ArticlePDF Available

Towards a New Edition of Liszt’s Sonata in B minor: Sources, Editorial History, Symbolic Issues. Tibor Szász (with Gerard Carter and Martin Adler) J • A • L • S JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN LISZT SOCIETY Volume 68, 2017

  • (now), Philipps University Marburg Germany (in earlier years)


THIS IS THE FULL TEXT OF Towards a New Edition of Liszt’s Sonata in B minor: Sources, Editorial History, Symbolic Issues. Tibor Szász (with Gerard Carter and Martin Adler) “New wine into old wineskins”—such is the reception history of Franz Liszt’s Sonata in B minor. Ever since its publication in 1854 the score has suffered from textual misinterpretations which are reproduced as a matter of longstanding tradition in current editions and performances. What has led to these widespread misinterpretations of the Sonata? The answer must be the music itself—a continuum in statu nascendi (in the state of being born)—for which analysts have yet to develop adequate means of analysis and synthesis. Liszt was not a good proofreader of his own compositions, and this circumstance, together with his failure to transfer his piecemeal revisions to all similarly affected structures has led to his Sonata being misunderstood by generations of musicians. Liszt’s Sonata has in the past been viewed through the spectacles of distorted tradition. Accustomed to look for a featured “tune” in the soprano, analysts have failed to detect the completely novel structure of the opening Lento assai which comprises two interacting polyphonic elements, of which the “melodic” voice is found not in the traditional soprano but in the bass. Unable to find the expected structures, interpreters have forced out of the printed notes of the score fictional “tunes” fitted into a bed of habitual “soprano melodies.” They have been labeled with two unrelated names, “Phrygian” and “Gypsy” and incorrectly referred to as “descending scales.” Typically, the opening Lento assai was misinterpreted as unisons (staccati on G, mm. 1, 4, 7) broken up in mm. 2–3 and 5–6 by a descending scale starting on high G and a drone starting on the same high G. The Sonata in B minor was published in 1854 with flaws which continue to be restated uncritically in current Urtext editions. These flaws manifest, not as wrong notes, but as details of notation which obscure the two-voiced polyphony in octaves of the Sonata’s Urmotiv (or thème générateur). Liszt’s failure to transfer his autograph revisions of the Urmotiv to all similarly affected structures resulted in a first edition that contained seven flaws in the opening three measures which reappear in mm. 4–7. The present authors have re-examined all the extant and relevant sources: the autograph manuscript (the so-called “Lehman Manuscript”), the two Henle facsimiles thereof, the only extant sonata sketch (GSA 60/N 2), an undated “Sonate” fragment in E minor (old catalogue S701t / new catalogue S692f), the Urtext and critical editions published in the last two centuries, as well as other scholarly contributions to the literature on the Liszt Sonata. Their re-examination has yielded the following conclusions: Urtext policies perpetuate many of the flaws of the first edition and ignore Liszt’s autograph revisions; no edition of the Sonata reflects Liszt’s intended graphic layout of the score; many current performances and analyses of the Sonata are flawed; a correct edition that constitutes his Fassung letzter Hand (final authorized text) is urgently needed. The likelihood of misinterpreting the confusing graphic layout of the first edition of the Sonata was recognized by a number of pupils close to Liszt. In particular, Arthur Friedheim, José Vianna da Motta, and Alexander Siloti produced rectified graphic layouts intended to prevent misinterpretations of the Sonata’s opening measures. However, these solutions remain mostly unknown today. The aim of this article is to provide an impulse for the publication of a more correct Urtext edition of the Liszt Sonata which is free of the numerous flaws contained, not only in the first edition of 1854, but in all published Urtext and non-Urtext editions since then. Indeed, the time is ripe to excuse Liszt’s deficient proofreading, to remedy the resulting textual misinterpretations by performers, scholars, and editors, and to rehabilitate the text of the Sonata in a reliable Urtext edition based on Liszt’s previously ignored revisions. Implementation of this project will not be difficult, time-consuming, or expensive. It largely consists of amendments to the fourteen crucial measures 1–7 (Lento assai) and 453–59 (Quasi adagio). Besides making suggestions for a correct Urtext edition, the present authors have strived to point out the far-reaching consequences for performance of the rehabilitated Sonata text.
From the Editor ..........................................................................................................ii
Contributors ............................................................................................................... iii
Liszt, Urhan, and the Sanctication of Schubert ...........................................................5
Andrew Haringer
William Mason, Liszt’s First American Student .........................................................41
Charles Timbrell
Towards a New Edition of Liszts Sonata in B minor:
Sources, Editorial History, Symbolic Issues ................................................................57
Tibor Szász (with Gerard Carter and Martin Adler)
J • A • L • S
Volume 68
JALS 2017 - Front Matter.indd 1 2/16/18 3:52 PM
e American Liszt Society, Inc.
e American Liszt Society is a nonprot organization devoted to stimulating interest in the life,
music, and cultural contributions of Franz Liszt. e Society’s Journal (JALS) disseminates information
and opinions about Liszt, his artistic predecessors, contemporaries, and followers. In addition, JALS
welcomes contributions in such cognate elds as piano, composition, conducting, criticism, teaching,
literature, languages, and sociological studies.
Editor: Jonathan Kregor
Review Editor: James Deaville
Editorial Assistant: Sean Gower
To join the American Liszt Society and for back issues, please contact:
Alexander Djordjevic
Membership Secretary
PO Box 1020
Wheaton, IL 60187-1020
Telephone: (630) 677-6777
Claims for missing issues must be received within 90 days of the mailing date.
Published once each year, in the Fall, by e American Liszt Society, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2017 by the American Liszt Society, Inc. ISSN 0147-4413
From the Editor
e three articles in this issue speak to the challenging—albeit rewarding—pursuit of fully
understanding Liszt and his world. While Liszts time in Paris during the July Revolution has
been scrutinized from various scholarly perspectives, Andrew Haringer uncovers a little-known
but exceedingly important gure in Liszt’s early artistic formation, particularly as regards the
composer’s appreciation of Franz Schubert. Tibor Szász (with Gerard Carter and Martin Adler)
demonstrates how one of Liszt’s signature works remains plagued by problematic musical
and editorial interpretations that have only become more intrasigent over the years. Charles
Timbrell sheds light on Liszt’s rst American student, who not only helped popularize his
teacher’s music in the New World, but also established a musical dynasty whose inuence re-
verberated well into the twentieth century.
Finally, I would like to acknoweldge the invaluable assistance of Sean Gower, who helped
improve the content, focus, and style of all three articles. is issue is unquestionaly better due
to his committed involvement.
Jonathan Kregor
December 2017
JALS 2017 - Front Matter.indd 2 2/16/18 3:52 PM
Martin Adler, born 1973 in Kassel, Germany, studied Chemistry in Marburg (PhD, 2001)
and worked for a number of years as an IT specialist before he became a grammar school
teacher of Chemistry and Physics. An amateur pianist and musicological researcher, he has
co-authored and published several well-received monographs on the Liszt Sonata (Liszt Piano
Sonata Monographs, Wensleydale Press) together with Gerard Carter, and he is conducting
Liszt research together with Gerard Carter and Tibor Szász. He lives in Bonn with his wife and
children and collects piano roll recordings of nineteenth-century pianists.
Gerard Carter was born in Sydney in 1943 and is the published author of books and articles on
the Liszt Sonata and on nineteenth century piano and organ performance. He has worked on
Liszt research with Martin Adler and Tibor Szász and has produced CDs of historic reproducing
piano roll recordings, including those of the Liszt Sonata by Ernest Schelling and Liszt pupil
Eugen d’Albert. Gerard studied piano with Eunice Gardiner at the Sydney Conservatorium of
Music and organ with Jean Langlais in Paris. He holds the associate diploma in music (piano
performing) and is a graduate in Economics and Law from the University of Sydney.
Andrew Haringer received his PhD in Historical Musicology from Columbia University in
2012 with a dissertation on the early works of Franz Liszt. Since then, he has served as visiting
faculty at Dartmouth, Williams, and Quest University Canada. His research on Liszt and
topic theory has appeared in such edited volumes as Grandeur et Finesse: Chopin, Liszt, and
the Parisian Musical Scene (Brepols, 2013); Liszt’s Legacies (Pendragon Press, 2014); and the
Oxford Handbook of Topic eory (Oxford University Press, 2014). His chapters on visual arts
and piano technology will appear in the forthcoming Liszt in Context (Cambridge University
Press, expected date 2019).
Tibor Szász, an internationally acclaimed pianist and scholar, has done extensive studies on
Liszt, Mozart, Beethoven, Bartók, and Enescu. He was born in Transylvania to Hungarian
parents, and studied with Eliza Ciolan, a pupil of Alfred Cortot, before coming to the United
States of America. He holds a Doctor of Musical Arts degree from the University of Michigan.
Szász has been a professor at Duke University, and is currently Professor of Piano at the
Hochschule für Musik Freiburg, Germany.
Charles Timbrell is Professor Emeritus of Piano at Howard University in Washington, DC.
He has performed throughout the US and Europe and has recorded three DVDs of French
piano music (IMC, Tokyo). He is the author of French Pianism (Amadeus Press), numerous
articles in music journals, a chapter on Debussy interpretation for e Cambridge Companion
to Debussy, and performing editions of piano works by Mozart, Beethoven, Bizet, Chopin, and
Schumann (Alfred Publishing). He is a former editor of JALS and is a student of a student of
a student of William Mason.
JALS 2017 - Front Matter.indd 3 2/16/18 3:52 PM
Towards a New Edition of Liszts Sonata in B minor:
Sources, Editorial History, Symbolic Issues
Tibor Szász
(with Gerard Carter and Martin Adler)*
“New wine into old wineskins”—such is the reception history of Franz Liszt’sSonata in B
minor. Ever since its publication in 1854 the score has suered from textual misinterpretations
whichare reproduced as a matter of longstanding traditionin current editions and performances.
What has led to these widespread misinterpretations of the Sonata? e answer must be the
music itself—a continuumin statu nascendi(in the state of being born)—for which analysts have
yet to develop adequate means of analysis and synthesis. Liszt was not a good proofreader of
his own compositions,1 and this circumstance, together with his failure to transfer his piece-
meal revisions to all similarly aected structures has led to his Sonata being misunderstood by
generations of musicians.
e present authors have re-examined all the extant and relevant sources: the autograph
manuscript (the so-called “Lehman Manuscript”), the two Henle facsimiles thereof, the only
extant sonata sketch (GSA60/N2), an undated“Sonate” fragment in E minor (old catalogue
S701t / new catalogue S692f),2 theUrtextand critical editions published in the last two cen-
turies, as well as other scholarly contributions to the literature on the Liszt Sonata. eir re-
examination has yielded the following conclusions:
• Urtextpolicies perpetuate many of the aws of the rst edition and ignore Liszt’s
autograph revisions;
• no edition of the Sonata reects Liszt’s intended graphic layout of the score;
• many current performances and analyses of the Sonata are awed;
• a correct edition that constitutes hisFassung letzter Hand(nal authorized text) is
urgently needed.
e likelihood of misinterpreting the confusing graphic layout of the rst edition of the
Sonata was recognized by a number of pupils close to Liszt. In particular, Arthur Friedheim,
José Vianna da Motta, and Alexander Siloti produced rectied graphic layouts intended to
prevent misinterpretations of the Sonata’s opening measures. However, these solutions remain
mostly unknown today.
e aim of this article is to provide an impulse for the publication of a more correct Urtext
edition of the Liszt Sonata which is free of the numerous aws contained, not only in the rst
edition of 1854, but in all publishedUrtext and non-Urtexteditions since then. Indeed, the time
is ripe to excuse Liszt’s decient proofreading, to remedy the resulting textual misinterpreta-
tions by performers, scholars, and editors, and to rehabilitate the text of the Sonata in a reliable
Urtext edition based on Liszt’s previously ignored revisions. Implementation of this project will
not be dicult, time-consuming, or expensive. It largely consists of amendments to the four-
teen crucial measures 1–7 (Lento assai) and 453–59 (Quasi adagio).
Besides making suggestions for a correct Urtext edition, the present authors have strived
to point out the far-reaching consequences for performance of the rehabilitated Sonata text.
* Editor’s Note: Musical examples appear on pages 84–108.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 57 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Urmotiv and Urtext: problems and solutions
Liszt’sSonata has in the past been viewed through the spectacles of distorted tradition.
Accustomed to look for a featured “tune” in the soprano, analysts have failed to detect the com-
pletely novel structure of the opening Lento assai which comprisestwointeracting polyphonic
elements, of which the “melodic” voice is found not in the traditional soprano but in thebass.
Unable to nd the expected structures, interpreters have forced out of the printed notes of the
score ctional “tunes” tted into a bed of habitual “soprano melodies.” ey have been labeled
with two unrelated names, “Phrygian” and “Gypsy” and incorrectly referred to as “descending
scales.” Typically, the opening Lento assai was misinterpreted as unisons (staccati on G, mm. 1, 4,
7) broken up in mm. 2–3 and 5–6 by a descending scale starting on high G and a drone starting
on the same high G.
e Sonata in B minor was published in 1854 with aws which continue to be restated un-
critically in current Urtext editions. ese aws manifest, not as wrong notes, but as details of
notation which obscure the two-voiced polyphony in octaves of the Sonata’s Urmotiv(or thème
générateur).3 Liszt’s failure to transfer his autograph revisions of the Urmotiv to all similarly
aected structures resulted in a rst edition that contained seven aws in the opening three
measures (see Example 1), which reappear in mm. 4–7. e present authors suggest the text as
given in Example 2 for a rst correct Urtext edition of the Sonata. e Urmotiv’s two-voiced
polyphony in octaves is projected in Example 2 with the same clarity as in Example 3.
e aws found in the opening seven measures must be corrected as follows, and as shown
in Example 2:
1. the octavestaccatiinmm. 1,4, and 7,right-hand sta,must be complemented by a
downward pointing stem (see also Liszt’s clarication of the correct voice leading
at m. 454, Example 25);
2. all the notes in the L.H. sta, mm. 1–7, must have their stems pointing downwards;
3. the legato slurs must start from the lower note G, and not from the G in the
4.–5. the tied Gs, mm. 3 and 6, must be prolonged by a dot followed by a quarter note
6. the crescendo hairpin must not extend past the pitch F in m. 2 and the pitch F# in
m. 5;
7. the diminuendo hairpin, mm. 3 and 6, must begin before the onset of pitch D.4
Liszt’s hitherto ignored augmentation dots
All Urtext editors have hitherto ignored Liszt’s autograph augmentation dots entered in
m. 3 of the Lehman manuscript, and the augmentation dots intended for m. 6 but misplaced
to m. 5 (Example 4). A. F. Wouters5 used augmentation dots in mm. 3 and 6 (Lento assai; see
Example 5) and also in parallel mm. 455 and 458 (Quasi adagio; not shown) in which the Ur-
motiv is heard for a second time in a slow tempo. Wouters’s edition is, however, full of errors,
the most serious being to:
• alter Liszt’s distribution of the notes in order to feature the corrupt tradition of
“descending scales”;
• preserve the corrupt crescendo hairpins printed in the Sonata’s rst edition; and
• promote the corrupt performance tradition of a sudden forte at the Allegro energico
(m. 8).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 58 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Liszt’s augmentation dots are carefully aligned—both horizontally and vertically—with the
prolonged drone G (recall Example 4). Prolongation dots aligned in this manner were common
to Liszt’s time, and in fact were used in some of the rst editions of Ludwig van Beethoven’s late
piano sonatas (Example 6). After adding augmentation dots in m. 3, Liszt intended to notate
similar dots in m. 6, but he mistook m. 5 for m. 6, hence adding a superuous dot in m. 5 for a
voice that could not grammatically accommodate one.
