http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Franz_Liszt 发个原文地址先

前排_(:з」∠)_

Although Liszt — like Berlioz, Meyerbeer, and to some extent Wagner — was one of the 'forbidden' modern composers whose works Tchaikovsky and Herman Laroche would play through as students at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, in defiance of the classical precepts of their teachers, it seems that Tchaikovsky never really warmed to Liszt's music.
尽管在反抗老师古板训诫的意图下，李斯特，与柏辽兹梅耶贝尔甚至瓦格纳一道成为了柴可夫斯基与Herman Laroch在圣彼得堡学院学生时代的‘禁忌’当代作曲家，似乎柴可夫斯基从未真正对李斯特的音乐感冒过。
Laroche himself would emphasize, when recalling his late friend's musical sympathies, how "Pyotr Ilyich came slowly, waveringly, and distrustfully to Liszt […] Of the symphonic poems only Orfeo roused any real enthusiasm during his time at the Conservatory. It was only much later that he came to love the Faust-Symphonie, and for the sake of impartiality it is worth adding that Liszt's symphonic poems, which enthralled a whole generation of Russian musicians, exerted but an ephemeral and external influence on the style of his own compositions" [1].
Laroche本人在回忆老朋友柴可夫斯基的缅怀曲时强调，‘柴可夫斯基以缓慢、摇摆、不信任的姿态接近李斯特...在交响诗中只有《奥菲欧》让他在学生时代稍许产生一点热情。在许久之后他才喜欢上《浮士德交响曲》，另外为了公正不偏倚值得提出的是，李斯特在整代俄国音乐家中影响颇深的交响诗在柴可夫斯基的作曲风格上还是留下过短暂而外部性的一些影响。’
One reason for this distrust towards Liszt may have been his vigorous campaigning for the 'new German school of music', as all such proselytizing in the name of new and radical principles repelled Tchaikovsky's nature (this also partly explains his ambivalence towards Wagner). More importantly, however, Liszt's music was deficient in substance as far as Tchaikovsky was concerned. He made this clear in a letter to Nadezhda von Meck from Rome, shortly after attending a concert in Liszt's honour in December 1881:
柴可夫斯基对李斯特的不信任有一点原因是出自于李斯特积极推行的‘新德意志学派’运动，其提倡的离经叛道而激进的新音乐原则与柴可夫斯基的天性相悖（这也部分解释了他对柴可夫斯基的矛盾态度）。另外更重要的是，李斯特的音乐在柴可夫斯基看来缺乏实质性内容。在参加一场为李斯特举办的音乐会后，他在罗马一封写给Nadezhda von Meck的信中清楚的表明：

The day before yesterday I was at a gala concert in honour of the 70-year-old Liszt. The programme was drawn up exclusively from his works. […] Liszt himself was present at this concert. It was impossible not to be moved by the sight of this great old man, who was touched and shaken by the ovations which the enthusiastic Italians gave him. However, Liszt's works as such leave me cold: poetic intentions predominate in them over real creative force, colouring over draughtsmanship — in short, despite all their effective packaging, they are marred by an emptiness of inner content. He is the complete opposite of Schumann, whose awesome, mighty creative force was mismatched with a greyish, colourless exposition of the musical ideas [2].
前天我参加了一场为70岁的李斯特举办的特别音乐会。所有曲目都是从他的作品中挑选的[...] 李斯特本人出席了这次音乐会。看见这位老人在热情的意大利人的欢呼下感动不已的场面，你不可能不受到触动。然而，相反的是李斯特的作品却让我感到很冷淡：在它们中刻意营造的诗意盖过了真正的创造力，色彩渲染盖过了精心绘制——简单来说，尽管都被很高效地包裹了起来，它们被内在内容的空虚所损害了。李斯特是舒曼完完全全的反面，与舒曼惊人强大的创造力所不匹配的是其灰暗无色的音乐呈现。

