Talk:Transcendental Études

Grandes Etudes

The link 'Grandes Etudes' currently redirects to the 'Transcendental Etudes', however, as far as I'm aware they are different works. The article on the transcendental etudes mentions that they appeared in three forms, the original 'Etude on douze excercises' (for which there is a seperate article), the final form, and that there was a second form which were more difficult. Surely there should be a seperate article for the second form? The fact that it redirects suggests that the second version comes under the same term 'transcendental etudes' which it doesnt. M A Mason 16:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Individual article for each etude

I think each etude deserves its own article, and I am going to start writing them, but since I don't know how to format them proffessionally (like the beethoven sonatas are) I could use assisstance (in writing and formatting) --Emm 17:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well...have you written any articles yet? We can help! Philip Howard 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah go for it we can easilly sort the formatting out. I only have a very basic knowledge of the etudes, but I should be able to help out with clarity for example. M A Mason 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1837 Version

Does anyone know why liszt created a second version of his grand etudes other than the fact to make them less difficult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.51.123 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 August 2006

Liszt not only made them easier, but he also refined them musically. Although a few were only slightly changed (like Feux-Follets) some were revised considerably (Mazeppa). Also, there is some debate whether or not a select few of the 1837 studies are superior to their 1851 counterparts (Eroica, for example).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:18, 30 December 2006 (talk • contribs)

Is the fourth etude really more difficult in the 1851 version than the 1837 version? Can we get a statement from a professional pianist who has played both? Simone Jenarelli claims otherwise here: https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/simonejennarelli2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.61.75 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Individual Articles for Transcendental Etudes

Since i am only 14 with a moderate or lack thereof of musical knowledge and new to writing articles, i need help writing articles on the individual trancendental etude. All the help would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.100.182 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 November 2006

Well, as the wikipedia advice puts it, be bold! From the infobox created today you'll be able to see that there are 6 currently without pages. As it stands only 1 of the 6 created doesn't qualify as a stub, so if you don't feel up to creating any new pages yet just add something more to any of them. Good luck. 86.20.30.144 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual article titles

For consistency, it looks like other wikipedia articles on pieces which are part of sets do not contain the key signature in the title. Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music gives an example as "Symphony No. 40 (Mozart)". Therefore I suggest we rename the articles in line this. Further, I'm not sure that (Liszt) on the end is strictly necessary, unless another composer wrote some transcendental etudes? M A Mason 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep the Liszt on the end just for clarification, since if someone only sees a link to Transcendental Etude No. 1 and doesn't click the link, the person wouldn't know; however if a link said Transcendental Etude No. 1 (Liszt) it would be much clearer. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are "Etudes d'exécution transcendante" by Sergej Ljapunoff which are dedicated to the memory of Liszt. Ljapunoff "completed" the circle composed by Liszt, giving 12 studies in the still missing keys. Ljapunoff's studies resemble the technical style of the studies by Liszt although they are in parts more complex. Most of them are very difficult, very beautiful music and in very Russian mood. Unfortunately they are played nearly never at all.80.144.135.227 15:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Lyapunov is a composer I would like to hear more of, but I can't find any of his stuff. Anyway…Transcendental Etudes… —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just remembering a further composer whose name I must search for myself. It was about two years ago when I read in a paper about his "Etudes d'exécution transcendante". He composed 40 or 50 etudes and according to the paper the etudes by Liszt are in comparison to be regarded as sandbox games.80.145.0.205 14:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You can get the etudes by Ljapunov from his Wikipedia article. Just try the links at the end and you will find it.84.61.0.179 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it took ages but I've done them all. Didn't count on double redirects... Still, thoroughness must prevail! Need to sort some kind of dissambiguation for feux follets. M A Mason 22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to 80.145.0.205, you're probably talking about Sorabji's 100 etudes transcendentes. --138.73.27.212 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some errors

The "Grandes etudes" were projected as a set of 24 pieces. For this reason they should better not be called "Douze Grandes Etudes", but "Grandes Etudes", according to the original editions. They were published in March 1839 by Maurice Sclesinger, Paris, and at end of July or in the beginning of August 1839 by Haslinger, Vienna, and Ricordi, Milan. The Ricordi edition is the only authentic one. In this edition the second book, including numbers 8-12, is dedicated to Chopin. The book by James Bryant Conway (190 pages) is rather old and has many errors and mistakes. Conway actually compared the versions edited by Busoni instead of taking the originals. For reasons of this kind I suggest, better to take the word "thorough" away. "Feux Follets," is, in fact, difficult to play, but Chopin's op.10,2 is usually regarded as more challenging. The hardest part of the whole set is a single page with octaves in the Eroica-Etude. Several of the further numbers, among them "Vision", are actually at a medium level. "Paysage" is easy.88.76.246.155 10:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... debatable. Most people wouldn't agree with the eroica passage, among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10:02, 21 November 2007 (talk • contribs)

I don't know where to ask this, but is Vision based on the last chopin etude op. 25, no. 12 in C minor? I think the similarities are great, but I never found anything that states it was. 86.108.88.52 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests

A well known historical fact should be easily supportable with a citation, as should critical opinion; they are unencylopedic hearsay without. Mallocks (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Etude vs. Étude vs. Study

This issue affects this article and the 12 sub-articles.

Is there really such an English word as etude? No? Then what are we doing pretending that there is?

There's the French word étude, whose English counterpart is study. There is no intermediate word etude - in either language.

It's perfectly OK to call these pieces "Transcendental Studies", but if one feels so inclined as to use the French word, it must be étude, and not etude.

All 13 articles will need moving, but to where: Transcendental Studies, or Transcendental Études? Me, I prefer the English version, Transcendental Studies. We don't talk about someone's Sonate or Symphonie or Valse - so let's get over this faux-obeisance to "any language but English" in the titles of musical works. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. The minimalist solution was to change Etude to Étude. I've moved all 13 titles and fixed all the necessary spellings. I think I deserve a medal.

Thanks for all your help and teamwork.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Two sources I founded

I find two sources that can support the context of this article. The first one is from DW News, which is considered generally reliable from the community, but it is Chinese, in another classical music article I added one Chinese source and got reverted, so bring here for review: [1]

The second one is from Britannica, [2].--QiuLiming1 (talk)

Can you tell us which particular claims in this article would benefit from citations of these sources? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

They both support the top paragraph, the first one introduces a little bit more of backgrounds of this piece (the relationship S.136 and S.139 ), the second one is discussing the titles of these pieces. QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them. QiuLiming1 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)