Liszt may have prolonged by an additional quarter note value6 the already tied drone G in
mm. 3 and 6 for two reasons. He intended to prevent the slow Urmotiv from being heard as an
arrival at C natural minor (Example 7); and by extension, Liszt intended to prevent the C mi-
nor misinterpretation of the slow Urmotiv (Example 7) from being “exported” to its two restate-
ments in a slow tempo (mm. 454 and 750) which, without augmentation dots, may be heard as
arrivals at B natural minor and E harmonic minor, respectively (Example 8). Non-inclusion of
Liszt’s augmentation dots may result in the drone being heard as a “dominant pitch”—a fatal
misinterpretation which drives home the need to print the augmentation dots in mm. 3 and 6
(Lento assai), and in the parallel measures 455 and 458 (Quasi adagio) and 751 and 753 (Lento
assai), in all future editions of the Sonata.7
When performed with correct note values, voice leading, and dynamics, the Urmotiv’s
two-voiced polyphony in octaves yields the three chromatically ascending gestures shown in
Example 9: G–F\, G–F# and G–G. e created illusion—in the context of the B minor
key signature—of a mock G minor “tonic” drone (p, sotto voce), its invariant mediant Bb, and
its chromatically rising intervals G–F\, GF# and G–G (Example 3) suggest the gradual
coming into existence of a diabolic “universe-within-a-Universe” on the sixthscale degree. e
attempt to install G minor as primary tonal center gains momentum with two crescendo octave
leaps (m. 8) which culminate on the forte downbeat G of m. 9.8 However, the rst occurrence in
the Sonata of the leading tone A# (Example 9, m. 9) restores the tonal supremacy of B minor.
By prolonging the mock “tonic” drone G until the arrival of the mediant pitch Bb (Example
3, mm. 3 and 6), the Sonata’s start on the sixth scale degree of B minor suggests a structural /
symbolic parallel with the doubly “wrong” start on the sixth scale degrees C (6) and Cb (b6) of
Beethoven’s sole “programmatic” sonata, Lebewohl, Abwesenheit und Wiedersehen (e Farewell,
the Absence, and the Reunion), in Eb major, op. 81a (Example 10), whose inuence is explored in
greater detail below.
Liszt’s original and subsequently rejected forte in m. 8
e Urmotiv embodies the opening eight—not seven—measures which recur throughout
the Sonata. By misinterpreting the tempo change at the Allegro energicoas a new formal unit,
pianists disgure the Sonata’s musical logic by crashing down at m. 8 with asudden forte instead
of continuing Liszt’s piano sotto voceinitiated in m. 1 and prolonged into the rst half of m. 8.9
By extension, a common mistake is to break up the integrity of the Sonata’s circular narrative
structures into disconnected linear fragments. Vivisections of this type have yielded the univer-
sally accepted yet awed concept of an Urmotiv broken into three unrelated motifs:
A” = incorrectly mm. 1–7, correctly 1–9 (this is the polyphonic Urmotiv, Example 11,
top sta);
“B” = incorrectly mm. 8–13, correctly 9–13 (Example 11, bottom sta, beginning); and
“C” = incorrectly mm. 14–17, correctly 13–17 (Example 11, bottom sta, end).
e so-called motifs “B” and “C” are not new, but constituents of the two-voiced Urmotiv (Ex-
ample 3) recast in m. 32 as the two-voiced rst subject of the sonata-allegro form (Example 12).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 59 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
e Urmotiv’s two-voiced polyphony in octaves, made up exclusively of its Leap and
Hammer constituents, sets up the tragic structural / symbolic “plot” of the Liszt Sonata (Ex-
ample 3). e tragic plot suggested by the Urmotiv (Example 2) features two separate voices
that begin to vibrate sympathetically while sharing the common pitch “G” (mm. 1, 4, 7); as
the bass is furtively reaching higher and higher to the soprano (mm. 2, 5), they are up jointly
as “one esh” (forte unisono, m. 9) whereupon they are thrust into the abyss while exchanging
places: the “Leap” motifmoves to the high register (motif “B”), the “Hammer” motif to the low
register (motif “C”).
e obeat syncopations of the Urmotiv (mm. 1, 4, and 7) evoke the obeat syncopations
of Beethoven’s Lebewohl Sonata, op. 81a, as they hesitantly approach the threshold of the rst
tempo change (see the editorial arrows before the Allegro, Example 13). e original version of
the Liszt Sonata’s Urmotiv was written on page 1 in black ink, with dynamic indications added
in red ink (see Example 14, from Lento to Allegro energico, from piano sotto voce to forte). Liszt
must have realized, however, that his own abrupt forte in m. 8 violated the logical integrity of
the Urmotiv’s gradual chromatic expansion by ascending minor seconds (note the impeccable
orthography in Example 14, m. 8, of the rising octave leaps between the two hands). To correct
his own logical error, Liszt discarded the forte in m. 8 by completely crossing it out while at the
same time inserting a forte on the downbeat of m. 9 (note the editorial arrowhead which points
to the crossed out forte in Example 15, m. 8). A closer inspection under a microscope of the
2015 Henle facsimile edition revealed that Liszt’s abrupt forte dynamic in m. 8 was entered and
then crossed out with the same red ink with which he then inserted a forte on the downbeat
of m. 9. Liszt arrived at the nal stage of the Urmotiv much later by crossing out m. 8 entirely
while inserting on the opposite page (Anfang) the Urmotiv’s nal version (see Example 15 and
Example 4). Any pianist familiar with Liszt’s octave leaps synchronized among the two hands
(Example 15, m. 8) knows that they can never generate the crashing forte or fortissimo heard at
m. 8 in almost every performance. Practicing the synchronized unisono octave leaps (Example
15, m. 8) is a good preparation for performing correctly the gradual crescendo in Liszt’s nalized
version of the leaps (Example 2, m. 8).
e corrupt length of the cresc. hairpins in the rst edition
Another problem is the corrupt length of the cresc. hairpins of the rst edition (Example
1, cipher 6). Among editors of Urtext and critical editions—a list of which is presented in the
Appendix on pages 76–77—Ernst Herttrich (in item 2a, but not in item 2b), Antal Boronkay
(item 24), Nancy Bricard (item 26) and Michael Kube (item 27) have tacitly adopted the short-
er crescendo hairpins notated by Liszt in both the original (p. 1) and the nal version (“Anfang”)
of mm. 2 and 5. eir undocumented decisions contradict editorial norms, even in cases when
an editor believes that the composer’s last autograph version should, exceptionally, be promoted
to the rank of a Fassung letzter Hand.10 Only Leslie Howard has proceeded responsibly by stat-
ing openly his reasons for choosing the rst edition as representative of the composer’s Fassung
letzter Hand:
e rst edition was reprinted in about 1880, but Liszt did not take the oppor-
tunity to make any corrections of the many minor errors and omissions. […]
Various self-suggestions in the manuscript for additions and alterations not
eventually taken up in the publication are now only curiosities; with unerring
clarity of idea, Liszt has always adopted the nest and most appropriate read-
ing of every passage as his nal thought.11
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 60 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Howard’s comments merit closer attention. If he considers that Liszt’s augmentation dots are
“only curiosities”, and that their non-inclusion in the rst edition are “minor errors or omissions”
(Example 1), then the present authors must respectfully disagree for reasons given in Examples
2–4. If the crescendo hairpins of the rst edition (mm. 2, 5) are viewed as Liszt’s “nest and most
appropriate reading” (Example 1, cipher 6), then the present authors must, once again, disagree.
Briey, the crescendo hairpins of the rst edition (Example 1) emphasize the invariant,
“static” downbeat pitch D which, in the context of the rst edition, ends up being played sig-
nicantly louder than the dynamically expanding leaps G–F and G–F# (Example 3)—a
proposition that contradicts musical logic. Liszt’s autograph diminuendo hairpins (mm. 3, 6)
begin consistently before the onset of pitches D, hence pitches Eb must be performed louder—
not softer—than pitches D (Example 4).
Howard’s reference to an 1880 reprint of the rst edition repeats a awed statement by
Kenneth Hamilton.12 e rst edition was reprinted not once but several times during Liszt’s
lifetime without any input from either Liszt or any of his close pupils. e rst copies of the
original edition were sold in April 1854 and the rst reprints were issued in June of that year. As
Example 16 shows, the Liszt Sonata was by no means a nancial success. Between April 1854
and ca. 1900, monthly sales of the Sonata never exceeded 100 copies. By 21 December 1933,
Breitkopf & Härtel had printed 12,275 copies of the unrevised rst edition, of which 11,445
were sold. e Liszt Sonata rarely sold more than 100 copies in any one month, with a monthly
average of only twelve copies.
Beethoven’s Coriolan as a model for the Sonata’s Urmotiv
A comment recorded by Liszt’s pupil August Stradal links the Liszt Sonata’s Urmotiv with
Ludwig van Beethoven’s Coriolan-Ouvertüre:
With respect to this [passage] the master mentioned (in Pest) […] that he had
Beethoven’s “Coriolan” Overture in mind. “Why should I show you my suerings?
I carry them in my inner being and lock them away proudly from you. …”13
Although Stradal assigned Liszt’s statement(“meine Leiden” = my suerings)to the loud
motif which begins in m. 9 of the Sonata, a lamentotraditionallyoccursbeforethe culmination
of a tragic plot. Coriolan begins with two gradually escalating, large ascending leaps punctuated
by rests; at the third leap, the highest pitch is attained; thereupon the leaps reverse their direc-
tion and plunge into the abyss (Example 17). Beethoven’s expanding leaps (“Do,Re,Mi”)
constitute a diatonic model for the Liszt Sonata’s chromatically expanding leaps which land on
the ascending pitch triad “F,F#,G” (Example 18). Examples 17 and 18 share a similar me-
lodic prole (landing notes “C,D,Eb,G, Bin Beethoven, “F,F#,G,E,A#” in Liszt)
and the chromatic triad “F,F#,G” (the bass line in Beethoven).14 Liszt’s comment concerning
the similarly expressed tragedy of the two works points to their only correct structural interpre-
tation—that of a single, indivisible Urmotiv.15
Beethoven’s Coriolan-Ouvertüre and Liszt’s Sonata are two manifestations of a shared ideal.
Liszt’s piano transcriptions of Beethoven’s symphonies were prefaced with the armation, “the
name Beethoven is holy in the arts.” Citing a select number of compositions including the Lebewohl
Sonata, Liszt noted how close Beethoven came to the idea of connecting poetry with instrumen-
tal music.”16 Expressing a spiritual content without the use of explicit words, texts, or programs
was by no means an isolated Lisztian phenomenon. In the words of Heinrich Heine, Romantic
Art itself “took refuge in asystem of traditional symbols, or more appropriately, parables, just as
Christ himself sought to clarify his spiritual ideas throughall kinds ofbeautiful parables.”17
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 61 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Obscuring the two-part voice leading of the Urmotiv in the rst edition
e Sonata’s Urmotiv consists of an invariant diatonic “backbone” and a variant chromatic
“surface” anchored in the B minor key signature. e complementary unity of “backbone” and
“surface” permits the “inected repetition” of the single diatonic set “sol –fa –mi –re –do
si –la” (Example 19). e Urmotiv’s initial ascending leap was correctly identied by Eugen
Schmitz (Example 20) in spite of the misleading graphic layout of the rst edition (Example
1, cipher 2).18 Likewise, Ernest Hutcheson noted (Example 21) “the unorthodox direction of
Liszt’s stems;he preferred to turn them up or downwithout referenceto their position on
thestawherever thepart leading could be madeclearer.”19 Yet, countless analysts have tagged
Liszt’s chromatically inected repetition of parallel mm. 1–3 and 4–6 with two incorrect labels:
“descending scales” and “Phrygian and Gypsy modes” (Examples 22 and 23).
Even Liszt’s pupil August Stradal misinterpreted the Urmotiv: “Slowly, sadly does a bass
theme descend.”20 In reality, the “bass theme” is a thrice ascending musical structure which leaps re-
peatedly upwards from the same starting pitch G—the lowest of theUrmotiv—to ever greater
heights (Example 19). Indeed, the repeated Gs incite:
• a large rising leap which falls back feebly to the starting pitch G in mm. 1–3;
• a larger rising leap which falls back again to the starting pitch G in mm. 4–6;
• the largest rising leap which shoots up unisono to the high G in mm. 7–9.
Leslie Howard is the rst editor to have corrected the faulty editorial tradition of wrongly
stemmed notes in the left hand sta of mm. 1–7 (Lento assai) and 453–59 (Quasi adagio), explic-
itly stating in the preface to his 2011 edition (see Appendix, item 25) that “Wherever possible,
Liszt’s seemingly unorthodox notation, especially in the matter of stem direction, has been re-
tained, because it so often indicates Liszt’s voicing and voice-leading.” Ernst Herttrich (items 2a
and 2b), Antal Boronkay (item 24), Nancy Bricard (item 26) and Michael Kube (item 27) have
tacitly dismissed Liszt’s downward directed stems preserved in the left-hand sta of the Lehman
manuscript (Example 4, mm. 1–7).
e ctitious “descending scales” associated with the Sonata’s opening Urmotiv were main-
ly an outcome of the “bring out the melody” maxim known to pianists. Music scores should be
read from the bass upwards. When the score is, incorrectly, read from top to bottom, pianists,
scholars and editors inadvertently perform the wrong voice leading shown in Example 24. e
editorial arrows in Example 24 expose the incorrect voice leading applied to the Urmotiv’s po-
lyphony in octaves as heard in innumerable awed renditions of the Liszt Sonata.
Issues in the editions of the Sonata by Liszt’s pupils
ree pupils close to Liszt were well aware that the Sonata begins with ascending intervals.
Liszt’s polyphonic clarication introduced in m. 454 of the autograph manuscript triggered
cogent analytical insights by Arthur Friedheim, José Vianna da Motta, and Alexander Siloti.
ese pupils realized that their Master’s rst edition did not suciently spell out the large
initial upward leap followed by a slow scalar descent. Liszt’s downward pointing stem identi-
es the lower pitch F# as the true initiator of the legato ascending minor seventh leap of the
Urmotiv, as shown in Example 25. e downward pointing stem in the top sta of m. 454 was
notated as a separate stroke; its angle diers from that of the stem connecting the octave above
it. e stem added by Liszt unequivocally spells out the ascending seventh interval which marks
the re-exposition of the Urmotiv in slow tempo (Quasi adagio). e voice leading of the Urmo-
tiv’s re-exposition is unambiguous not only because of the added stem but also because of the
composer’s consistently downwards pointing stems in the lower sta.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 62 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Vianna da Motta must have realized that without the transfer of his Master’s additional
stem, the voice leading of the Sonata’s similar polyphonic structures might be misunderstood.
To counter this potential misunderstanding, he implemented Liszt’s added stem (m. 454) as
the standard textual norm (Example 26) for all occurrences of the Urmotiv in a slow tempo
(mm. 2 and 5; 454 and 457; and 750 and 752). e present authors have also implemented
Liszt’s added stem as the standard textual norm in Example 2. Unfortunately, all Urtext edi-
tors have ignored Liszt’s clarication of the polyphonic voice leading in m. 454 of the Lehman
manuscript, and have failed to mention its existence in their respective critical commentaries.
e “descending scales” misinterpretation did, unfortunately, take hold in spite of Motta’s
attempt to prevent this from happening. Evidence countering the frequent misinterpretation
of the Urmotiv’s voice leading is provided by Siloti’s “Suggestions regarding execution and cuts”
from 1935 that accompanied Motta’s 1924 edition of the Sonata (Example 27). Although not
in Siloti’s hand, these “Suggestions”—preserved in the archives of Breitkopf & Härtel (Säch-
sisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig)—include the following inked handwritten draft of
the published German text, as shown in Example 27 and as translated in Example 28:
• “Frequently one hears the following voice-leading in a performance of this
Sonata,” followed by the rst music example with the awed voice leading, m. 2;
• “However, in accordance with the wish of Franz Liszt, the lovely ascending
progression (jump) of the seventh should be clearly brought forth,” followed by
the second music example with the correct voice leading, m. 2.
Arthur Friedheim’s Liszt Sonata edition was published by Gerard Carter and Martin
Adler during the Liszt Bicentennial.21 Friedheim used as his “Stichvorlage” the score edited by
Liszt’s pupil Rafael Josey (Schirmer edition) which retained the corrupt cresc. hairpins of the
Breitkopf & Härtel rst edition. Friedheim—who studied the Sonata privately under Liszt—
crossed out the printed hairpins and replaced them with a two-voiced polyphonic notation
using accents (Example 29), that is, yielding explicit crescendi which culminate on the “peak
notes” of the legatiss. ascending seventh leaps G–F (m. 2) and G–F# (m. 5). Friedheim’s
score correctly integrates the ascending leaps and their cresc. and legatiss. complements. us,
the consistent length of Liszt’s autograph hairpins in the Urmotiv’s original and nal version
(Lehman manuscript, p. 1 and “Anfang”), together with Friedheim’s and Siloti’s consistently
downsized cresc. hairpins, show that the cresc. hairpins printed in the Liszt Sonata’s rst edition
are corrupt.
