Talk:List of compositions by Franz Liszt

message: Why is this article up for deletion, yet no discussion has been made. Isn't it common sense to talk first on wikipedia? All other major composers as well as most minor or completely unimportant composers (to use the term loosely) have articles listing their work. I don't see any problem with this article that requires anything more than minor improvements. I am removing this notice and hope to discuss this like reasonable editors. Thank you, AlexanderLevian 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was kept, but in the future please do not remove the Afd tags until the discussion is closed. Thanks!.--JForget  01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and apologize. I didn’t realize that a discussion had been started in a separate page. I didn’t know and it won’t happen again. Thank you, AlexanderLevian 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: With IMSLP down, a better source is needed (a better source was needed anyway than a sourceless list compiled elsewhere even when it was up.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I compiled the original list over at imslp. I used Liszt.dk project page as first reference. As for the various organ works not listed, I used a list over at Amazon on Liszt complete organ works, performed by Johannes Bleicher. On the various co-arranger of the symphonic poems (S.511a-S.512), I used the sleeve notes from Hyperion's Vol 56 of Liszt's Piano Music and Vol 38, and some original letters over at Gutenbergs. Liszt.dk seems to have some errors; Ungarischer Sturmmarsch was errorneously listed to be both S.524i (i.e. S.232) and S.524ii when infact S.524 is a transcription of S.119 which is an orchestration of S.232. Festpolonais isn't S.634, but S.619a. --Funper (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I think it is better not to include individual pieces in the articles. If one plans to make a whole listing of all individual pieces, like the 19 hungarian rhapsodies, the 3 series of 12 etudes, and the 12 christmas pieces, the purpose of this list will be lost since it will be impossible to take in the whole picture. The purpose of this list is not to show all of Liszt's overwhelming oevre, but to make it possible to easily browse through it. These kind of lists would be more appropriate to include in articles related to them (like the list of all 12 transcendental etudes that is available in the main article). I suggest that it should be as it was before. We should strive to make it remain a browseable list. --Funper (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but somewhat disagree.  It seems silly to me to create an entire article to list 2 movements of a piece that I otherwise know nothing about.  By contrast, have you seen the tremendous detail on the Schubert page, particularly regarding the piano solo works?  But a better example is the break-out of the song cycles.  Consider how difficult it would be to locate the song "Halt" (D795 no3) if you didn't know to which collection it belonged.  Listing out the 19 Hungariam Rhapsodies would have little value since they are not individually named.  But a work like "St. Francis of Paula walking on the waves" is rarely referenced as "Legend No 2".  Unless you are a Liszt expert, I think it would be hard to find.  At least that was my experience when I came searching these pages for this work and couldn't find it.  I had to go to Google to figure out where it fit into Liszt's amazingly large output.  Then I thought that info may be useful to others.  So I added it to the page.  Personally, I would prefer to have one monster article of the works, instead of two, even though it would be slower to load over my dial-up connnection.  But I'm not a wiki expert either, so I beg your patience.  Is there a page length limitation or something?  Les Andersen (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oki I am all for if the etude-titles are removed (since you agree; "little value since they are not individually named". Un Sospiro wasn't even a title of Liszt's). --Funper (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: quick Google books search suggests "by 1848" for the first version of the song S. 306, from two different (maybe not independent) books, one of them Searle's - is there enough evidence for 1847 even with that question mark? Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dating S.306 

message: This article seems to be begging for a humorous title.  How about 'Liszt of compositions'?  It would be funny!  
J.Gowers (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe on Uncyclopedia... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Title?? 

message: This article has topics similar to List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.351 – S.999) and should be merged into one article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inyrface (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There may be this distinction, but that is not a valid reason to seperate the catalogue into two articles. --2.245.90.48 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged. ---Funper (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with another article

message: Searle's catalogue is divided firstly into what he calls "Original works" (S.1–S.350) and "Arrangements, transcriptions, etc" (S.351 onwards).  It would be very tempting for someone new to Liszt to believe that anything with an S number lower than 351 was an original concept by Liszt that did not draw on the works of any other composers.  But that's hardly the case.  
No less than 47 of the works in the first group are based on works by other composers, and these include Berlioz (S.120), Beethoven (S.122), Chopin (S.127), Paganini (S.140, 141), Rossini (S.149, 150), Bach (S.179, 180), Handel (S.181). Mendelssohn (S.257), Meyerbeer (S.259), and many others.
Full details are at Franz Liszt's treatments of the works of other composers#Index of S. numbers.
The Searle catalogue has been confusing me ever since I encountered it 45 years ago.  For example:
* How can a work titled Études d'execution transcendante d'après Paganini, S.141, which is essentially a transcription of 6 pieces by Paganini, be classified as an "original work", when the extra-Liszt source of the material is even included in the title? 
* Why is Fantasia on (themes from) 'The Ruins of Athens', S.122, considered an "original work", when Capriccio alla turca sur des motifs de Beethoven (Ruines d'Athènes), S.388 is merely an "arrangement or transcription"?  They both draw on the same Beethoven material, and they both rework it to some degree.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well unfortunately Serle is dead, so we can't ask him. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural confusion

message: The first Mephisto Waltz originates in the second of the Two pieces after Lenau's Faust S.110. In this article, S.110 links to the general Mephisto Waltzes article, where the section on the First Mephisto Waltz, discussing its origin, has a link back to this page. The S.110 link should go to a separate article on the original Two pieces after Lenau's Faust, or be removed, otherwise the links make us go around in circles. Zwart (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular reference S.110 

message: I am not knowledgeable enough to implement a TOC within the new layout of the list. I have read some section about tables and headers but my wikicoding skills are far too weak and I do not know where to begin. Is it do-able? Are there any relevant help pages to read? --Funper (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a workaround, however I'm not sure if this is the "right" way to add a TOC when your article is just a huge table. --Funper (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents in new list 

message: I am planning to add composer names as headers in the work table, however I will not add those links to the TOC since I believe it will become unnavigable. --Funper (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composer names 

message: See [this link] for a discussion relating to the use of bold in the lead. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold in lead 

message: Without further ado, the columns "Forces" and "Notes" should be removed, although I have no issue with them being remade if they are substantially different. I don't mind keeping a copy of them on my user space if anybody would find those details useful for further editing. These notes are largely incomprehensible, at least in their current form. If they are to be refactored in a presentable way, they would likely take so much space to be completely untenable, and should probably be described in other articles instead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ....except, they are perfectly readable. I could, maybe, understand the issue of some of the abbreviations on the 'forces' column if you aren't musically inclined (which could be solved with either a legend or some interwiki linking), but otherwise I don't see any issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviations and numerations in both the Forces column and the Notes column are incomprehensible to readers without particularly specific knowledge of classical music. Linking any of these to other articles simply wouldn't be enough, and making a legend for this would be completely untenable unless there were far fewer details. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And by removing that column to remove essential information. What next? The 'title' column maybe? Who needs all those silly words right? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreadable columns 

message: Whoever FTD is, all the numbers and descriptions by FTD should be removed, unless wikipedia is doing a new S numbers.
MinkyuKim0204 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTD 

message: Started a discussion at La Esmeralda (opera) over the authenticity of S 476 and S 477/477a. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liszt's La Esmeralda transcription