Mihály Szegedy-Maszák: ”The Liszt oeuvre is many-sided"
Mihály Szegedy-Maszák, professor of comparative literature and cultural science, is the member of the programme committee and also distinguished lecturer of the ”Liszt and the Arts” conference, which takes place between 18 and 21 November. We asked the music-lover academic about the conference syllabus and, naturally, about Liszt.
- ”The comparative analysis of different art disciplines is an attractive field, but we might easily make the mistake of approaching fine art or music from a literary viewpoint. It is especially tempting to use this amateur approach when comparing opera with literature.” – Szegedy-Maszák writes in one of his studies. Liszt did not write any operas – apart from his childhood work, Don Sanche, which has been performed several times in the Liszt Year –, most of his vocal compositions were written for the church, or at least to religious lyrics, and references to other arts in his works can mostly be tracked down in the titles, mottos and quotes in the scores. How can we analyse the relationship between Liszt and other arts if we do not just want to be drawing superficial paralels?
- First of all, we need to see the difference between how a piece of work of fine art and a written piece are inspired. It is possible to talk about transcribing a painting or a sculpture into music, however, it is not easy. There might be a closer relationship between literature and music, especially in the case of vocal works. I certainly do not want to deny the literary inspiration in the case of particular instrumental (piano or orchestral) pieces, but it is much easier to analyse the relationship of the two art disciplines when a poem is set to music. It would be tempting to search for the interpretation of a poem in the way it is transcribed into a song. But I suspect that the poem as such basically disappears, or at least transforms, when it is turned into a song. This is the only way we can explain how certain texts which are not among the finest works of literature can turn into masterpieces when they are set to music.
- In your lecture you are going to talk about which literary pieces Liszt was familiar with and considered important. What sources can we rely on when we want to study Liszt’s knowledge of literature, and what are the consequences we can draw?
- Our primary sources are his correspondence and his discoursive prose. He felt related to Goethe’s views about world literature, that is why he composed symphonies about Faust and Dante. Sometimes his choice of a poem to be set to music was a personal question of the poet. The way people read poems in the 19th century was different than the way they do today. Lamartine was considered a much greater poet than he is now.
- Liszt wrote several books, articles and countless letters. Are these only interesting with regard to the musical pieces, or can we regard some of them as literary pieces?
- It is a very hard question. Liszt could mainly write in French and German. There have been very few composers as much bilingual as he was. But we have to bear in mind that he often worked with a co-author: in his earlier years he worked with Marie d’Agoult, later it was Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein who wrote some of his writings.
- When analysing the relationship of literature and music – and also Liszt’s oeuvre – we cannot ignore the language-question. Although Liszt did not speak Hungarian, there are several references to Hungarian literature in his works. Was his relationship different with Hungarian literature than with German, French or Italian?
- His knowledge of Italian was probably not as good as of French and German. Even though he tried to relate to Hungarian literature, it is more important that he set an example for Hungarian writers of how to be European.
- The Hungarian UNESCO committe, which you are also a member of, had an important role in declaring 2011 a Liszt Year, to be celebrated all around the world. Do you think the Liszt Year has changed the way he is looked upon? Has the world accepted Liszt as a Hungarian composer?
- Basically it has, but I also think that Hungarians need to realise how European he also was. He was influenced by Bellini or Berlioz just as much as by Wagner.
- The bicentennial events are soon coming to an end. Which were the most momentuous events, in your opinion, in Hungary or abroad? Is there anything you think was missing?
- Some of the recordings submitted for the Liszt record award were a disappointment. Certain Liszt works do not have a truly outstanding interpretation. Also, I think it is a pity that many of his pieces are overplayed. In Bayreuth at the end of October I saw a wonderful interpretation of Les Préludes conducted by Christian Thielemann. I suggested him to be invited to Hungary years ago, but in vain. In Hungary it is not always the experts who decide which musicians should be invited.
- Perhaps it is not an overstatement to say you are famous of being a real Wagner-fan. Liszt and Wagner’s life and music are connected in many ways, but they are also very different in certain things, for example, Liszt is more acknowledged and more popular. In your experience, does knowing Wagner’s works help or hinder the understanding of Liszt?
- You are cornering me with this question. When I was a child and a teenager learning to play the piano, I used to listen to Liszt all the time. Later I nearly turned away from his works for good. Then thanks to the encouragement from my son, Zoltán, I re-discovered him. Liszt’s most important biography writer, Alan Walker wrote that „Liszt’s fans might overemphasized the ’ungreatfulness’ of Wagner”. The Liszt oeuvre is many-sided. The early rhapsodies were born from a different world than Via crucis. Liszt realised Wagner’s exceptional greatness early, therefore we would not be respecting his heritage if we tried to emphasize the significance of Liszt over Wagner’s homogenous oeuvre, which completely reformed music theater.