Friedheim’s interpretation of the Urmotiv (Example 29) is essentially identical with that of
Siloti (Example 30). e latter reported that it was his Master’s wish that “the lovely ascending
progression (jump) of the seventh should be clearly brought forth” (recall Example 28). Example
30 shows Siloti’s implementation of that concept by dynamic marks which spell out the exact
volume ratio between the two polyphonic voices. Piano emphasized the louder ascending seventh
leap in the bass voice in contrast to the softer triple piano drone in the soprano voice (Example 30).
However, Siloti’s suggestion that the rising leaps in mm. 2 and 5 should also be applied to
mm. 750 and 752 (Example 31) must be categorically rejected. Mm. 750–53 do not constitute a
“similar episode” but a “dissimilar” one which begins, not with ascending seventh leaps, but with
descending second intervals in mm. 750 and 752 (see also Example 77).
It is regrettable that, perhaps owing to Siloti’s unacceptable suggestion for mm. 750–53
(Example 31) and his suggested cuts,22 Breitkopf & Härtel withdrew in 1940 Siloti’s 1935
“Suggestions,” not only by omitting his name in the reprints of the 1924 Motta edition, but
also by failing to reprint his excellent analysis of the opening Urmotiv (Example 30). Here he
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 63 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
proposes a number of useful suggestions on how to perform correctly the voice leading of the
polyphonic Urmotiv (Example 2) that in practical eect agree with Friedheim:
• Siloti uses dynamic marks to clarify the voice leading. Piano dynamic marks
highlight the louder ascending seventh leaps which are contrasted with the less
loud, sustained triple piano drone on pitch G;
• Siloti’s legato slurs do not start on the top voice pitch G, but on the middle-voice
pitch G seenrising through the tenuti and the legato slurs;
• Siloti’s legato slur which starts in the middle voice, left-hand sta, draws avisual
borderline next to the pitch G in the top voice. rough this graphic design, the
invariant treble pitch G is excluded from participation in the polyphony of the
rising and expanding intervallic leaps;
• Siloti highlights with additional tenuto marks both the bottom and the top part of
the rising minor seventh, then major seventh, leaps (mm. 2 and 5);
• Siloti’s crescendo hairpins do not extend past the highlighted F and F# “peak
notes”; and
• Siloti’s diminuendo hairpins are the same length as Friedheim’s.
Historical views on the Urmotiv
e most comprehensive in statu nascendi type analysis of the opening Urmotiv was oered
in 1936 by Paul Egert who saw it as a “connecting thread” (“ein roter Faden”).23 Summarized in
Example 19 (left), Egert’s analysis has correctly demonstrated that the entire Liszt Sonata grows
out of the chromatic inection of “one single motif encompassing three measures of music.”24
Egert’s reasoning was misunderstood by many analysts. Kenneth Hamilton, for example, assert-
ed that “Egert is the source of the view that the Sonata is based on one single theme (the initial
descending scale),”25 but the matter in Hamilton’s parenthesis is a misinterpretation of Egert’s
analysis. Egert’s explanation was that the Sonata begins, not with an “initial descending scale”
as argued by Hamilton, but with an initial “ascending seventh leap” in m. 2 which is inverted to
become a “descending seventh leap” in m. 9 (Example 32).26 By extension, the Sonata’s rst sub-
ject (mm. 32) is itself a mirror image of the opening Urmotiv (Example 33). At the same time,
Egert overlooked how the opening Urmotiv generates, in addition, subliminally rising minor tri-
ads in rst inversion (Example 34) which culminate with an enharmonic re-orientation at m. 9.
Among Sonata editions, Max Pauer’s layout27 is unsurpassed in its polyphonic elegance. By
inserting a quarter note G with a downward pointing stem next to the dotted half note drone
G (Example 35), Pauer succeeded in proving that it is indeed possible to notate the Urmotiv’s
polyphonic voice crossing in an easily understandable and unambiguous manner by traditional
means. Although the rest of Pauer’s text is corrupt, in one respect it is not only correct but is by
far the best solution, as it is in accord with the correct voice leading of the Urmotiv as transmit-
ted by three of Liszt’s closest pupils, namely, Motta (Example 26), Friedheim (Example 29),
and Siloti (Example 30). Pauer’s layout in respect of the polyphonic voice leading is therefore
recommended as rendered in Example 2 for all future Urtext editions of the Liszt Sonata.
Camille Saint-Saëns (1835–1921) had no diculty in making sense of the misleading
polyphonic layout of the Sonata’s rst edition. As his two-piano transcription of 1914 demon-
strates (see Example 36),28 Saint-Saëns achieved maximum polyphonic clarity by assigning the
two voices to be played on dierent instruments (PIANO I & II). e ascending seventh leap
was assigned to one pianist, and the drone to the other. Even Saint-Saëns, however, could not
have guessed, without consulting Liszt’s autograph manuscript, that the cresc. hairpins of the
rst edition are corrupt (Example 1).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 64 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Liszt’s chromatic inection of single diatonic sets as exemplied by the Csárdás obstinée
e Urmotiv can be misinterpreted not only by disregarding the accepted rule of reading
scores from the bass upwards (Example 22), but also by reading it with a mind prejudiced by
pitch-class type analyses (Example 23).29 An ascending seventh may never be shortchanged
for a descending second interval in the Liszt Sonata (Example 18, mm. 2 and 5), nor is a Bb
(Example 18, mm. 3 and 6) the tonal equivalent of an A# (Example 18, m. 9). Pitch-class type
analyses ignore octave registers and enharmonic pitch spellings. When subjected to this type of
reductionism, Liszt’s Sonata is robbed of one of its essential means of pitch variation, namely,
diversication of the “backbone” of diatonic sets through chromatic “surface” inection.
Liszt’s technique of chromatic inection is prominently featured in his Csárdás obstinée
(S225/2) from the early 1880s. Although the “surface” of the diatonic Csárdás tetrachord” is
constantly subjected to chromatic alteration—“inected repetition” to use Ramon Satyendra’s
own terminology—its diatonic “backbone” expressed in solfège-type syllables remains invariant
(Example 37).30 e Csárdás obstinée is a key work which proves that Liszt did not compose with
a dodecaphonic mindset, but rather within the traditional Italian diatonic system consisting of
a hexachord complemented by a seventh pitch, the “leading tone.” e Csárdás points, by anal-
ogy, to the awed rationale of tagging the Sonata’s Urmotiv as two unrelated modes, namely,
“Phrygian” and “Gypsy minor.” Just as the pitch alterations of the Csárdás obstinée consist of
chromatic inections of the single diatonic set “la – sol – fa – mi,” so the Sonata’s Urmotiv
consists of chromatic inections of the single B minor diatonic set “sol – fa – mi – re – do
si – la.” Tagging mm. 1–3 and 4–6 of the Urmotiv with two dierent names is as absurd as
inventing a new name for each subsequent inection of the “Csárdás tetrachord.”
A very dierent manifestation of Liszt’s concept of chromatic inection is shown in
Example 38. Conceived within the diatonic—not the dodecaphonic—system, each second
measure appears on paper as the enharmonic equivalent of the previous measure. In reality,
every inection should generate the sensation of a new tonal context suggestive of enharmonic
keyboards or stringed instruments. On these instruments, sharps and ats produce quite dier-
ent aects, in part because enharmonically equivalent notes do not produce identical pitches.
Hence, Liszt’s notation prohibits the static performance of the two-measure groups 312–313,
314–315, and 316–317. When correctly performed, every second measure should become a
lead-in to the next two-measure group (313314; and 315316, while m. 317 should prepare
the arrival in m. 319 of the climactic dominant seventh chord. After the pathetic sighs of an
open-ended “downfall motif marked pesante / ritardando / diminuendo (m. 320) followed by a
heart-rending lunga pausa with fermata, the music resumes as a quasi marcia funebre in E minor
accompanied by solemn drum rolls marked piano.
Contextualizing the Urmotiv
Liszt’s Csárdás obstinée and Sonata in B minor were conceived within a world of diatonic
minor and major modes systematized in 1728 by composer-theorist Johann David Heinichen
(1683–1729) in his Der General-Bass in der Composition.31 e lowest pitch of Heinichen’s dia-
tonic minor and major modes is always the seventh scale degree (the leading tone), and the
highest the sixth—a conguration identical with the Liszt Sonata’s closing Presto (Example
41). e Presto variant of the Urmotiv can be protably compared to the identical congura-
tion of Johann Sebastian Bach’s two-voice Inventio 4, BWV 775, transposed in Example 42 to
B minor. In eect, the Sonata ends with the impure” pitches (Example 2) being “cleansed” of
chromaticism (Example 41), hence “redeemed” as a “pure” minor/major set—a symbolic con-
tent expressed through traditional notation.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 65 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
On the other hand, the Urmotiv’s so-called “Gypsy minor” designation (mm. 5–6) is al-
most universally accepted by Liszt scholars (Example 22).32 Ben Arnold, however, has correctly
shown how Liszt’s “inected repetition” technique applies to simple diatonic motifs: “Liszt
repeats this simple idea [mm. 1–3], altering three notes of the scale by [rising] half steps [mm.
2–3, 5–6] … consequently creating two augmented seconds.”33 Arnold’s concept of inected
repetition reveals Liszt’s true modus operandi—the alteration in ascending direction of the three
descending scalar pitches F, C, and Ab (Example 19). Using Arnold’s inected repetition
approach, Example 43 demonstrates that the chromatic inections of the Grandioso second
subject (mm. 105–108 and 297–300) have their root in the inections of the opening Urmotiv.
e alleged “Gypsy minor mode” associated with the Liszt Sonata’s opening measures is
yet another consequence of the “descending scales” concept rooted in István Szelényi’s faulty
descending reduction (Example 22) of the Sonata’s ascending Urmotiv (Example 3). e incon-
gruity between Szelényi’s abstract pitch collection (Example 22) and the Gypsy minor idiom
of Liszt and of other Romantic composers invalidates the Gypsy label attached to mm. 5–6 of
the Liszt Sonata. eorist Allen Forte examined the Hungarian writings based upon “scalar”
approaches and concluded that they are “models that are demonstrably inappropriate in that
they do not produce substantive analytical results [, and are …] burdened with political and
ethnic platitudes.”34 Jeremy Day-O’Connell also reminds readers that “Ethnomusicologists and
theorists of non-Western music maintain a useful distinction between “scale” and “mode”—that
is, between a neutral collection of tones in a given musical tradition and the actual conventions
of melodic practice in that tradition.”35
at Szelényi’s scalar reduction (Example 22, right) is incompatible with Gypsy music is
demonstrated with the help of Béla Bartók’s Rhapsody op. 1 for piano solo and his much later
44 Duos for 2 Violins (Sz. 98). e Duos feature a “Gypsy Grand Finale” based on a melody
performed on a violin by a “Gypsy” (in Bartók’s words, “egy cigány”)36 which was recorded and
transcribed by Bartók in 1912 in a village of the Torontál County of the historic Kingdom of
Hungary (Example 44). e fth scale degree found on the rst downbeat of Bartók’s Transyl-
vanian Dance in the Gypsy D minor mode also appears in Johannes Brahms’s Paganini Varia-
tions for piano solo in A minor, op. 35, book II, Vars. 13 and 14 (Example 45). Liszt’s Rhapsody
No. 13 (Example 46) also starts on the fth scale degree E of the Gypsy A minor mode. e
opening three prolonged and/or accented E pitches in mm. 1–3 of the Liszt Rhapsody (not
shown) demonstrate the preeminence of the fth scale degree in the Gypsy idiom of Liszt’s
Weimar period and thereafter.37 By contrast, the alleged “Gypsy scale” of the Liszt Sonata
(Example 22, mm. 5–6) has a totally dierent starting conguration—one that is at variance
with the melodic conventions of the “Gypsy minor” idiom featured in each one of the above
mentioned examples.
If the augmented seconds in the Liszt Sonata’s Urmotiv (mm. 5–6) were a Gypsy inuence
then, by the same faulty reasoning, one could detect “Gypsy augmented seconds” in non-Gypsy
works such as W.A. Mozart’s Fantasy in C minor for piano solo, K. 475 (Example 47, drawing
on work by Richard Bass,38 shows the correct voice leading in mm. 1–2). Liszt’s original Sonata
Urmotiv as preserved in the extant sketch GSA 60/N 2 (Example 48, m. 3–6, left) is textually
and contextually a much closer relative to Mozart’s Fantasy in C minor (Example 48, K. 475,
right) than to the nal version of the Urmotiv preserved in the Lehman manuscript (Example
4). Yet while Mozart’s Fantasy and Liszt’s Sonata sketch share scale degrees 1, b3, #4, 5 and b6
(Example 48), their shared pitch content—their “text”—does not prove their common deriva-
tion (their “context”).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 66 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Reevaluating the autograph and printed sources of the Sonata in B minor
Reconstructing the Urmotiv sketch
e Sonata’s opening Urmotiv is a single, indivisible unit similar to the opening measures
of Beethoven’s Coriolan Ouvertüre (Examples 17 and 18) and page (75) 87 of the Sonata sketch
GSA60/N 2. Adler and Carter have found an empty eighty-sixth page, ignored by previous re-
searchers, between pages (74) 85 and (75) 87 of the N 2 sketchbook. Sharon Winklhofer derived
her statement that the Sonata sketch “dates from the second week of January 1851” from page
74 of the bound sketchbook unto which Liszt wrote “Eilsen, 2me semaine de Janvier 1851.”39
ere is, however, nothing to link that page (Example 49) with 1851 or with Eilsen. Hence,
there is no evidence as to when Liszt penned his sketch of the single motif headed by the
B minor key signature of two sharps (Examples 52 and 50).40 e Sonata sketch begins with
two-voiced unisono obeat syncopations on the sixth scale degree of B minor (Example 50,
mm. 1–2). At m. 3, a rising diminished triad in the bass installs itself as a “hanging” G minor
tonal center (note the mediant pitch Bb) suspended from a prolonged drone G in high register
(mm. 3–6); at m. 7, G minor is cast out by a quickly falling, lightening-like zigzagged unisono in
B minor (mm. 7–10).
e rising bass climaxes on pitch Eb (6 of G minor) before falling back indecisively unto
the dominant fth scale degree D. is sketch is the rst autograph source which contradicts
the overlong cresc. hairpins of the Sonata’s rst edition, in which D becomes the most empha-
sized pitch (see Example 1, m. 3). e melodic prole of the ascending then descending sketch
(Example 51, mm. 3–6 and 7–8) conrms that Liszt did not envision the Sonata’s Urmotiv as
two separate motifs “A and “B” but as one single Urmotiv made of an ascending antecedent
G–Bb contrasted by a descending enharmonic consequent G–A#.
At rst, Liszt retained the two-voiced ve-part texture of the GSA 60/N 2 sketch
(Example 52) in the original version of the Urmotiv preserved in the Lehman manuscript
(Example 53). He then replaced the unnecessary octave doublings in the opening eight
measures of the Urmotiv (Example 53) with a revised version of equal length headed by the
word“Anfang”(Example 4). Liszt’s revision of the Urmotiv achieved three notable eects:
• the two-voiced polyphony in octaves was reduced to a consistent number of four
individual parts;
• the mood of the opening was darkened through the elimination of the upper part
originally written in the G clef (in the Lehman manuscript, mm. 1–8 (“Anfang”)
are notated exclusively in the F clef );41
• Liszt added augmentation dots to the prolonged drones G (Example 4, top voice).
Given the impeccable musical logic of the monolithic Urmotiv sketch GSA 60/N 2
(Example 50), why did Liszt replace it with a more complex nal Urmotiv (Example 11)?
Probably because the rising minor third interval G–Bb (Example 51, top) did not match
the superior expressive power of its inverted, much larger enharmonic “hard leap”: the tragic
G–A# saltus duriusculus (Example 51, bottom).
Some of Liszt’s predecessors to the Sonata
A one-page autograph fragment in E minor titled “Sonate”—mentioned only by Howard
in the Preface to his 2011 Peters Urtext Edition—contains motifs which resurface in both the
Großes Konzertsolo in E minor (S.176) and the Sonata in B minor. One motif of the “Sonate”
fragment is reproduced in Example 55 and transcribed in Example 56, while Example 57
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 67 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
demonstrates connections between that motif and various elements in both the Sonata and
the Konzertsolo, including prolonged organ point, chordal accompaniment, identical melodic
rhythm, and risingsaltus. To that can be added the opening motif of the fragment in E minor
marked “Sonate” (Example 58), whose minor seconds occur in reversed order in the Konzertsolo
(Example 59). Further connections include the melodic acciaccatura (Example 60) and descend-
ing chromatic pitch triads (Example 61) shared by the “Sonate” fragment and the Konzertsolo.
ese shared thematic elements suggest that the “Sonate” fragment in E minor is in fact the
forebear of both the Großes Konzertsolo and the Sonata in B minor.
