Both the political and cultural role of ‘nation’ became stronger in the 19th century as a result of well-known historical facts and progress mentioned already in Chapter III. It was especially important for Liszt to emphasize his Hungarian nationality as he spoke very little Hungarian although he understood much more. He was a true Hungarian at heart and that could best be expressed through his music. A long list of his works with Hungarian connections prove that he did not miss this opportunity. His music was Hungarian not only because of the topics (Hungarian Historical Portraits, Hunnenschlacht - Battle of Huns, ’Esztergom’ or ’Gran’ Mass) and themes (Hungarian Rhapsodies) he used in his works but because his musical thinking was deeply Hungarian. Liszt used plenty of Hungarian or Hungarian-like scales, for instance, and these can also be found in many of his works with no Hungarian connections. It is an interesting and important wish of Liszt that (as he wrote in November 1866) he wanted the second piece (La notte) of the Three Funeral Odes to be played at his funeral because of the ‘Hungarian cadenza on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th page of the score’.(86)

Before overestimating the Hungarian roots in Liszt’s music, let me cite what Béla Bartók wrote about this subject: ‘Chopin was influenced by Polish folk-like art music, so was Liszt by Hungarian. (As it is well known, Liszt, this truly international intellectual was interested in the musical output of Italian, Spanish and other such nations as well.) But they imported many banalities together with exotica and that did not do much good for their works. That is the reason that it is not the nationalistic polinaises that took the most important place in Chopin’s oeuvre and it is true for Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsodies, tarantellas and polonaises, too. What one can find in these few works, however, is not more than a national(istic) glaze that fortunately very seldom can be found in other works of the two composers in question.’(87)

For me, the rhapsodic works of Liszt (and I do not only think of his Rhapsodies here), his musical thinking reflect not just the liberalism of the romantic era but mainly the liberal lifestyle and thinking of Hungarian gypsies. By the way, Liszt admired the gypsies in Russia as well and that was the case with many others. Gottschalk, for instance, was a great fan of Spanish gypsies. So Liszt admired the gypsies who were exotic everywhere because of being outcasts. Just like blacks in America.

America was, of course, full of exotica since dozens of different nations introduced their own musical culture. Therefore a variety of folk or folk-like but mostly simply national musics became popular. That was the reason why polka, czardas and any dance music coming from ‘wild’ places (especially from Eastern Europe) conquered America. That is why peripheral western music such as Irish and Scottish music became so popular. (These styles have their renaissance nowadays.) The songs of big nations (English, French, Italian, German) were popular but never exotic. And around the turn of the century, America finally found what matched all expectations and that was the music of blacks. It was both national and exotic and in addition, original American. And after a while, Americans’ wish for hegemony became obvious in music, too: according to the lyrics, ragtime and jazz were played and danced worldwide, love was declared in jazz from Hawaii through Japan to Denmark. Everything was done in an American way. This resulted not only from the financial and cultural hegemony of America but also from the fact that after a few short decades Afro-American ragtime and jazz was not such a curiosity in the United States as it was in Europe.(88) (Well, there were blacks in America but not in Europe.) Already at the beginning of the ragtime era, American Indian songs were composed (Charles Neil Daniels: Hiawatha, 1901), then national rags (George Lyons-Bob Yosco: Spaghetti Rag, 1910, Julius Lenzberg: That Madrid Rag, 1911, Paul Charles Pratt: Walhalla, 1910, George L. Cobb: Irish Confetty, 1918) and so on. The composers, but even more the publishers, tried to increase the effect by more and more exotic features.(89) Sometimes Afro-Americans (or being Afro-American) were scorned already in the title of the pieces (especially at the beginning of the ragtime era, ie. Otto Gunnar: New Coon In Town, 1884, George Lansing: Darkies Dream, 1889, Fred Neddermeyer: Happy Hottentots, 1889), or the American connection was hidden by placing the piece in another (preferably black) country (Cy Seymour: Panama Rag, 1904 - different from the dixieland evergreen Panama -, The Cubanola Glide, 1909, Joseph Lamb: Ethiopia Rag, 1909, Egbert Van Alstyne: Jamaica Jinjer, 1912, Willard Robison: Rio de Janeiro, 1926). The most ‘sought-after’ titles and pieces were the oriental tunes (George L. Cobb: That Hindu Rag, 1910, Thomas Henry Lodge: Tokio Rag, 1912, Willard Robison: Up and Down in China, 1926, Charles Luckeyth Roberts: Ripples of the Nile, Jack Newlon: Oriental Blues, 1933, or Caravan, Hindustan and many other jazz tunes could be mentioned).

As the American public preferred exoticism in ragtime and jazz they equally sought for exotica in European music. ‘Hungarian’ and ‘gypsy’ are key words in this respect. My opinion was strengthened by an Internet search. The word ‘Hungarian’ had a few thousand hits in a database of American social and cultural magazines from the turn-of-the century. With this, Hungarian surpassed most of the big nations. ‘Gypsy’ also had a suprisingly high number of hits in the articles of the ragtime-era and it is obvious from the number of hits for ‘Hungarian music’ and ‘gypsy music’ that both words were used mostly in relation with music. Thus it is highly probable that Liszt was viewed in America not only as the ‘great master’ but also as an exotic musician whose music, because of its national character, was worth paying attention to and good for transciptions and adaptations.