death in 1856 and his mental capacity at the end of his life. I am going to add sources and some basic analysis. The piece has been critically analyzed many, many times, and I feel that it is valid to include some of this analysis within the wikipedia article.comment added by Drpainosaurus (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Section reorganisation
Hi everyone, I think the article should be organised into two main sections (forgetting  for the moment):   and   (or a more eloquent title). The history section could contain the current  and   sections, and the music section could contain the   and   sections. Rain City 471  (whack!) 16:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no-one's commented, I assume this to be uncontroversial and I'll be faint bold and do it. Thanks, Rain City 471  (whack!) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why an image of Brahms?
Isn't it disrespectful to illustrate an article about a master work of one of the greatest pianists with an image of another composer, based in an anecdotal episode which doesn't make any difference at all? Fernandolunad (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential Plagiarism Here
It looks like large swathes of text on this article, particularly in the "Music" section, might be plagiarized from other sources. I've found the same text repeated elsewhere, but I'm not sure if those were taken from Wikipedia or the other way around. Is there a way to determine when a specific section was added to the article so I can check? --DoDososeSe (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Notable Performances
There seems to be no particular rhyme or reason to the given selection. (I realise that is something of a Wikipedia tradition.) While it's tempting to add several dozen more equally worthy recordings, I would rather suggest removing the section entirely. JBritnell (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)