Even more substantial than the “Sonate” fragment was the discovery in 2011 of evidence
concerning the existence of a Precursor Sonata in B minor composed by Liszt in 1849. A review
in the 6 June 1884 issue of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik mentions a performance of the Sonata
reportedly given by Liszt in the early 1850s, which was immediately followed by Kühmstedt’s
treatment of the themes:
As the Master played the creation in question to us within the inner circle,
Prof. Friedrich Kühmstedt from Eisenach, who sadly departed this world too
soon (1858), was present and was so much moved and captivated by the two
main themes (cf. mm. 8–15 of the work mentioned) that he executed them in
a magnicent Fugue for piano in B minor (Erfurt, Körner) in great strokes. By
the way, this work is of unusual interest contrapuntally and does not deserve to
fall into oblivion completely.
When Liszt was presented with this masterly fugue, a very complicated work,
he played it prima vista as if it were just—child’s play.42
Press reviews of the published Fugue in 1850 and 1851 conrm its terminus ante quem.43
Based on hitherto available but overlooked evidence, Carter and Adler have concluded that by
June 1849 at the latest, Liszt’s Precursor Sonata was no longer a mere sketch but a “coherent”
composition which the composer tested in performance before a select group of friends and
associates sworn to secrecy.44 In the Introduction to the new Henle facsimile edition of the
Lehman manuscript (2015), Mária Eckhardt noted that:
A manuscript of the rst version of the Sonata from the year 1849 (the “Pre-
cursor Sonata” as Carter and Adler call it) has yet to resurface. Besides the
autograph Weimar sketch, the only manuscript source of the Sonata we know
today is the complete “Lehman Manuscript.” … e autograph did not serve
as the engraver’s copy, yet—apart from a few minor discrepancies—it corre-
sponds to the denitive form of the Sonata as published by Breitkopf & Härtel
in Leipzig in April 1854. A manuscript engraver’s copy of the kind that Liszt
often commissioned is either missing or lost. A further manuscript which Liszt
dedicated to his Weimar friends the “Murls” is also no longer extant.45
Kühmstedt’s Fugue features the Leap / Hammer motifs of the published Sonata (Example
62; cf. Example 11, mm. 9–15).46 Since Liszt performed the work prima vista, the extent to which
it may have inuenced the structure of the published Sonata is unknown. If a fugue had already
been present in the Precursor Sonata, Kühmstedt would not have challenged Liszt with yet an-
other fugue based on the same two motifs. Hence, there remains the possibility that Kühmstedt’s
Fugue may have encouraged Liszt to insert a fugato into his Sonata published in 1854.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 68 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Carter and Adler’s documentation of Liszt’s Precursor Sonata in B minor corroborates two
earlier claims. Alfred Cortot maintained (without providing any supporting evidence) in the
preface to his 1949 edition of the Sonata that it was “sketched already in 1849, reworked and
nished in Weimar during the years 1852–53,”47 and in his Sonata analysis Georges Gourdet
suggested that it was “started or perhaps sketched … in 1849.”48 e documentary evidence on
which these claims were presumably based has not been traced by the present authors.
A partial list of self-borrowings in the Sonata
e concluding gure of the Urmotiv (Example 50, mm. 9–10) is a unisono passage borrowed
from an early Piano Concerto in Eb Major Op. posth. reconstructed by Jay Rosenblatt (Example
63). e chromatic pitch triad F, F#, G of the Sonata’s denitive Urmotiv (Example 3) was
borrowed from the opening measures of Malediction S.121 (Example 64) and Prometheus S.99
(Example 6449), and from the 1840 Prelude in B minor to Réminiscences de Robert le Diable: Valse
infernale S.413 (Example 65).
Winklhofer stated that Arthur Hedley still possessed in 1967 a notebook page on which
Liszt wrote down in 1849 the adagio theme of the Sonata.50 Hedley’s statement has been cor-
roborated by Szász, who discovered in 1982 that the entire melodic material of the Sonata’s An-
dante sostenuto theme (triple piano, mm. 331–338, subsequently Quasi Adagio, double and triple
forte, mm. 394–401) was based on an original Lied by the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of
Russia (1786–1859).51 Liszt’s use of this melody in his Consolation, together with a reference to
its composer, Maria Pavlovna, was acknowledged by an acronymic footnote added by Liszt to
a manuscript copy of the 1849 version of the Consolation.52 e Maria Pavlovna Lied melody
seems to have had a religious meaning for Liszt because for both compositions, the Consolation
and the Sonata, the religious character is not only perceptible, but also explicitly mentioned in
Lina Ramann’s Liszt-Pädagogium.53 Liszt’s deletion in the Lehman manuscript of the original
bombastic ending and its substitution with the Maria Pavlovna Lied melody (mm. 711 ) im-
parted to the concluding pages of the Sonata its celebrated spiritual aura.
Liszt incorporated the opening pitches of the Pavlovna melody in his published Star Con-
solation, marked Quasi Adagio (Example 66, above, cantabile con divozione), in his Sonata in B
minor (Example 66, below),54 and in his nal homage to Maria Pavlovna by substituting the
melody of his own Petrarch Sonnet No. 47 with the head-motif of the “Pavlovna Lied” (Ex-
ample 67).55 Szász discovered in 2011 the identity of the poet whose words served as lyrics
for a very dierent Pavlovna Lied—“Es hat geammt (S.685 = LW N47 = R644b)pre-
served in theKlassik Stiftung Weimar,Goethe- und Schiller-Archivunder GSA 60/D 69. “Es hat
geammt” quotes words from the poem Die Brautnacht by the same Wilhelm Müller who
inspired Schubert’s celebrated Lieder.56 Since the “Pavlovna Lied” has not come down to us,
Szász determined that the only poem by Müller57 to t the melody of Liszt’s Consolation IV of
1849 is Seefahrers Abschied (Sailor’s Farewell)—a poem set also by Fanny Mendelssohn in 1823
in an astonishingly similar manner (Example 68).58
e poem is about a sailor ready to undertake a dangerous voyage on sea from which he may
never return to see his beloved. e sailor asks a swallow for the gift of a feather to write a letter
to his beloved. Müller’s poem reveals the missing link between Pavlovna’s setting of Seefahrers
Abschied and the radiant Star printed above the 1850 German edition of Liszt’s Star Consolation.
To this day, Müller’s poem is invoked in maritime organizations59 in line with the old Gregorian
tradition of Stella maris—“Our Lady, Star of the Sea”—a title given to the Virgin Mary, guardian of
human beings sailing on the stormy sea of earthly life. Concurrently, the star refers to her namesake
Maria Pavlovna whom Liszt identied with his autograph acronym «D’après un L.D.S.A.I.M.P…».
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 69 2/16/18 3:59 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
For all the above reasons, the decision of the Henle editorial board to expurgate the radiat-
ing star of their all-inclusive Urtext edition of the Consolations (Munich, 1992) was a serious
mistake. A radiating star of one shape or another was included not only in many early editions,
but also in the rst German edition of 1850 authorized by Liszt himself, in which the radiating
star had a six-pointed shape.60
Regarding the Sonata’s conclusion
Liszt instructed his pupil Karl Klindworth (1830–1916) to play D\ (\3)—not D# (#3)—in
m. 738 and m. 740, or so some sources suggest.61 Carter/Adler have discovered three tex-
tual sources which establish the presumably correct version of Liszt’s instruction, namely, that
pitch D natural was to be played, not in m. 738, but only in m. 740. Pitch D\ of m. 740 is the
enharmonic equivalent of the dissonant pitch CX of m. 743, the latter resolved chromatically
upwards onto the D# major-third mediant of B major (the whole note resolution in m. 744 is
not shown in Example 69). e pp ed un poco rallentando melodic pillars D# (m. 738), D\ (m.
740), CX (m. 743), and D# (pp, m. 744) are referred to by Carter and Adler as the “Friedheim
amalgam” because of their presence in the roll recording of Friedheim, and also in his edition
of the Sonata.62
Moritz Moszkowski (1854–1925) was a pianist and composer who enjoyed Liszt’s support,
although he was never a pupil.In his edition of the Sonata published by Heugel in Paris (1925),
Moszkowski endorsed the “Friedheim amalgam by retaining the D# in m. 738 while inserting
in m. 740 a natural sign before pitch D, thus conrming the existence, beyond Liszt’s immedi-
ate circle of pupils, of the “Friedheim amalgam” tradition.63 Moreover, his use of thenormal-
sized natural sign conrmed that the tradition was, in his view, the mandatory version for
performing this passage (Example 69).64
Given the perfect musical logic of the “Friedheim amalgam” in mm. 737–44, the present
authors are of the view that future editions of the Sonata should include it asthemain textual
version for mm. 739–40, in fact, as theFassung letzter Handauthorized beyond any reasonable
doubt by Liszt himself.65
Only the last occurrence of the Urmotiv in slow tempo and soft dynamic is made up of
descending scales in mm. 750–51 and mm. 752–53. Several scholars have noticed that the So-
nata’s closing measures recapitulate the similar structures of the Sonata’s opening. No scholar
seems to have noticed, however, the striking and signicant detail that the last melodic pattern
of the Sonata (Example 70, soprano, E, F\, F#) is an exact transposition of the rising chro-
matic triad F\, F#, G featured as landing notes of the Urmotiv’s ascending leaps at the begin-
ning of the Sonata (the leaps are emphasized with cresc. hairpins in the bass voice, Example 3,
mm. 1–9).
An elucidation of the Sonata’s last measure (m. 760) requires a close examination of Liszt’s
multilayered revisions preserved in the Lehman manuscript. Motta’s 1924 Sonata edition
ends with a single note: the lowest B on the keyboard (Example 70). “8va means unmistakably
allottava bassa,” that is, at the octave below the printed B, since the same sign is found not only
in m. 760 but also in the preceding mm. 752–55 (Example 70). Motta’s “8va abbreviation is thus
identical in meaning to Liszt’s autograph “8ttava bassa indication reproduced in Example 71.
Siloti’s 1935 “Suggestions” to Motta’s 1924 Sonata edition disagrees with Motta’s interpretation
of the last measure. In Siloti’s opinion, “e last note of the Sonata must be played col’ 8va bassa,
that is, with the octave in the bass as shown in Example 72.
Who, then, interpreted Liszt’s text and context correctly? e present authors assume that
both Motta and Siloti read Liszt’s autograph correctly, but only Motta understood the contex-
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 70 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
tual implications of Liszt’s nal, squeezed in textual insertion (Example 71, mm. 752–53). In-
deed, if one examines Liszt’s autograph notation, then the “8” placed under any note invariably
means that a pitch at the lower octave must be added to the already notated pitch, as seen in the
consecutive gures 8 notated by Liszt in the left-hand sta of mm. 66–67 (Example 73). On
that purely textual—but not contextual—basis, m. 760 was printed as an octave in the Urtext
editions prepared by Antal Boronkay, Leslie Howard, Michael Kube, and Ernst Herttrich—the
latter only in his last re-issue of the 1973 Henle HN 273 Urtext.66 Nancy Bricard also has an
octave printed in the Sonata’s last measure.
A technically correct reading of Liszt’s notation divorced of its context does not guarantee
awless Urtext editions. e present authors are of the view that Liszt failed to update m. 760
subsequent to inserting mm. 752–53 at the extreme left edge of the last system (Example 71).
Measure 751 was originally followed, not by mm. 752–53, but by what later became mm. 754–
60. Liszt’s original ending is reconstructed in Example 74. e original two-voiced polyphony
in octaves (Example 74, m. 751) was still tied over with two slurs to m. 754 (see Example 75).
Hence, the two prolonged and suspended C pitches were given a logical “octave resolution”
through the low pitch B marked with an added 8 (Example 74, m. 760). However, Liszt ulti-
mately changed his mind by inserting yet another scalar descent, this time at the lower octave.
To do so, Liszt crossed out the connecting ties between original mm. 751 and 754 (Example 75)
while inserting the new mm. 752–53 at the extreme left edge of the last system (Example 71).
Why did Motta doubt the contextual validity of Liszt’s unrevised gure 8 in the Lehman
manuscript? Liszt’s rst descending scale started with four polyphonic parts of which only two
were “left over” in the end—see the logical octave resolution in the reconstructed original end-
ing of the Sonata in Example 74. Liszt’s later insertion of a second scalar descent started with
just two polyphonic parts of which only one was to be “left over in the end—see the logical
single-note resolution in Motta’s edition (Example 70). e present authors agree with Motta’s
contextually correct resolution of the single dotted quarter note dissonance C (m. 754) into the
single, lowest note B on the keyboard (Example 76).67
A dierent problem concerns Liszt’s assignment of diverse note values to the prolonged
drones which accompany the Urmotiv’s last occurrence (a whole note and a dotted half note in
m. 751, and a half note in m. 753). Nancy Bricard assigned to these drones the uniform note
value of a dotted half note (Example 77)—a choice which duplicates Liszt’s revised augmenta-
tion dots in mm. 3 and 6 (Example 4). e connecting ties added by Bricard between the rst
two B pitches in mm. 750 and 752 are absent in both the Lehman manuscript and in the rst
edition. e present authors are of the view that Liszt’s decision not to add connecting ties in
these measures has a polyphonic rationale. Since the Sonata’s Urmotiv is constituted by the
Leap / Hammer dichotomy (Example 3), inserting ties between the repeated pitches B would
annihilate the “Hammer = repeated notes” component of the Urmotiv in its last descent. Play-
ing pitch B twice enhances the perception of the Urmotivs two-voiced polyphony. Note also
the tie crossed out by Liszt at the Quasi adagio re-exposition of the Urmotiv (reverse side of a
paste-over, Example 78). Concerning this particular detail, the present authors agree with the
texts printed by Boronkay and Howard (no printed ties), and disagree with those of Bricard,
Herttrich and Kube (parenthetical ties).68
e Sonata’s autograph manuscript concludes with Liszt’s “familiar siglum of an inter-
twined L and D (Laus Deo [Praise be to God]).”69 Liszt’s siglum poses several questions. Do
the Sonata’s Janus-like structures “come to an end”? If so, do they “end” in the deep registral
darkness of the “last heartbeat of m. 760 or in the “Eternal Light” of the B major tonic six-four
chord (m. 759) prolonged past the “last heartbeat”?
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 71 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
István Szelényi has documented the use of the unresolved major six-four chord in the mu-
sic of Romantic composers as a symbol of God’s Eternal Light (“Lux aeterna”),70 while Michael
Klein has noted that the unresolved major six-four chord is referred to by Robert S. Hatten as
the “arrival six-four chord” or, when it occurs in Liszt’s music, as the “salvation six-four chord.”71
Indeed, the tonic major six-four harmony appears frequently in Liszt’s religiously oriented mu-
sic,72 including “Zum Grabe, die Wiege des zukünftigen Lebens” (“To the Grave, the Cradle
of Future Life”), the last movement of his last symphonic poem, Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe,
S.107 (From the Cradle to the Grave). e B major “salvation six-four chord” is the “portal of
transcendence to Eternity” not only in From the Cradle to the Grave, but also in Liszt’s Sonata
and in the Dante Symphony (Examples 79 and 80).73
e orchestrally conceived ending of the Sonata is best rendered with a combination of the
right pedal initiated at m. 753 (low organ point, C; Example 81),74 and the sostenuto “third pedal
initiated at m. 756 (reiterated high organ point, B major six-four chord, triple piano, Example
82).75 e orchestral eect shown in Example 81 can be replicated on present-day pianos only
with the pedal usage indicated in Example 82.76 In a November 1883 letter to the Steinway rm,
Liszt wrote that “e aforementioned pedal [the sostenuto third pedal] must not, in my opinion,
be used too often, but will be ofexcellent eect, especially in somewhat tranquil piano passages”—
a condition satised by the Sonata’s concluding triple piano tonic B major 6/4 chords.77
When the B major tonic six-four chords (mm. 756–59)78 are prolonged with the sostenuto
third pedal past the short note in m. 760, the Sonata nds its tragic catharsis in the transg-
ured harmony of the six-four chord which is no longer tormented by the divisive schism of the
opening’s two-voiced polyphony.79 e three separate, obeat “Death” syncopations of mm.
