Talk:Liebesträume

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Untitled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubVVSWHkxs8

"No. 3"

"The piece is the last of the 3 that Liszt wrote". Did the ordering as published bear any real relation to the order in which they were composed, or is this a naive assumption?--Wetman (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is not the order he wrote it as, that is how Liszt or the publishing company ordered it (I presume) and is known throught as Liebestraum No. 3, though Liebestraum usually refers to no. 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.25.249 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to 5th ed. of Grove (1954), Nos. 1 and 2 (settings of Uhland) were written in c. 1849 and published in 1850, but No. 3 (a Freiligrath setting) was written in c. 1845 and published in 1847. The piano transcription of No. 3 is more effective than the other two, at least for concert performance, and this to my mind is doubtless why the publisher put it last. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liebestraum, not Liebestraume?

I have always known it as Liebestraum and it seems to have been that way in common usage. Why is the title Liebestraume? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.25.249 (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. "Liebestraum" is the singular; Liebesträume, the plural. I will correct the article accordingly. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed

Recording link to Andrew von Oyen, I removed it, because it only links to a general website of the artist, and not to a recording of Liebestraume...Instead, I replaced it with a majestic performance by Evgeny Kissin, much younger (and slender) Kissin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liebestraum/Liebesträume?

According to the present version, the title "Liebesträume" applies to each piece, not just the collection as a whole. Someone else has just changed the references to the individual pieces back to "Liebestraum." Can anyone provide unmistakable proof of which is correct? Kostaki mou (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it comes down to basic common sense. It's natural and normal to singularise the title when we refer to separate pieces. Compare the Consolations: we call each individual number a Consolation, reserving the plural word for the entire set. We don't refer to "Consolations No. 3" or whatever. Nor do we play Mendelssohn's "Songs without Words No. 13" - it's "Song without Words No. 13". Same deal with the Liebesträume. Each individual one is a Liebestraum. I doubt there would be a reference for this, btw, because, as I say, it's common sense and common usage. I have never ever heard or seen No. 3, for example, referred to as "Liebesträume No. 3" - it's always "Liebestraum No. 3".

Fwiw, my edition has the word "Liebes-Träume" [sic] at the head of the first piece, but only there, which suggests that this plural title applies to the entire set, not to the individual pieces. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, "Liebesträume" or "Dreams of Love" is a possible title for a single piece. The editor of the present version claims that Liszt intended this to be the title of each piece and that the usual practice of calling each piece "Liebestraum" is incorrect. Is there any source for this claim? Kostaki mou (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very much like OR to me, but I will await a source with interest. Btw, I've been reading a biography of Eileen Joyce, and the author talks about how she played No. 3 at her farewell recital in Perth before setting out for Leipzig. He refers to it as "Liebesträum No. 3" [sic]. I wonder if he knows the umlaut should appear only in the plural Liebesträume. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of World's Best Loved Classical Themes (Columbia Pictures, 1982) also gives the title as Liebesträum (with no number), so this error may be more common than you think. The corresponding article in the German Wikipedia has a heading "Liebestraum No. 3." I do not recall ever seeing this single piece called Liebesträume. I propose to delete the assertion that "Liebestraum" is wrong. Sicherman (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What JackofOz said. The unsourced claim from November 2011 about Liszt's supposed intent should be removed and the article's usage of "Liebestraum/-träume" should reflect German grammar, despite some citable sources using mistakenly other forms. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat belated reply, but Leslie Howard writes in the liner notes to Vol.19 of his Liszt recordings: 'The third of the Liebesträume, often quite erroneously entitled 'Liebestraum No 3' (the plural applies to each piece), is one of the world's most treasured melodies...' . I am afraid to say I do not know how to add this to the 'citation needed' link, so I have made a reference to it here in case anyone updates the article later (I think the 'trivia' section would also need updating, since its inclusion is apparently discouraged). There was a variety of spellings of the name of the piece further down the page (Liebesträume, Liebestraum, even Liebesträum!); I have changed the latter two to 'Liebesträume' simply for consistency. 86.131.145.119 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Dr. Howard on the subject and received the following response, which I reproduce with his permission: Kostaki mou (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liszt specified the title Liebesträume as a general title covering the three works. There is no evidence that he regarded Dreams of Love as being 3 entities as distinct from a state of mind pertaining to all three works. In his few references to the pieces in correspondence he calls them either such as ‘the 3rd of the Liebesträume’ or, more commonly ‘Notturno Nr. 3’. The singular title Liebestraum was never used by him in any context. The new Wiener Urtext Edition has messed this up completely!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaki mou (talk • contribs) 01:13, 18 March 2015‎

Love me tender

Isn't the tune of Love Me Tender based on the main theme of the third Liebestraum? --194.166.108.137 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's based on the Civil War song, "Aura Lea" (q.v.). Kostaki mou (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recording of Liebestraum No. 3

I'm not totally fond of the recording. I'd like to change it, but I'm not sure about what the rules are in terms of copyright and permission is for audio files on wikipedia. If anyone agrees and can guide me I'll try to find a good recording! Coulomb1 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]