Histories of conducting, such as they are, give Liszt very little space. He is barely mentioned in the New Grove's entry on conducting, for example, even though he was the founder of a style of conducting that is widely prevalent today. We read of Spohr and Mendelssohn as early pioneers, of Berlioz and Wagner as great composers with secondary careers as conductors, of specialist conductors such as Habeneck, von Bülow, Nikisch and Weingartner. Berlioz and Wagner, furthermore, both wrote textbooks on the subject, whereas Liszt did not, and his platform appearances as a pianist—though rare in his later years—always seemed to perpetuate the image of the master of the keyboard rather than the orchestra. This aspect of his work is mentioned in passing, as though composing, playing the piano, teaching, even writing, were more profitable uses to which he put his time. Yet Liszt's principal duties as Kapellmeister to the Weimar court in the 1850s were to conduct operas and concerts there, and his great achievement in performing Lohengrin for the first time and promoting the music of Wagner, Berlioz and many others is well recognised. It was as a conductor rather than as a pianist that he championed the new music of his time.

There are two main problems in approaching this question. First: writers on Liszt both during and after his lifetime have never failed to fall into partisan camps. Assessments of his skill as a conductor always depend on the point of view of the writer. In brief, as one would expect, his supporters and disciples had enormous reverence and admiration for Liszt the conductor, while his enemies seized any opportunity to blame his lack of skill for the slightest mishap at any of his concerts.