1–3 metamorphose into the three open-ended symbols for Eternity (triple piano, tonic six-four
harmony, mm. 756 ) which coalesce as a celestial B major organ point—the antithesis to the
intermittent drone “G” of mm. 1–3.80 ose who hear in the concluding Lento assai a mere for-
mal recapitulation of the Sonata’s opening miss the point.81
Beethoven’sPiano Sonata op. 81a and its inuence upon Liszt’s Sonata
e sixth scale degree (6)
e opening inected repetition of the Liszt Sonata on the sixth scale degree of B minor
(Example 3) recalls that of Beethoven’s Lebewohl Sonata, op. 81a, on the sixth scale degree of
Eb major (Example 10). To label the opening Lento assai of the Liszt Sonata an “introduction
is as incorrect as labeling the opening Adagio of Beethoven’s rst movement an “introduction
(see Example 84). According to this awed concept, the Beethoven Sonata’s exposition begins
at the Allegro82 (Example 85), and that of the Liszt Sonata at the Allegro energico (Example 2, m.
8), while their respective Urmotive are heard as mere introductions.” (When Beethoven wrote
introductions, he used that very term—as in the Introduzione of the “Waldstein” Sonata in C
major, op. 53; that term is not used in the Farewell movement of op. 81a.)
e thematic / symbolic continuity of Beethoven’s Op. 81a Sonata is assured by the restate-
ment in all three movements of the thematic and symbolic pillars of the “Farewell” Urmotiv.
e second movement—“e Absence”—begins with the “tonally remote” harmonic cluster
“C & Eb & G” which is perceived in its new context as a dissonance (Example 86), whereas in
its earlier, “Farewell” context, it was perceived as a consonance (Example 10, m. 2, C minor tri-
ad, 6, left). Only in the third movement (“e Reunion”) does Beethoven relinquish the grip of
the symbolic cluster “C & Eb & G” (although the Cb [b6] still makes a last, short comeback in
mm. 94–97, where for easier reading it is replaced by its B major enharmonic equivalent). And
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 72 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
just as Beethoven’s only “programmatic” Sonata op. 81a was based on Jan Ladislav Dussek’s
programmatic Sonata op. 44,83 so too does Liszt follow Beethoven’s structural/symbolic model
in evoking the same doubly “wrong” sixth scale degree opening (Example 84, mm. 1–2).
Expressing tonal “remoteness”
Scholars have concluded that the preeminence of the sixth scale degree in the opening
and in the later structures of Beethoven’s Op. 81a (Examples 10 and 84) is a function of the
program.84 Beethoven’s use of the words “Le-be wohl” and the tting of its three syllables to
the G,F,Eb melodic descent, together with his use of the opening C minor and Cb major
harmonic triads on the sixth scale degree, have raised the stature of these structures to that of
musical symbols. ey pregure the essential characteristics of Liszt’s symbols in the Sonata in
B minor. Neither Beethoven’s nor Liszt’s symbols are external to the music, but embedded as
non-verbal entities in the work’s tonal design.
Heinrich Schenker and Jürgen Uhde, among others, have decoded the connection between
the opening of Beethoven’s Op. 81a and its program. According to Uhde, “‘Remoteness’ is always
expressed in the tonal system by distancing oneself from the center, that is, from the home key.”85
William Rothstein has noted that Schenker was well aware of the structural weight of the sixth
scale degree in this particular work, in which the harmonic dichotomy of the sixth scale degrees
C\ and Cb (=B\) permeate not only the rst movement, but the entire Sonata (Example 10).86
Beethoven, having said farewell to the anticipated Eb major triad in m. 2 with deceptive ca-
dences (Example 10, C minor and Cb major triads), then uses an expanded 6, 5, 1 bass sequence
to lead back to the home key of Eb major (Example 85, mm. 17–21). e two tenutos (Example
85, m. 18), and the ensuing sforzando (Example 85, m. 19, sf, all of them marked by the present
authors with inserted arrows) remind performers to emphasize the “Fare thee well” Urmotiv’s
three descending pitches G,F,Eb (Example 10).87
6, 5, 1
In his Sonata, Liszt elevated Beethoven’s 6, 5, 1 bass sequence (Example 85, mm. 17–21)
to the stature of supporting pillars of the entire one-movement sonata-allegro form, whereby
tonal pillar G (6) undergirds the Lento assaiAllegro energico ofmm. 1–9, tonal pillar F# (5)
dominates the Quasi AdagioAllegro energico of mm. 453–61, and tonal pillar B (1) supports the
Allegro moderatoLento assaiof mm. 748–53. ese supporting pillars are initiated by the rst
note of the only three occurrences of the Urmotiv in slow tempi and soft dynamics. Put another
way: e 6, 5, 1 sequence used by Beethoven as bass and treble patterns (Example 85, left hand,
and Example 86, right hand) were retained in the Liszt Sonata at a macro and a micro level.
Both the arrival at B minor (Example 87), and the abandonment of that key (Example 88), are
achieved through a 6, 5, 1 cadential resolution.
e formal edice of Liszt’s Sonata results from gestures of conclusion being transformed
into gestures of initiation (m. 453 is Janus-faced).88 e Sonata’s re-exposition is initiated by
the transposition of the opening Urmotiv (tonal pillar G, Example 11) a minor second lower
(tonal pillar F# = Gb, Example 89). is transposed re-exposition (mm. 453) is hardly ever
mentioned in formal analyses. Only Winklhofer appears to have noticed the existence of two
complementary formal sections: the exposition (m. 1) and its transposed re-exposition (m.
453) begin with a “thematic component” (mm. 1 and mm. 453 ) and conclude with a “tonal
component” (B minor, mm. 32 and mm. 533).
To downplay the importance of pairing a “thematic antecedent with a “tonal consequent”
in both exposition and re-exposition is to ignore the fact that the rst 14 measures of the Sona-
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 73 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
ta’s “thematic exposition” (Example 19) are recapitulated as “thematic re-exposition” (m. 453).
But instead of breaking o at m. 17 as it does during the “thematic exposition,” the “thematic
re-exposition turns into a cunning fugal travesty which weakens the stability of F# major by the
transposition of the “thematic exposition” unto pitch F# = Gb (mm. 453–65), the latter being
then “resolved = derailed” to Bb minor (mm. 466).
e use of Bb minor as “mock thematic recapitulation key” in Liszt’s Sonata is the height
of diabolical perversion, for pitch Bb is the enharmonic leading tone of B minor. e listener
is beginning to suspect—but only in retrospect—the formal irony of the Sonata’s exposition,
and of its transposed and expanded re-exposition. e exposition starts in a “mock G minor”
(drone G is prolonged in mm. 3 and 6 by augmentation dots until the arrival of the minor third
mediant Bb), while the re-exposition starts in m. 453 in a “mock F# minor” (!) which is then re-
interpreted as the sixth scale degree Gb of Bb minor.89 Liszt extricates his Sonata’s recapitulation
from the diabolical mockery of Bb minor by the same procedure by which the mock G minor
opening tonal center was cast out at m. 9 (Example 18). After a tonally meandering fugato, pitch
Bb is enharmonically re-interpreted as A# (m. 532) whereby we “arrive home” to the Sonata’s
traditional “recapitulation tonality” of B minor via a 6, 5, 1 authentic cadence (Example 12).
e formal weight of the Sonata’s re-exposition is thereby secured both “thematically” and
“tonally”: rst, by the “thematic recapitulation” of mm. 1–14 replicated by transposition in mm.
453–66, and second, by the “tonal recapitulation” of mm. 30–52 restated literally in mm. 531–
54.90 Moreover, as Winklhofer has stated, the Sonata satises the requirements of the Classical
period single movement sonata-allegro form as laid down by Charles Rosen, in that “the second
theme of the exposition returns in the recapitulation transposed to the tonic.”91 Preparation of
the tonic recapitulation of the second subject is, once again, accomplished through a Beetho-
venian 6, 5, 1 lead-in:
• Gn bass organ point (6) on the sixth scale degree in B minor (mm. 555–68);
• F# bass organ point (5) on the fth scale degree in B minor (mm. 569–99); and
• Bn bass organ point (1) on the rst scale degree in B minor-major (mm. 600–3).
On rare occasions, “classical” sonatas avoid the home key at the rst subject’s “thematic re-
capitulation.” One example of this strategy is found in Beethoven’s Farewell movement which,
before its “tonal recapitulation” (m. 110), initiates an expanded pedal point on pitch C—the
sixth scale degree of Eb major. is pedal point is itself a “ashback to the “wrong” C minor
harmony heard in the opening measures of the Sonata’s exposition (Example 10, m. 2). While
the “bass drone” prolongs the sixth scale degree C, the “Lebewohl” motif G,F,Eb is heard in
its transposed C minor version Eb,D,C (Example 90).
Liszt’s familiarity with Beethoven’s use of the 6, 5, 1 cadence was enhanced by his perfor-
mances of the “Emperor” Concerto No. 5 in Eb major, op. 73, and by his two-piano transcription
of that concerto. e tonality of the second movement (B major = enharmonic Cb major) is
“forecast” by a deceptive cadence in the rst movement (Eb major/minor tonic 6/4 chords
resolved to Cb major, b6, mm. 302–8).92 After the last occurrence of the second movement’s
chorale theme—probably a prayer for the liberation of Vienna as suggested by Beethoven’s
autograph remark “Östreich löhne Napoleon93— a slow anticipatory transition to the third move-
ment’s joyous theme suspended over a Bb pedal point played by horns creates a resultant ‘salva-
tion six-four harmony’ in Eb major (mm. 79–82). Reduced to its bass, the Concerto’s transition
from the second to the third movement consists of a b6, 5, 1 = \5, b5, 1 cadence in Eb Major.
An identical cadence connects “e Absence” and “e Reunion” movements of Beethoven’s
Farewell Sonata op. 81a (also in Eb Major).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 74 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
How does Liszt use the 6, 5, 1 cadence to create the “tonal arrivals” mentioned by
Winklhofer?94 e preparation for, and the arrival at, the Sonata’s second key area aords the
best initiation into the use of the 6, 5, 1 cadential lead-in, conceived not as a dominant-to-tonic
cadence but as a long-range tonal delay which connects through its virtually drawn-out pitches
in high register a progression of varied tonalities and harmonies. e preparation and the arrival
of the Grandioso second subject may, accordingly, be reduced to just three harmonic-melodic
tonal pillars: Bb,A,D (b6, 5, 1, mm. 55–108). At rst, mm. 55–61–67 seem to initiate three
unrelated keys: Bb major (mm. 55 ), G minor (mm. 61 ), and Eb major (mm. 67 ). If, how-
ever, one hears them as long-range tonal structures, as suggested in Example 91, then pitch Bb
(m. 55) will function as b6 of the Grandioso motif ’s D major arrival.95
Liszt’s metric readjustment for the obeat syncopations in m. 17
e published Sonata opens with “gaping silences = negated downbeats,” that is, obeat
syncopations which were already present in the Urmotiv sketch GSA60/N2. ese syncopa-
tions were retained not only in the nal form of the Urmotiv, but also in the pasted over frag-
ments of the Lehman manuscript (Example 92).96 e Sonata’s Urmotiv shuns downbeat stress
(Example 3, mm. 3 and 6) in the same measure as it cherishes obeat stress (Example 3, mm.
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, top sta). e systematic avoidance of downbeat stress is an essential structural /
symbolic element of the Urmotiv which discredits the downbeat stress implied in mm. 3 and 6
of the rst edition, Example 1, cipher 6. Friedheim and Siloti rejected the overly long cresc. hair-
pins of the rst edition; unfortunately, Motta espoused them, as did Leslie Howard in his 2011
Urtext, and Ernst Herttrich in his revised Henle Urtext edition of 2016 (HN 559 coded A).
e Sonata sketch GSA60/N2 (Example 49, mm. 1–2) begins with an almost exact du-
plication of the “Death” pizzicati heard in the opening two measures of Les Préludes.97 For the
Sonata’s staccati, Liszt suggested “a dull drumbeat eect.98 If Liszt had preserved the Sonata’s
original obeat syncopations (Example 92)99 as he did in his Ossa arida (Desiccated Bones;
Example 93), the syncopations would have become an incomprehensible metric anomaly.
Liszt’s adjusted syncopations (Example 94) camouage their derivation from the Lehman
manuscript’s syncopations (Example 92). To ensure the intelligibility of the Sonata’s obeat syn-
copations, Liszt recast his impracticable original version (Example 92) along the lines of Chopin’s
Ballade No. 1 in G minor, op. 23. Chopin counterbalanced the right hand’s accented syncopations
with triads placed only on downbeats and accented beats in the left hand which are prolonged
with the help of downbeat pedaling (Example 95). Unfortunately, Liszt’s metric compromise
(Example 94, left) is not fully successful, as it weakens its contextual relationship with the obeat
syncopations heard subsequently in mm. 45–53 (Example 96). His adjusted obeat syncopations,
however, may easily regain the fullness of their original rhythmic bite by slightly delaying the
second,melodic” note of the arpeggio divided between the two hands (Example 97).
Even though Liszt pasted over the “Death” syncopations on the Lehman manuscript’s “An-
fang” page, it would be incorrect to suggest that they are irrelevant for performance. Indeed,
the Sonata’s opening obeat syncopations (mm. 1, 4, 7) can generate as many as thirty-two
disguised obeat syncopations adjusted by Liszt for rhythmic intelligibility in performance
(Example 98).100
One nal observation remains to be made about the obeat syncopations in Liszt’s Sonata:
e sensually charged, seductive sospiri in the left hand (Example 99) are rarely played in the
way that Liszt notated them in the Lehman manuscript (tenuti), as their obeats are often
corrupted by emphasizing the thumb of the right hand at the middle of m. 171 (as shown in
Example 100).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 75 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
e editorial and reception history of a musical composition cannot be separated from the
composition itself. Nor can the composer’s abbreviated notation be ignored without endanger-
ing the interpretation of the composition. e present authors propose a correct Urtext edition
of the Liszt Sonata that derives from a critical evaluation of the composer’s autograph manu-
script as the main source, of the rst edition as a secondary source, and of the following circum-
stances which have been ignored or misstated in virtually all Urtext and other editions to date:
• Liszt’s failure to correct a number of copying errors in the missing Stichvorlage
and proof sheets;
• Liszt’s revisions and corrections made before having his Sonata copied and
• Liszt’s revisions and corrections made after publication;
• a clear visual rendering of the polyphonic voice crossings in the Urmotiv; and
• amendments to awed performance traditions brought about by the above errors.
e preparation and issue of the rst correct Urtext edition of the Liszt Sonata is a neces-
sary and long overdue project. Its appearance would not only provide a denitive musical text,
but would also allow for better insights into Liszt’s musical, social, religious, and personal world.
Appendix: Editions of the Liszt Sonata consulted
1. Henle facsimiles
a. HN 3203 “Lehman Manuscript,” Munich, © 1973, “Zum Geleit/Some nal
thoughts” by Claudio Arrau, New York, Herbst/Autumn 1973, hardcover.
b. HN 3227 “Lehman Manuscript,” Munich, © 2015, “Geleitwort/Foreword” by
Claudio Arrau, New York, Herbst/Autumn 1973, “Einleitung/Introduction” by Mária
Eckhardt, Budapest, Frühjahr/spring 2015, hardcover.
2. Henle scores
a. Ernst Herttrich editor, Hans-Martin eopold ngerings, Vorwort/Preface/Préface”
and “Bemerkungen/Remarks/Remarques” by Ernst Herttrich, Duisburg, Sommer
1973 (Herbst/autumn/automne 1975, respectively), paperback.
1. HN 273, coded from A to K (several printings consulted with slightly diering
2. HN 273, coded Ga (Studien-Edition).
b. © 2016, revised Henle edition HN 559 (paperbound, replaces HN 273) / HN 9559
(Study score, paperbound, replaces HN 9273), Ernst Herttrich editor, Marc-André
Hamelin ngerings, Vorwort/Preface/Préface by Ernst Herttrich, Berlin Frühjahr/
spring/printemps 2016, Bemerkungen/Comments by Ernst Herttrich, Berlin
Frühjahr/spring 2016.
1. HN 559, coded A.
2. HN 9559, coded A (Studien-Edition).
3. First Edition, Breitkopf & Härtel, plate no. 8877, Leipzig (1854).
4. First Edition, Breitkopf & Härtel, plate no. 8877, Leipzig (1854), personal copy of Árpád
Szendy, marked “A mester sajátkezű jegyzeteivel 1884” (“hand-written notes by the
master 1884”), Library of the Academy of Budapest, Ms. mus. L. 19.