In his obituary of Tchaikovsky Nikolay Kashkin wrote in similar terms of his late friend's attitude to Liszt: "Pyotr Ilyich could not stand bombast in music, and that is why he did not rate Liszt particularly highly" [3].
Nikolay Kashkin在柴可夫斯基的讣告中也相似地写到了他的对李斯特态度：“柴可夫斯基不能忍受音乐中的狂轰滥炸，这就是他不给予李斯特高度评价的原因”。
Nevertheless, when Tchaikovsky was just starting out as a composer, it was very difficult not to fall under the sway of the new ideas proclaimed by Liszt and his followers — namely, that programme music, with its greater freedom of expression, was the way forward. Thus, in some of his earliest orchestral works Tchaikovsky paid tribute to this craze for music which illustrated a specific subject. This was the case with the symphonic fantasia Fatum (1868), which Laroche sharply criticized in a review for its proximity to the Lisztian model of symphonic poems, with their "sombre and tragic" subjects, as well as their "jarring dissonances and bizarre orchestral effects", that, according to Laroche, were not at all congenial to the nature of Tchaikovsky's talent as it had expressed itself in his First Symphony (1866) [4].
尽管如此，当柴可夫斯基刚作为一名作曲家出道时，想不落入李斯特和其追随者的影响范围是及其困难的——也就是标题音乐，以及其带来的更大自由。因此，在他的最早期交响作品中柴可夫斯基也陷入这种用音乐描绘具体事物的狂热中。在交响幻想曲《命运》中就是如此，这首曲目也被Laroche在评论中严厉批评，出于其与李斯特交响曲的相近，比如“阴沉而悲惨”的主题，以及“刺耳的不和谐音与奇怪的交响效果”。而这些，在Laroche看来与柴可夫斯基在《第一交响曲》中表现的音乐天才不相符合。
Despite this criticism (which eventually prompted the composer to destroy the score of Fatum), Tchaikovsky never dissociated himself entirely from the programme music championed by Liszt and Berlioz. Indeed, just a year later, when he was still under the influence of Mily Balakirev (who, like the rest of the "Mighty Handful", admired Liszt for his boldness and also for his early support of Russian music in the 1840s), Tchaikovsky would write yet another piece of programme music: Romeo and Juliet (1869). Although this overture-fantasia would eventually become one of Tchaikovsky's most beloved works, both in Russia and abroad, it is interesting that the fiercely conservative Austrian critic Eduard Hanslick attacked the overture after a performance in 1876, calling its author "a disciple of Liszt" and ridiculing the "melodramatic noise and smoke effects" of this "tone-painting", whose subject Tchaikovsky, in Hanslick's view, had borrowed from Shakespeare following Liszt's example [5].
尽管受到这篇批评的打击（这最后促使作曲家毁坏了《命运》的乐谱），柴可夫斯基从来没有让他自己完全脱离李斯特与柏辽兹推崇的标题音乐。确实，仅在一年之后，当他仍在巴拉基列夫（就像其他强力集团成员一样，巴拉基列夫敬仰李斯特的大胆与他在40年代对俄国音乐的支持）的影响下时，柴可夫斯基写下另一首标题音乐：《罗密欧与朱丽叶》。尽管这首序曲幻想曲最终成为柴可夫斯基在俄国与全世界最受欢迎的作品之一，很有趣的一点是当时极端保守的奥地利批评家汉斯立克在1876年的一场演出后攻击了这首曲目，称它的作曲家是“李斯特的门徒”，嘲笑这出“音调绘画”中“戏剧夸张的噪音与烟幕效果”。在汉斯立克的观点中，柴可夫斯基跟随李斯特的例子从莎士比亚中借取了音乐主题。

Even if Tchaikovsky would have protested at being bracketed in this way with the 'new' German or even the new Russian school of music, it is significant that he always kept returning to the 'Lisztian' genre of programme music throughout his life (e.g. Francesca da Rimini, Manfred, Hamlet). Likewise, his attitude towards Liszt's music was not as negative as the above letter to Nadezhda von Meck might suggest. In his feuilleton articles during the 1870s Tchaikovsky praised a number of works by the Hungarian composer, especially his religious oratorios, which expressed the "profoundly moving poetry of Christian love", and in the case of the symphonic piece Totentanz [Dance of Death] he actually defended Liszt, a "profound and sensitive artist", as he called him, against those who wished to see nothing but realistic depictions in his music. (References to these articles are listed below) With regard to Liszt's two piano concertos, however, he seems always to have found them "brilliant but empty". Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov later recalled how he had started humming the theme from Liszt's First Piano Concerto during a walk with Tchaikovsky around Maydanovo in March 1887, and how the latter had then berated him: "Please don't remind me of that play-actor. I can't stand his insincerity and affectation!" [6].
尽管柴可夫斯基反对将自己归类入‘新’德意志抑或是俄国音乐学派，很重要的是在他的一生中柴可夫斯基总会回到“李斯特式”的标题音乐上（例如《弗兰切斯卡·达·里米尼》《曼弗雷德》《哈姆雷特》）。类似的，他对李斯特音乐的态度也并不是像上面写给Nadezhda von Meck的信中表现的那样负面。在1870年代的一篇杂志小文中柴可夫斯基表扬了这位匈牙利作曲家的一系列作品，尤其是李斯特的宗教清唱剧（菜帝注：应为S.3, Christus），称其表达了“基督之爱的深刻感人诗篇”，在交响作品《死之舞》中他实际上在为李斯特（此处他称李斯特为‘意义深远而情感细腻的艺术家’）辩护，以回应那些认为在李斯特音乐作品中只能看到现实性描述的人们。关于李斯特的两首钢琴协奏曲，似乎他却总是发现它们“辉煌而空洞”。 Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov之后回忆起当他和柴可夫斯基在1997年3月散步时不经意间哼出李斯特第一钢琴协奏曲的旋律，柴可夫斯基责备他“请不要让我想到那个戏剧演员，我不能容忍他的伪善与矫揉造作！”