5. Volksausgabe, Breitkopf & Härtel, plate no. V. A. 3388, Leipzig (1910).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 76 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
6. Rafael Josey, Schirmer, Vol. 861, plate no. 19655, New York (1909).
7. Camille Saint-Saëns, Transcription for two pianos, ed. Sabina Teller Ratner, Durand,
plate no. D. & F. 15316, Paris (1914/2004).
8. August Schmid-Lindner, Schott, Ausgabe der Musikfreunde Nr. 39, plate no. 30343,
Mainz, Leipzig (1917).
9. Emil von Sauer, Edition Peters, Franz Liszt - Klavierwerke, Band 6: Original-
Kompositionen für Klavier zu zwei Händen, plate no. 9880, Leipzig (1917).
10. Eugen d’Albert, Bote & Bock, Liszt-D’Albert Ausgabe Nr. 21, plate no. 18565, Berlin (1917).
11. Ignaz Friedman, Universal Edition, Gesammelte Werke für Klavier zu vier Händen von
Franz Liszt, Heft IV., plate no. U. E. 5874.5984.5939, Vienna and Leipzig (1917).
12. Adolphe-François Wouters, Maurice Senart, Édition Nationale No. 5281, plate no. M. S.
& Cie. 5281, Paris (1920).
13. Max Pauer, Henry Litol, Collection Litol No. 2649, Brunswick (1921).
14. Armand Ferté, Henry Lemoine, Édition Nationale Française, Panthéon des Pianistes, No.
1231, plate no. 21,527.P. 1231. HL., Paris, Brussels (1924).
15. José Vianna da Motta, Breitkopf & Härtel, EB 7474, plate no. F.L.61., Leipzig
16. José Vianna da Motta, Breitkopf & Härtel, EB 7474, plate no. F.L.61., Wiesbaden
17. José Vianna da Motta, Breitkopf & Härtel, Franz Liszts Musikalische Werke herausgegeben
von der Franz Liszt-Stiftung, II. Teil, Band VIII, plate no. F.L.61., Leipzig (1924).
18. Moritz Moszkowski, Heugel, Édition Française de Musique Classique, No. 326, plate no.
E. F. 326, Paris (1925).
19. Arthur Friedheim, Facsimile of Arthur Friedheim’s Edition of Franz Liszt’s Sonata in
B minor, Gerard Carter (ed.) and Martin Adler (ed.), Wensleydale Press, Liszt Piano
Sonata Monographs, Sydney (1926/2011).
20. Moriz Rosenthal, Ullstein, Tonmeister-Ausgabe Nr. 293, plate no. T. A. Nr. 293, Berlin (1927).
21. Alexander Siloti, “Suggestions regarding execution and cuts” to José Vianna da Motta’s
edition of 1924, Breitkopf & Härtel, E. B. 3388, plate no. F. L. 61., Leipzig (1935).
22. Alfred Cortot, Éditions Salabert, plate no. E M S 5433, Paris (1949).
23. Heinrich Neuhaus, Vladimir Belov, Muzyka, 13013, Moscow (1952/ca. 1986).
24. Antal Boronkay, Editio Musica, Franz Liszt, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, Serie I,
Band 5, plate no. Z. 7295, Budapest (1983, editorial materials dated 1981).
25. Leslie Howard, Edition Peters, no. 71900, plate no. 41003, London (2011).
26. Nancy Bricard, Alfred, Alfred Masterworks Edition, Van Nuys (2011).
27. Michael Kube, Bärenreiter Urtext BA 9650, Kassel (2013).
e present authors wish to thank Robert OwenLehman, owner of the autograph manuscript
of the Liszt Sonata, for his kind permission to reproduce the facsimiles included in this article;
Dr. Andreas Sopart, Matthias Otto and Anita Wilke of Breitkopf & Härtel, and Dr. ekla
Kluttig, Roswitha Franke, and Hans-Jürgen Voigt of the Staatsarchiv Leipzig, for their kind
assistance and for permission to reproduce archival materials of Breitkopf & Härtel; and Evelyn
Liepsch of the Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv. anks are also due to
René Poppen for his excellent suggestions.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 77 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
1. See Carl Lachmund, Living with Liszt: From the Diary of Carl Lachmund, an American Pupil of Liszt, 1882-1884,
ed. Alan Walker (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1995), 160.
2. Liszt, Sonata in B minor, R 21, S 178, LW A179, MW II/8, NLA I/5. e only extant autograph manuscript (the
so-called Lehman Manuscript) is held in the Morgan Library & Museum (formerly thePierpont Morgan Library),
New York, Robert Owen Lehman deposit. Michael Short informed Tibor Szász in 2013 that the fragment’s earlier
catalogue number “S701t” (as published in e Liszt Society Journal [2003], 42–43) had been updated to “S692f.”
3. Bertrand Ott coined the term “ème générateur” (“generative theme”) in his “La Sonate en Si mineur: un sphinx
lisztien,” Quaderni dell’Instituto Liszt 15 (2015), 5.
4. Flaws 1, 2, 3, 4–5, and 7 (recall Example 1) have been reprinted in the Henle Urtext HN 273, © 1973 (prefaces
dated 1973 or 1975), ed. Ernst Herttrich; the Editio Musica Budapest Urtext, © 1983 (preface 1981), ed. Antal
Boronkay; the Liszt Bicentennial Alfred Masterwork Edition, © 2011, ed. Nancy Bricard; and the Bärenreiter Ur-
text BA 9650, © 2013, ed. Michael Kube. Flaws 1, 3, 4–5, 6, and 7 have been reprinted in the Peters Urtext Edition
No. 71900, plate No. 41003, © 2011, ed. Leslie Howard. e newly revised Henle score © 2016 (HN 559 coded A)
is evaluated later in this article.
5. See item 12 in the Appendix, and Example 77 (item 26 in the Appendix).
6. Liszt’s augmentation dots must, of course, be complemented by a subsequent quarter note rest, as in the Wouters
edition of 1920 (see Example 5).
7. ese misinterpretations would probably not have occurred if Herttrich had retained in the later reissues of the
HN 273 score his original whole-note value for the tied-over drone G pitches in mm. 3 and 6, and the F#s in mm.
455 and 458 (as printed inthe 1973 HN 273 Urtext score,coded A under m. 760).
8. e ascending octave leaps (mm. 8–9) signify “Man’s First Disobedience” (John Milton, Paradise Lost). See Tibor
Szász, “Liszt’s Symbols for the Divine and Diabolical: eir Revelation of a Program in the B minor Sonata,” Journal
of the American Liszt Society 15 (1984), 39–95, at 47, 52, 53, and 78 (Set 17). It is worth noting that almost all the
works cited in this article concern farewells, absences, and reunions.
9. See Example 14 for Liszt’s original, later crossed-out forte in m. 8 of the Lehman manuscript.
10. Viewed chronologically, however, it is always the rst edition which constitutes the composer’s “last word.”
11. See item 25 in the Appendix (Preface, iv).
12. Kenneth Hamilton,Liszt: Sonata in B Minor(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 58.
13. Translation taken from “Lina Ramann: Liszt Pädagogium,” trans. Viktor Schoner, Journal of the American Liszt
Society 49 (Spring 2001), 39. Liszt’s words were quoted in a similar manner in August Stradal, Erinnerungen an
Franz Liszt (Bern: Haupt 1929), 52 reprinted as part of the series Publikationen historischer Dokumente, ed. Jens-
Hagen Wegner (2015), 50. Beethoven’s Overture was based on a tragedy by Heinrich Joseph von Collin inspired by
Shakespeare’s e Tragedy of Coriolanus.
14. e lamentoso (“my suerings”) is expressed in the descending scalar fragments in mm. 2–3 and 5–6 heard after
the initial ascending seventh intervals.
15. e importance that Beethoven’s Coriolan-Ouvertüre held for Liszt is documented in a letter to Alexander Séro
(dated Elisabethgrad, 14 September 1847). In it, Liszt praised Séro’s transcription for solo piano of the overture
and mentioned his plan to publish his own transcription which he believed was “among …[his] papers in Germany.”
Liszt’s own transcription for solo piano of Coriolan, S.739, 1846–47, has not turned up and is apparently lost.
16. Liszt, Berlioz und seine „Harold-Symphonie“, in Gesammelte Schriften IV, ed. Lina Ramann (Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Härtel, 1882), 24: “… wie sehr Beethoven sich den Gedanken genähert die Poesie mit der Instrumentalmusik
zu verbinden. ”
17. Heinrich Heine, Die romantische Schule, Book I (Hamburg: Homann und Campe, 1836), 22: “Die klassische
Kunst hatte nur das Endliche darzustellen, und ihre Gestalten konnten identisch sein mit der Idee des Künstlers. Die
romantische Kunst nahm ihre Zuucht zu einem System traditioneller Symbole oder vielmehr zum Parabolischen,
wie schon Christus selbst seine spiritualistischen Ideen durch allerlei schöne Parabeln deutlich zu machen suchte.”
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 78 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
18. Listzs [sic] H moll-Sonate. Eine hermeneutische Studie von Eugen Schmitz,” Allgemeine (Deutsche) Musik-
Zeitung 33, no. 25 (17 June 1904).
19. e quotation and its illustrations are taken from Ernest Hutcheson, e Literature of the Piano (New York:
Knopf, 1949), 249 (Ex. 250) and 261 (Ex. 265).
20. Langsam, mesto, steigt ein Bassthema hinab,” in Stradal, Erinnerungen, 52.
21. Gerard Carter and Martin Adler,Facsimile of Arthur Friedheim’s Edition of Franz Liszt’s Sonata in B minor (Syd-
ney: Wensleydale Press, 2011). e editors converted Friedheim’s handwritten footnotes into print and reprinted
Friedheim’s original foreword. e facsimile edition also included a new introduction by Carter and Adler. See also
Gordon Rumson, “Arthur Friedheim’s Edition of the Liszt B Minor Sonata,” Liszt Society Journal 26 (2001), 17–59.
22. Siloti’s further suggestion that one may shorten the Sonata by a number of cuts is outmoded. Yet, one such cut
was implemented almost exactly by Vladimir Horowitz in his live performance on March 21, 1949 at Carnegie Hall,
New York (released on RCA Red Seal, Sony Music 88697538852).
23. Paul Egert, “Die Klaviersonate in h-moll von Franz Liszt,” Die Musik 28, no. 2 (1936), 673–74. Egert’s analysis
of the Urmotiv’s chromatic inection (Example 19) may have been based on any of the following sources: Motta’s
Liszt Sonata edition of 1924, Siloti’s 1935 foreword prexed to Motta’s edition, and Max Pauer’s 1921 Sonata
edition, the last one oering the ideal option for an explicit illustration of the Urmotiv’s two-voiced polyphony in
octaves (as corrected by the present authors). Moreover, his thesis appears to have found an echo in Claudio Arrau’s
1973 Geleitwort (Foreword) to the rst Henle facsimile edition of the Lehman manuscript: “Completely new, on
the other hand, is the method of motivic work: the entire Sonata is developed from one single motive.” (“Ganz neu
ist dagegen die Art der motivischen Arbeit: Aus einem einzigen Motiv entwickelt sich der Aufbau des gesamten
Werks”). SeeFranz Liszt, Klaviersonate h-moll, Faksimile nach dem Autograph, Munich: Henle, Foreword by Claudio
Arrau to the rst Henle facsimile edition (© 1973), republished in the revised 2015 edition (HN 3227), v, together
with a new Introduction by Mária Eckhardt.
24. Ibid. “Die nachfolgende Untersuchung der Motivik wird zeigen, daß das 764 [sic] Takte umfassende Werk tat-
sächlich aus einem Motiv von der Länge dreier Takte herausgewachsen ist.”
25. See Hamilton,Liszt, Preface, x.
26. Egert’s (“Die Klaviersonate”) emphasized words read: “Durch Umkehrung des a u f steigenden Septimensprungs in
einen a b steigenden.” e present authors disagree, however, with Egert’s Übergangsform” and other exotic constructs.
27. See item 12 in the Appendix.
28. See item 6 in the Appendix.
29. Michael Heinemann, Franz Liszt Klaviersonate H-Moll (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1993), Tafelbeispiel XIII.
30. See Ramon Satyendra, “Conceptualising Expressive Chromaticism in Liszt’s Music,” Music Analysis 16, no. 2
(July 1997), 219–52, see esp. 219, 221, 236, 240, 241.
31. According to Ludwig Holtmeier, Heinichen’s “Schemata Modorum” codies, in fact, the concept of “modern
tonality.” See Holtmeier, “Heinichen, Rameau, and the Italian oroughbass Tradition: Concepts of Tonality and
Chord in the Rule of the Octave,” Journal of Music eory 51, no. 1 (2007), 11.
32. See István Szelényi, “Der unbekannte Liszt,” in Franz Liszt: Beiträge von ungarischen Autoren, ed. Klára Ham-
burger (Budapest: Corvina, 1978), 277; and Lajos Bárdos, “Die volksmusikalischen Tonleitern bei Liszt,” ibid.
33. Ben Arnold, e Liszt Companion (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 123 [Ex. 5.11]. Arnold’s suggestion,
however, that Liszt’s chromatic inection is linked to “Hungarian music” does not hold up under scrutiny.
34. Allen Forte, “Liszt’s Experimental Idiom and Music of the Early Twentieth Century,” 19th-century Music 10, no.
3 (Spring 1987), 211.
35. Jeremy Day-O’Connell, “e Rise of 6 in the Nineteenth Century,” Music eor y Spectrum24, no. 1 (2002), 35–67.
36. e Ardeleana melody was published as No. 303 in Vera Lampert,Népzene Bartók műveiben – A feldolgozott
dallamok forrásjegyzéke (Budapest: Helikon Kiadó, 2005), 163–64. Bartók’s own sound recording of the Gypsy mel-
ody collected in 1912, as well as a transcription thereof by Bartók, may be heard and viewed under <https://youtu.
be/23S6nWfhJ-I> (accessed 21 January 2018).
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 79 2/16/18 4:04 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
37. See also, among others, the opening measures of Béla Bartók’s Rhapsody op. 1, Maurice Ravel’s Tzigane (at the
Tempo rubato), and George Enescu’s Sonata for piano and violin, op. 25 (m. 1). American violinist Benno Rabino
(who studied this sonata with Enescu) stated that the composer conceived it as “a fantasy on the life and soul of
the gypsy ddler.” See Samuel and Sada Appelbaum, e Way ey Play, Book 2 (Neptune City, NJ: Paganiniana
Publications, 1973), 74.
38. Richard Bass, “e Second-eme Problem and Other Issues in Mozart’s Sonata K. 457,” Indiana eory Review
9, no. 1 (1988), 9, fn. 10.
39. Sharon Winklhofer, Liszt’s Sonata in B Minor: A Study of Autograph Sources and Documents (Ann Arbor: UMI
Research Press, 1980), 170.
40. Gerard Carter and Martin Adler, Franz Liszt’s Precursor Sonata of 1849 (Sydney: Wensleydale Press, 2011), 27.
41. Liszt forgot to add a G clef sign before the “G” upbeat octave in the right-hand sta of m. 8.
42. Tonkünstler-Versammlung zu Weimar,” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 51, no. 24 (6 June 1884), 265: “Als der Meister
uns im engeren Kreise die fragliche Schöpfung vorspielte, war der anwesende, leider viel zu früh (1858) heimgegange-
ne Prof. Friedrich Kühmstedt aus Eisenach so ergrien und gefesselt von den beiden Hauptthemen (man vergleiche
Takt 8–15 des betreenden Werkes), daß er dieselben in einer großartigen Clavierfuge in Hmoll (Erfurt, Körner) in
großen Zügen ausführte. Beiläug gesagt, ist dieses Werk in contrapunktischer Beziehung von ungewöhnlichem In-
teresse, so daß es verdiente, nicht ganz der Vergessenheit anheim zu fallen. Liszt spielte, gelegentlich der Vorlage dieser
Meisterfuge, das sehr schwierige Werkprima vista, als wäre es eben ein—Kinderspiel.” Translation by Adler/Carter.
43. A review of the Fugue signed “M. B.” was published in the Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künst-
ler 1, no. 11 (14 September 1850), 83–84. Further contemporary notices or reviews of the work appeared in Urania
4 (1850), 64, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 34, no. 2 (10 January 1851), 20, and Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 34, no. 15 (11
April 1851), 156–57. e original score of Kühmstedt’s Fugue was destroyed in the 2004 re at the Herzogin Anna
Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar. Fortunately, it had been preserved digitally by the Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe-
und Schiller-Archiv (see <!metadata/864476698/1/LOG_0000/>, ac-
cessed 13 January 2018). However, the date assigned of “[ca. 1840]” must be wrong.
44. See Carter and Adler, Franz Liszt’s Precursor Sonata, 11, 32, 39, 54, and 113–20.
45. See Franz Liszt, Klaviersonate h-moll (1973/2015), xiii.
46. e Fugue—published complete by Carter and Adler—is preceded by a brief homophonic introduction com-
posed under the inuence of Liszt’s private performance of the Precursor Sonata in B minor of 1849.
47. “… Ebauchée dès 1849, reprise et terminée à Weimar durant les années 1852–53.”
48. Georges Gourdet, “Une analyse de la Sonate en si mineur de F. Liszt,” Analyse musicale 7 (1987), 49.
49. Szász, “Liszt’s Symbols,” 74 (Set 13).
50. Winklhofer, Liszt’s Sonata, 93 and 261, note 30.
51. Szász, “Liszt’s Symbols,” 84 (Set 23). See also the three music examples included in Franz Liszt, Klaviersonate
h-moll (1973/2015), xiii.
52. Manuscript GSA60/I22 is written in the hand of Liszt’s copyist August Conradi and contains annotations in
Liszt’s hand. Liszt’s acronym D’après un L.D.S.A.I.M.P……. was deciphered by Peter Raabe in a parallel version
of this acronym, written by Liszt on the top of the autograph manuscript of his own arrangement of the Maria
Pavlovna Lied “Es hat geammt” (GSA 60/D 69). See Franz Liszts Musikalische Werke VII: Einstimmige Lieder und
Gesänge I, ed. Raabe (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1918), v. e autograph manuscript of Liszt’s original, 1849 ver-
sion of the Consolation (GSA60/I21) includes a title page written by Alexander Wilhelm Gottschalg: “Paraphrase
über ein ema Ihrer Kaiserlich[-]Königlichen Hoheit der Frau Großherzogin-Großfürstin Maria Paulowna, für
das Pianoforte von Dr. Franz Lißt. (Componirt 1850 [recte: 1849]).” See also: Mária Eckhardt, “Zur Entstehungs-
geschichte der ‘Consolations’ von Franz Liszt,” Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34, nos. 3–4
(1992), 449–57.
53. Lina Ramann, ed., Liszt-Pädagogium (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1902), 2:7/10, 5:4. e Pädagogium states
that the fourth Consolation is based on a “motiv” by Maria Pavlovna, its prevailing mood is “kirchlich-religiös”
(“churchly religious”), and that it expresses Liszt’s “religiöse Andacht” (“religious devotion”). In the part referring to
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 80 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
the Andante sostenuto of the Sonata, Liszt’s pupil August Stradal is cited: “Dieser Satz sollte eigentlich mit Andante
religioso bezeichnet sein [...]” (“is movement should actually be titled Andante religioso [...]”). Mária Eckhardt
noted (Franz Liszt, Klaviersonate h-moll [1973/2015], xiii) that “Liszt set about preparing his Consolations—which
he had already begun several years earlier—for printing in 1849. e denitive version was released after a thorough
revision in the proofreading phase in 1850. It is possible that the idea of integrating the same religious-sounding
melody into his Sonata came to Liszt in the course of this work.”
54. e Pavlovna melody in the two Consolations and the Sonata is mentioned in Franz Liszt, Klaviersonate h-moll
(1973/2015), xiii. e turn in Example 66 is found only in mm. 17, 19, and 26 of the 1850 version of the Consolation
and in the Sonata (mm. 336–38, 399–401, and 713–15).
55. See Martin Adler (with Tibor Szász and Gerard Carter), “Franz Liszt and Maria Pavlovna Romanova: An Hom-
age to the Grand Duchess in Liszt’s Petrarch Sonnet No. 47,” Journal of the American Liszt Society 66 (2015), 23–33.
56. Szász’s article on the Maria Pavlovna Lied“Es hat geammt”has appeared—along with a rst edition of that
Lied—as “Franz Liszt’s arrangement of Maria Pavlovna’s Lied “Es hat geammt” and large-scale structures of Liszt’s
Sonata in Bminor and Faust-Symphonie,” inLes grandstopoïdu XIXe siècle et la musique de Franz Liszt,ed. Márta
Grabócz (Paris: Editions Hermann, 2018), 333–57.
57. e full poem may be found at <> (accessed 11 January 2018).
58. e Fanny Mendelssohn Lied has remained unpublished until recently; its opening lines are now available for
viewing at <> (accessed 28 December 2017).
59. See <> (accessed 28 December 2017).
60. e Star was reprinted in the rst edition of Jules de Swert’s transcription of Consolation IV for cello and piano
(Breitkopf & Härtel, 1871). at rst edition included the Star in both the piano and the cello parts, together with a
lead-in composed by Liszt. Liszt’s lead-in included a self-quotation in the cello part, in a prominent position, of the
chromatically adjusted rst ve notes of the Consolation IV.
61. e two D naturals are supported by Armand Ferté’s 1924 edition with two D naturals commented on in a
lengthy footnote (p. 40); and Motta stated in his 1924 edition (p. VIII) that he got the D natural from Klindworth
but had not seen any supporting documentary evidence.
62. Gerard Carter and Martin Adler, Arthur Friedheim’s Recently Discovered Roll Recording(Sydney: Wensleydale
Press, 2011), 29–31, and Carter and Adler, Facsimile of Arthur Friedheim’s Edition. See also the errata documents
(May 29, 2013) under <> (accessed 28 December 2017).
63. Friedheim’s small-sized natural sign before the D in m. 740 of his edition may have indicated that D natural was
either a derived reading from Liszt’s instruction given to Klindworth in 1854, or represented a viable alternative to
the text of the rst edition of 1854. Friedheim may even have received this information from Liszt directly when he
played the Sonata privately for the Master in 1884.
64. It is tempting to suggest that the absence of the D natural in mm. 739–40 was noticed by Liszt only after the
publication of the Sonata when he saw those measures printed out in full for the rst time (rather than in their
Lehman manuscript shorthand notation “Bis” [repeat] entered both above and below mm. 737–38). e above sug-
gestion, however, cannot withstand critical examination, since the copyist’s Stichvorlage and the engraver’s proof
sheets would have been prepared, and the rst edition was prepared, in full, non-abbreviated notation. It is hence
more likely that Liszt became aware of the less than convincing eect of the two identical D sharps in mm. 738 and
740 when he heard the Sonata performed from memory by Karl Klindworth in 1854.
65. e transmission of awed details,in some of the sources, concerning Liszt’s D natural instruction in m. 740,
may have been aggravated by the apparent loss of a letter by Klindworth addressed to his own pupil Edouard Risler
(1873–1929), mentioned in Ferté’s 1924 edition of the Sonata (see Appendix, item 14). On the other hand, Alfred
Cortot, who studied the Sonata with Risler, stated in his 1949 Sonata edition (p. 48, note 74) that Risler never men-
tioned to him the D-natural alternative, nor did he nd any evidence for its support in the annotations by Liszt him-
self of a copy of the rst edition belonging to Árpád Szendy. ere is, however, a penciled sign of uncertain meaning
at the beginning of m. 740 in the Szendy copy of the score of which Cortot made no mention.
66. is re-issue ofHenleHN 273 is coded K under the last measure; in his rst 1973 issue, coded A, Herttrich had
printedonlythe lowest B (without explanation).Readers referring totheHenle edition of the Sonata might be un-
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 81 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
aware that this rm had, on several occasions, re-issued the 1973 original edition with fresh textual variants without
providing the reader with any documentary basis for those variants.
67. For similar voice-leading reasons, Elmo Cosentini (University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna), supports
the single B resolution in m. 760; see his comment dated December 1, 2015 on the ocial Henle weblog <www.> (accessed 28 December 2017). Herttrich has revealed
neither his reasons for favoring the single note reading of m. 760 in the rst Henle edition HN 273 (coded A, ©
1973), nor his octave reading in HN 273 (coded K, © 1973/2001) and in the revised HN559 (coded A, © 2016).
68. e top voice melody in mm. 378–79 of the Bricard edition was corrupted by a printing error.
69. See Leslie Howard’s 2011 Peters Urtext No. 71900, iv.
70. István Szelényi, A Romantikus Zene Harmóniavilága (Budapest: Zeneműkiadó Vállalat, 1965), 101.
71. Michael Klein, “Liszt and the Idea of Transcendence,” Journal of the American Liszt Society 54–56 (2003–5), 105.
72. Szász, “Liszt’s Symbols,” 95 (Set 34): “ e major 6/4 chord (prolonged or unresolved), symbol for eternity, salvation.”
73. A few years before his death, Liszt asked August Stradal to note his wish that theDante Symphony be performed
only with its rst ending which concludes with the salvation tonic six-fourchord in B major. Liszt’s request concern-
ing the “salvation six-four chord” was recorded at the conclusion of Stradal’s piano reduction of the Dante Symphony
(Breitkopf & Härtel, Klav. Bibl. 23939, 1902; Example 80): “In the last years of his life Liszt instructed that the
piece should end here and explained that this ethereal, transcending closure is the only correct one, while the more
pompous second ending is no longer an acceptable alternative. I testify to the truth of this statement which Liszt
himself communicated to me.”
74. e prolongation of the lowest C until just prior to the arrival of the six-four triple piano harmony in m. 756 is
documented in the Sonata edition prepared by Arthur Friedheim (who studied it under Liszt); the prolongation of
the low C with the right pedal was also authorized by Liszt himself in a copy of the 1854 rst edition formerly in
the possession of Liszt’s pupil from Hungary, Árpád Szendy.
75. Liszt befriended the Boisselot family who were inventors of the sostenuto pedal shown at the Paris Exhibition of
1844. In his transcription of Hector Berlioz’s Danse des Sylphes, S.475, Liszt prescribed a simulated sostenuto eect:
“Le prolongement du son de la tonique ré doit s’eectuer par la Pedale, sans que la note sera tenue du doigt.” (“e
prolongation of the sound of the tonic ‘D’ must be achieved with the pedal, without holding the nger on the key”).
76. When engaged immediatelyafterdepressing the B major six-four chord held with both hands, the third pedal
guarantees the short note value of the bass pitch “B” in m. 760 while prolonging the six-four chord past that short
note. e term T.S.P. = Tone Sustaining Pedal was used repeatedly by Ignace Jan Paderewski in his 20-volumee
Century Library of Music (1900–3).
77. See Banowetz, e Pianist’s Guide, 218: Das genannte Pedal darf nicht, meines Erachtens zu häug gebraucht
werden, wird aber von vortreichem Eecte sein, vorzüglich in etwas ruhigen piano Stellen.”
78. Eugen d’Albert’s edition degrades the three “salvation chords” by replacing their low pitch F#, R.H., with pitch
D# played a minor third lower, hence dragging down into worldly realms the other-worldly character of Liszt’s text.
79. Szász’s earlier suggestion (Szász, “Liszt’s Symbols,” 79: “Last Judgment”, Set 18, 6a) that m. 760 symbolizes the
apocalyptic “second death” is incorrect. Eternal Life—the death of Death—is its true connotation, as conveyed in
1 Corinthians 15:55: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”
80. Liszt’s consistent use of a prolonged tonic 6/4 chord in B major as generic symbol for Eternity / Salvation is
documented in Szász, “Liszt’s Symbols,” 95 (Set 34).
81. e exalted last page of the Liszt Sonata cannot be expressed in words. e closest approximation of its Spirit
of Universal Redemption is intimated in Victor Hugo’s epic poem “La Fin de Satan” (“e End of Satan,” 1854–62,
pub. 1886), in which God speaks these last words: “Satan est mort, renais,ô Lucifer céleste!” (“Satan has died, be
reborn, O celestial Lucifer!”)
82. Klaus-Jürgen Sachs, “Beethovens ‘Lebewohl’ für Erzherzog Rudolph. Zum Kopfsatz der Klaviersonate Es-Dur,
op. 81a, Les adieux,” Bonner Beethoven-Studien 4 (2005), 127.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 82 2/7/18 10:06 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
83. Dussek’s Sonata is titled Grande Sonate e Farewell, Opus 44, and begins with a slow Introduzione in Eb minor,
with Introduzione printed above the tempo designation Grave. Yet, as Alexander L. Ringer writes, “Beethoven took
motivic and textural cues from Dussek without the slightest compunction, adopting freely some of Dussek’s most
characteristic sonorities.” See Ringer, “Beethoven and the London Pianoforte School,” e Musical Quarterly 56, no.
4 (1970), 752–53.
84. For a discussion of the historical connection between Op. 81a and the Napoleonic wars then taking place in
Europe, see L. Poundie Burstein, “‘Lebe wohl tönt überall’ and a ‘Reunion after So Much Sorrow’: Beethoven’s Op.
81a and the Journeys of 1809,” e Musical Quarterly 93, nos. 3–4 (Fall–Winter 2010), 366–413.
85. Jürgen Uhde, Beethovens Klaviermusik III. Sonaten 16–32 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1991), 283. Translation by Szász.
86. William Rothstein, “Heinrich Schenker as an Interpreter of Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas,” 19th-Century Music 8,
no. 1 (1984), 12.
87. ere are, however, more structural clues than initially meet the eye. Rothstein notes Beethoven’s extraordinary
non-legato ngering 5, 5, 5 (chromatic soprano triad C,Cb,Bb printed in italics, Example 84) which anticipates
the chromatic bass triad C,B\,Bb = C,Cb,Bb in m. 17 (Example 85).
88. See Patrick Szersnovicz, “Liszt, contre Liszt,” Monde de la Musique 171 (Novembre 1993). “Léquilibre des
contraires propre au style classique viennois n’est pas, à proprement parler, abandonné. Il est transposé dans une
nouvelle technique d’enchaînements de fusion d’épisodes dont aucun ne saurait subsister isolément.” (“Strictly speak-
ing, the balance of opposites of the classical Viennese style is not abandoned. It is transmuted into a new linkage
technique of fused episodes, none of them viable as isolated entities.”) Translation by Tibor Szász.
89. By contrast, Kühmstedt’s fugue was composed in the “correct” B minor key signature (Example 62).
90. e exclusion of pitch F# in m. 528, right-hand sta (Lehman manuscript and rst edition) may be interpreted as
Liszt’s conscious eort to upstage the weighty return of pitch F# in the low register on thefortissimodownbeat of m. 531
(B minor key signature). is plausible tonal scenario is, however, weakened by Liszt’s omission to introduce an abso-
lutely necessary F# accidental on the downbeat of m. 528, left-hand sta. Although the copy of the rst edition owned
by Árpád Szendy does have two naturals added in m. 528 (right-hand sta), they are not in Liszt’s hand; nor is Liszt’s
omission corrected on the downbeat of m. 528 (left-hand sta). Hence, this tonal issue must remain inconclusive.
91. Winklhofer, Liszt’s Sonata, 127.
92. Measures 299–305 in the Bärenreiter Edition, BA 9025, © 2015, ed. Jonathan Del Mar.
93. “Austria should get back at Napoleon (autograph manuscript, second movement, bottom, page 74 recto).
94. Winklhofer sums up the Liszt Sonata’s “Expressive Form” in §8., Table IV, 4. divided into three parts, and in
Table IV,5. and Table IV,6. In Part III of Table IV,4., Winklhofer states that mm. 32 and 533 constitute the Tonal
Presentation” of the Sonata, with m. 32 being a rst “Tonal arrival”, and m. 533 the “Tonic return” quoted from the
exposition, m. 32. In Table IV.6 titled “Tonal design of the Sonata,” Winklhofer concludes that mm. 32 and 533 are
“points of arrival” (see Winklhofer, Liszt’s Sonata, 131–33).
95. Similarly “hanging” long-range tonal structures hovering in high register are heard in the one and only “white”
fragment without a key signature of Lesjeux d’eaux à la Villa d’Este. e major six-four harmonies in mm. 253, 257,
261 and 265 symbolize Christ’s words as given in John 4:14: “But the water that I shall give him shall become in him
a well of water springing up into eternal life.”
96. ese autograph sources are the Urmotiv’s sketchbook version (Example 49, mm. 1–2), its expanded early version
(Example 53, mm. 1, 4, 7), and its revised, nal version (Example 4, mm. 1, 4, 7).
97. e history of symphonic poem Les Préludes—program and music—is notoriously complex. e program
authorized by Liszt reads: “What else is our life but a series of preludes to that unknown Hymn, the rst and solemn
note of which is intoned by Death?” (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1856).
98. wie ein dunkler Paukenschlag erklingen,” as related by Stradal in “Lina Ramann: Liszt Pädagogium,” 39.