Tchaikovsky first met Liszt at the inaugural Bayreuth Festival in the summer of 1876, and he was delighted to see before him that "wonderful, characteristic grey head", which had always fascinated him on the photographs he had seen of the veteran composer (see Chapter IV of TH 314) [7]. Liszt for his part seems to have appreciated the younger man's music, as we may see from a letter which the cellist Wilhelm Fitzenhagen sent to Tchaikovsky from Wiesbaden in 1879, telling him about a performance there of the Variations on a Rococo Theme: "It gives me great pleasure to be able to report to you that I performed your Variations to a tremendous furore! […] Liszt told me: 'You played magnificently. This is truly music!', and it is a tremendous compliment that such a thing could be said by Liszt!" [8] Even so, Tchaikovsky himself believed that Liszt was not really an admirer of his music: "I think that he genuinely preferred Messrs Cui and others who went cap in hand to him in Weimar, and whose music he also liked. As far as I know, he didn't feel any particular sympathy for my music" [9].
柴可夫斯基在1876年夏天于刚开幕的拜罗伊特音乐节与李斯特第一次相遇，他当时对看见李斯特“美妙而有个性的白头”感到非常高兴，这个头型在他之前看到李斯特照片的时候就让他着迷不已。李斯特看来是赞赏过这位年轻人的音乐，我们也可以从大提琴家Wilhelm Fitzenhagen1879年于威斯巴登寄给柴可夫斯基的一封信中看出，在信中他提到了那儿一场《洛可可主题变奏曲》的演出：“我很高兴来告知你我演奏你的变奏曲获得了极大的成功！[...]李斯特和我说：‘你演奏得精彩绝伦，这是真正的音乐！’，从李斯特口中说出这样的话是对我的无上褒奖！”尽管如此，柴可夫斯基本人认为李斯特不真正欣赏他的音乐：“我认为他真正偏爱的是Cui先生和其他那些在魏玛对他毕恭毕敬的人，他也更喜欢他们的音乐。据我所知，他从未在我的音乐中获得任何共情。”

Nevertheless, In 1880, Liszt made a brilliant paraphrase for piano of the Act III Polonaise from Yevgeny Onegin, which Nikolay Rubinstein was the first to perform in Moscow. Liszt was thereby in effect repaying a compliment which Tchaikovsky had made in 1874, when he arranged for orchestra Liszt's ballad Der König von Thule (a setting of Gretchen's song in Goethe's Faust). Not long before his death in 1886 Liszt also sent Tchaikovsky a signed photograph with a brief accompanying letter [10]. So despite his reservations about Liszt as a composer, it must have been very gratifying for Tchaikovsky, during his first concert tour to Leipzig in January 1888, to discover that the young members of the city's Liszt Society (Liszt-Verein) were all enthusiastic admirers not only of his own music, but also that of his colleagues back in Russia (see Chapter VIII in TH 316) — just as Liszt himself had been one of the earliest champions of Russian music in Western Europe.
然而，1880年李斯特创作了一首辉煌的钢琴改编曲，基于《叶甫盖尼·奥涅金》第三幕的波罗乃兹，尼古拉鲁宾斯坦在莫斯科首演了这首曲目。李斯特由此实际上回报了柴可夫斯基在1874的致意，当时他配器了李斯特的叙事歌曲《Der König von Thule》（一首对歌德《浮士德》中葛丽卿所唱歌曲的设定，另菜帝注：应为Es war ein König in Thule, S.278）。在1886年去世前不久，李斯特还送了柴可夫斯基一张附上简信的签名照片。所以即使对李斯特作为作曲家持保持态度，柴可夫斯基一定对在1888年1月去莱比锡的首次巡演的发现非常高兴，他发现当地李斯特社团的年轻人不仅对他的作品充满热情，对其他俄国作曲家的作品也是如此——正如李斯特本人就是最早在西欧推行俄国音乐的先驱之一。

ddd

感谢楼主！一直很想知道自己最喜欢的这两个作曲家是怎样相互看待的

圆滑得像个老耶稣