99. Winklhofer, Liszt’s Sonata, 215 (mm. 18x–23x).
100. Extended obeat syncopations occur also in Liszt’s Funérailles (October 1849), mm. 17.
JALS 2017 - Szasz.indd 83 2/7/18 10:06 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 1: Franz Liszt, Sonata, mm. 1–3, the seven aws of the 1854 rst edition (An Robert
Schumann. Sonate für das Pianoforte von Franz Liszt. Breitkopf & Härtel, plate 8877)
Example 2: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 1–9 and mm. 453–59, authors’ suggested text based on
hitherto ignored autograph revisions
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 84 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 4: Liszt, Sonata, Lehman MS, mm. 1–6, revision headed “Anfang” (“Beginning”)
Example 5: Liszt, Sonata, correctly standardized augmentation dots in mm. 3 and 6, ed.
Example 6: Beethoven, Sonata in E major, op. 109, II, augmentation dots in mm. 70–75
(rst edition)
Example 7: Liszt, Sonata, incorrect voice leading and note values falsely suggesting an
arrival at C minor
Example 3: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 1–9, reformatted to show how the two voices—the bass’s
“Leap” and the soprano’s “Hammer”—share the common pitch G
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 85 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 8: Liszt, Sonata, incorrect note values falsely suggesting arrivals at B minor (m.
454 ) and E minor (m. 752 )
Example 9: Liszt, Sonata, from a mock G minor (1n7; 1#7; 18) to B harmonic minor
Example 11: Liszt, Sonata, Urmotiv “A” (mock G minor), and motifs “B” and “C” (a misnomer,
in B minor). e Janus-like downbeat pitch G at m. 9 links the Urmotiv’s mock G minor
“antecedent” with its B minor “consequent
Example 10: Beethoven, Sonata in Eb major (Lebewohl, Abwesenheit und Wiedersehen), op. 81a,
I, doubly “wrong” start on C (6) and then Cb (b6) embedded in Eb major
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 86 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 13: Beethoven, Op. 81a, I (“Farewell”), from pp to f and Adagio to Allegro
Example 14: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 7–9, original version, from Lento to Allegro energico and
p sotto voce to f
Example 15: Liszt, Sonata, crossed-out original version of mm. 7–8, followed by the nal
version of m. 9 with the added f on the downbeat
Example 12: Liszt Sonata, identical pitch sequence in the tonal exposition (m. 32) and re-
exposition (m. 533)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 87 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 16: List of prints and reprints of the Sonata, E.B. 8877, and presumably also V.A.
3388 (Volksausgabe, identical plates). Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig,
21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 4457
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 88 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 17: Beethoven, Coriolan Overture (arr. Adolph Henselt), repeatedly expanding
then falling saltus
Example 18: Liszt, Sonata, correct voice reduction of the opening, repeatedly expanding
then falling saltus
Example 19: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 1–9, chromatic inection of two voices that peak on a
towering unisono G
Example 20: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 2–3, the initial ascending leap, as identied by Schmitz
Example 21: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 83–86 and 1–3, correct voice leading, as illustrated by
Example 22: Misinterpreting the Sonata’s opening as “Phrygian” and “Gypsy” scales
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 89 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 23: Pitch-class type analysis which ignores the rising / falling direction of intervals
Example 24: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 1–6, incorrect voice leading between parts yields ctitious
“descending scales”
Example 25: Liszt, Sonata, Lehman manuscript; arrow inserted by the present authors
points to the added stem at m. 454, R.H. sta
Example 26: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 454–59, ed. José Vianna da Motta (see Appendix, items 15–17)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 90 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 27: Draft (Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig, 21081 Breitkopf &
Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 4460) and published German text and music example of Alexander
Siloti’s “Suggestions” in Motta’s Breitkopf & Härtel edition
Example 28: English translation of Example 27
Example 29: Liszt, Sonata, ed. Friedheim, accents on F and F#peak notes” in both staves
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 91 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 30: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 2–3 and 5–6, Siloti’s correct suggestions for a practical
realization of the correct voice leading
Example 31: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 750–53, Siloti corrupting the falling seconds into rising
Example 32: Egert, extract, the rising seventh leaps (mm. 1–6) are inverted to become a
falling seventh (m. 9)
Example 33: Liszt, Sonata, rising seventh leaps (mm. 2, 5) become falling seventh leaps
(mm. 32, 34)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 92 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 34: Liszt, Sonata, Urmotiv, reduction: rising triadic structures shift from a mock
G minor to B harmonic minor
Example 35: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 1–7, ed. Max Pauer (arrows inserted by the present authors)
Example 36: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 2–3 and 5–6, arr. Camille Saint-Saëns (1914, pub. 2004)
Example 37: Liszt, Csárdás obstinée, inection of the la – sol – fa – mi tetrachord
Example 38: Liszt, Großes Konzertsolo (S.176), reduction of mm. 312–17 (lead-in to the
funeral march; see also Example 96)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 93 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 39: Johann David Heinichen’s “Schemata Modorum” (D harmonic minor, ||
melodic, natural)
Example 40: Heinichen, “Schemata Modorum,” B minor; A# to Gn ambitus of the segment
on the left
Example 41: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 673–76; cf. Heinichen’s B minor / B Major diatonic modes
Example 42: B harmonic minor based on J. S. Bach’s Inventio 4 in D minor, BWV 775
Example 43: Chromatically inected repetition of the Urmotiv and of the Grandioso
second subject
Example 44: Violin melody (Ardeleana) in the Gypsy D minor mode, as presented by Bartók
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 94 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 45: Johannes Brahms, Paganini Variations, op. 35, book II, “Gypsy grand nale”
Example 46: Liszt, Rhapsody No. 13, mm. 17–18, opening pitch E (5 of A minor)
Example 47: W.A. Mozart, Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, mm. 1–2, correct voice leading of the
three-voiced polyphony
Example 48: Liszt, Sonata sketch GSA 60/N 2 (left); W.A. Mozart, Fantasy in C minor, K.
475 (right)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 95 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 49: Sketch of the Sonata’s opening, GSA60/N2, page (75) 87, in which the initial
sixth scale degree (6) is placed in the context of the B minor key signature
Example 50: Sketch GSA60/N2, two-voiced polyphony, mm. 1–6 (6, mock G minor) and
7–10 (1, B minor)
Example 51: e rising antecedent (G minor) in mm. 3–6 is transformed into an enharmonic
falling consequent (B minor) in mm. 7–8
Example 52: GSA60/N2, extract, B minor key signature; two-voiced, ve-part polyphony
in octaves
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 96 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 53: Liszt, Sonata, autograph manuscript (transcription), crossed-out original
version on page 1, from a two-voiced, ve-part polyphonic structure (mm. 1–7) to a two-
voiced, four-part initial upbeat (m. 8)
Example 54: Liszt, unsigned, undated, and unplaced “Sonate” fragment in E minor, GSA
60/Z 18, leaf 81
Example 55: Liszt, “Sonate” fragment, composite extract of the fragment in E minor, GSA
60/Z 18, leaf 81
Example 56: Liszt, “Sonate” fragment, rising sequential leaps (GSA 60/Z 18, leaf 81)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 97 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 57: Shared thematic proles among the B minor S onata (above), “Sonate” fragment
(middle), and Konzertsolo (below)
Example 58: Liszt, “Sonate” fragment, facsimile and transcription, descending-then-
ascending melody
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 98 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 59: Liszt, “Sonate” fragment (above) and Konzertsolo (below), ascending-then-
descending melody
Example 60: Acciaccaturas in the “Sonate” fragment (left) and Konzertsolo (right)
Example 61: Descending chromatic pitch triad in the “Sonate” fragment (above) and
Konzertsolo (below)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 99 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 62: Grosse vierstimmige Concert-Fuge über ein von Herrn Dr. Liszt gegebenes ema,
für Pianoforte componirt und Demselben freundschaftlichst gewidmet von Fr. Kühmstedt
Example 65: Meyerbeer-Liszt, Valse infernale, S.413: repeated notes, slow turn F#, G, F#,
E#, descending leaps
Example 63: Unisono motif, Piano Concerto in Eb Major, Op. posth., composite score from
Jay Rosenblatt’s reconstruction (Editio Musica Budapest, Z. 13 619, p. 25)
Example 64: Ascending chromatic triad F, F#, G opening in Malédiction (1; S.121), the
Sonata (2), and Prometheus (3; S.99)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 100 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 66: Liszt, Consolation IV (top, 1850, mm. 1–2; transposed) and Sonata (mm. 332–34)
Example 68: Rhythmic and melodic similarities between the Lieder of Maria Pavlovna and
Fanny Mendelssohn
Example 69: Liszt, Sonata, ed. Moritz Moszkowski, D# (m. 738), Dn (m. 740), and CX (m. 743)
Example 70: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 752–760, ed. Motta, rising chromatic pitch triad E, F, F#
Example 67: Liszt, Petrarch Sonnet No. 47 (Benedetto sia ’l giorno), 1883 version, mm. 9–11,
vocal sta (catalogued as 270/2 in Searle and Short-Howard, LW N14/2 in Eckhardt-
Mueller, and 578b in Raabe)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 101 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 71: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 752–53, addition at the extreme left edge of the last system
(arrow inserted by the present authors)
Example 72: Liszt, Sonata, from Siloti’s 1935 “Suggestions” in Motta’s 1924 edition
Example 73: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 65–67, autograph, “col’ 8va bassa” octaves notated as “8” by
Liszt in accordance with his usual practice
Example 74: Liszt, Sonata, original ending with the polyphonically logical “col’ 8va bassa”
octave resolution
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 102 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 75: Liszt, Sonata, augmentation dot in the right hand (at the arrow inserted by the
present authors) and crossed-out ties in m. 751
Example 76: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 752–60, suggested correct voice leading of the Urmotiv (cf.
Exx. 81, 82)
Example 77: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 750–53, ed. Nancy Bricard, augmentation dots as in m. 3 of
the autograph
Example 78: Liszt, Sonata, Henle facsimile (2015), crossed out tie at Fig. 2, reverse side of
the paste-over on p. 5
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 103 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 79: Liszt, Dante Symphony, prolonged, nal tonic B major “salvation six-four chord”
Example 80: Liszt, Dante Symphony, Magnicat, conclusion (arr. August Stradal)
Example 81: Liszt, Sonata, conclusion rendered on three staves to illustrate orchestral eect
(cf. Exx. 79, 80)
Example 82: Liszt, Sonata, realization of the orchestral eect by means of the sostenuto pedal
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 104 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 83: Liszt, Letter to the Steinway rm about the ideal use of the sostenuto pedal
Example 84: Beethoven, Sonata in Eb major, op. 81a, mm. 1–5, rst edition; note Beethoven’s
own ngering 5, 5, 5 on the melodic, non-legato descending chromatic pitch triad Cn,
Bn [= Cb], Bb, Bb
Example 85: Beethoven, Sonata in Eb major, op. 81a, mm. 17–21, with its Cn, Bn (= b6), Bb,
Bb, [Eb] bass
Example 86: Beethoven, Sonata in Eb major, op. 81a, II (“e Absence”), mm. 1–4, with its
reiterated opening “C & Eb & G” dissonance
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 105 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 87: Liszt, Sonata, intermittent drone G = 6 sets up cadential resolution to B minor
Example 88: Liszt, Sonata, B minor “derailed” to Eb minor through a 6, 5, 1 sequence
Example 89: Liszt, Sonata, thematic re-exposition, polyphonic rendering: mm. 453–59
prolong the earlier F# tonal context; mm. 460–66 then reinterpret it through an F# = Gb
enharmonic switch to Bb minor
Example 90: Beethoven, Sonata in Eb major, op. 81a, I, “thematic re-exposition” on C (6)
Example 91: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 55–108, a b6, 5, 1 tonal delay sets up the Grandioso second
subject in D major
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 106 2/7/18 10:08 PM
SzáSz, Liszt’s Sonata
Example 92: Liszt, Sonata, Sharon Winklhofer’s transcription of the later pasted over
“endless” syncopations
Example 93: Liszt, Ossa arida, S.55, syncopations that lack perceptible downbeats
Example 94: Liszt, Sonata, rhythmic-melodic compromise (mm. 17–18, left); source (right)
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 107 2/7/18 10:08 PM
Journal of the american liszt society
Example 95: Frédéric Chopin, Ballade No. 1, pedaling and full chords on strong beats in left
hand counterbalance the obeat syncopations in right hand
Example 96: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 45 / 546, endless obeat syncopations in left hand
Example 100: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 170–73, ed. Motta, corrupt tenuto sign in right-hand sta
Example 99: Liszt, Sonata, m. 171, Lehman manuscript, obeat syncopations suggestive of
erotic sighs
Example 97: Liszt, Sonata, suggested rhythmic execution of obeat syncopations in the
right hand, mm. 17, by Hutcheson (left) and the present authors (right)
Example 98: Liszt, Sonata, mm. 665–72, endless syncopations in left hand, downbeats in
right hand
JALS 2017 - Szasz - music examples.indd 108 2/7/18 10:08 PM
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
This paper examines the history of the major-scale submediant (6) in both theory and practice. The melodic style of the nineteenth century exhibited an increasingly freer interpretation of scale-degree tendency, which included a subtle but highly significant development in the treatment of 6, suggesting a quasi-adjacency to the upper tonic. The implications of this “non-classical 6̂,” which extend to the realms of harmony, rhetoric, meaning, and even formal structure, constitute an essential aspect of the history of common-practice music.
Franz Liszt completed his Piano Sonata in B minor at Weimar in 1853. It met with a mixed reception from the musical establishment of the day but is now a part of the repertoire of every leading pianist and may even be the most frequently recorded and performed piano work ever written. It is the outstanding example of the compositional process of thematic transformation. The grandeur and lyrical power of its themes, based on three motifs so clearly stated at the outset, place it at the pinnacle of the piano literature. Liszt composed his Sonata in 1852–53, or so we have been led to believe. We now know, however, that by June 1849 Liszt had already composed a precursor Sonata and tested it by performance to his inner circle. This monograph explains in detail the recently discovered and researched facts obtained by the authors on which this entirely novel proposition is based and places these facts in their historical and musicological context. Contents: 1818–1848: Influences of Beethoven, Hummel, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin and Alkan 1849 January (est.): Liszt's Sketch of Motifs A and B 1849: Liszt Sketches the Andante sostenuto 1849 January (est.): Liszt Commences Serious Compositional Work on his Sonata 1849 May 30: Liszt Plays "Some New Compositions" for Bülow and Winterberger 1849 May or June: Liszt Tells Bülow that he has "Begun Bigger Works" 1849 May or June (est.): Liszt Plays his Precursor Sonata to his Inner Weimar Circle 1849 July (est.): Kühmstedt Starts to Compose his Fugue Based on Liszt's Motifs B and C 1850 June (est.): Liszt Performs Kühmstedt's Fugue 1850 September: Bülow Plans to Visit Kühmstedt 1853/54: Liszt's Sonata Completed and Published Liszt's Annotations on the Szendy Copy in Budapest Liszt's Sonata Compared to Kühmstedt's Fugue The appendices include all the original sources with translations, comments by Prof. Dr. Tibor Szász and a facsimile of the whole of Kühmstedt's Fugue. A number of illustrations are included as well as numerous musical examples. Paperback illustrated 144 pages 210 x 148 mm ISBN 978-3-8442-0842-9 RRP EUR 30
Thesis--University of California, Los Angeles, 1978. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 481-509). Photocopy. s
Herbst/Autumn 1973, hardcover. b. HN 3227 "Lehman Manuscript
Henle facsimiles a. HN 3203 "Lehman Manuscript," Munich, © 1973, "Zum Geleit/Some final thoughts" by Claudio Arrau, New York, Herbst/Autumn 1973, hardcover. b. HN 3227 "Lehman Manuscript," Munich, © 2015, "Geleitwort/Foreword" by Claudio Arrau, New York, Herbst/Autumn 1973, "Einleitung/Introduction" by Mária Eckhardt, Budapest, Frühjahr/spring 2015, hardcover.
Ausgabe der Musikfreunde Nr. 39, plate no
  • August Schmid-Lindner
  • Schott
August Schmid-Lindner, Schott, Ausgabe der Musikfreunde Nr. 39, plate no. 30343, Mainz, Leipzig (1917).
Gesammelte Werke für Klavier zu vier Händen von Franz Liszt
  • Ignaz Friedman
Ignaz Friedman, Universal Edition, Gesammelte Werke für Klavier zu vier Händen von Franz Liszt, Heft IV., plate no. U. E. 5874.5984.5939, Vienna and Leipzig (1917).