Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Which composer do you think is the hardest to interpret?

I personally feel that Mozart is the hardest to play well. Well because of three reasons in my opinion. Well firstly I feel that anyone could learn the notes of any of his piece but thats where the hard part starts in my opinion, his music seems to demand perfect clarity through the passages but at the same time seems to make a mistake/slip sound obvious because of the clarity. Secondly, When playing Mozart it doesn't really sound showy, technical,etc. and just sounds deceivingly easy.. Finally, well there are just soo many notes! :P



Here's a quote:
The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to play because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes.
- Artur Schnabel

Hardest to play well: I agree with you -- Mozart.

But hardest to "interpret" -- Chopin. I think that of all the great composers, he's probably the one that we're farthest from really playing the way the composer was thinking and how he played it himself.

Actually that reflects kind of a superficial idea of "interpret." If we mean the term more seriously, then I think we'd have to say:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach

Gosh that's a tough word....

I think the composer that's hardest to interpret is the one you haven't played a lot of. When I started playing Prokofiev, I had a lot of trouble interpreting because I was not familiar with his style.

Yes, it's an interesting question, especially if we really try to say who is difficult to "interpret", instead of just to "play".

I've been recently thinking about Beethoven and Schumann, and I would say Schumann is more difficult to interpret in the following sense. I find that Beethoven gives more of a consistent, usable blueprint for what to do. If you follow all his indications *exactly*-- exactly when to crescendo and decrescendo, exactly when to ritard and when to accent-- then you've got a good first step towards an interpretation.

Of course, there's a lot more to be done. It's just a first step. But you don't even have that with Schumann. I find that his indications are less consistent; you can't take them all literally. (For instance, a two page piece with a dozen crescendos marked... but not a single decrescendo; it's up to you to determine where those go.) So I'd argue that with Schumann, our interpretive skills are needed at a more basic, or literal, level. (Maybe.) Not sure where Chopin fits along these particular lines.

-Jason

Hardest: Mozart (because Mozart is Mozart), late Beethoven (hard for young people in particular), Debussy (he deals so much in nuance), late Scriabin (that stuff always confuses me)
Easiest: Chopin, Rachmaninov, Liszt (basically anything heart-on-the-sleeve)

I would venture to say Bach is really, really hard, too.

Agreed! How could I forget about him????? I had a heck of a time when I learnt the Goldberg Variations (selections only not the complete one).

Schubert.

Good answer.
I'll say this: At competitions (at least the amateur ones), he's probably the riskiest composer to (try to) play. I don't know if it's because it's just flat-out hard to interpret, or if different people (like judges) have such specific ideas of their own that it's hard to please them. But maybe that's all the same thing.

P.S. On second thought, Mozart is even riskier to play at the competitions. But I think Schubert is an awfully close 2nd....

Chopin, because I find his works to be the most profound in the entire piano repertoire. I feel as if no interpretation -- mine especially -- can do justice to the flawlessness of his works.

Can you tell us a little more specifically why you feel this way?

How about we all agree that they're all pretty damn tough?

Making music is hard!!

I have trouble with a lot of Brahms. I just cannot make head nor tails out of many of the smaller piano pieces, interpretively.

I think Schubert is hard to play technically, but the interpretation is not so bad. After all, he was so good with voice that his music just sings.

There are composers, Messiaen, for example, where I know there is something there, but I have trouble bringing it out.

Sure!

First, Schubert's notation is a bit sparse. He doesn't give us as much as other composers in terms of directions. Nor does he give anything a title, so we're left with very little to go on. (As opposed to someone like Beethoven or Schumann.)

Second, Schubert's music straddles the line between classical and romantic. Like those before, he wrote sonatas and trios, all of which follow a very traditional form. But like those after, he also wrote character pieces and a large fantasy. So do we treat him with restraint or abandon, and how much?

Third, in the songs, we have the text. In the piano music, we don't have the text, yet we're still dealing with a composer whose music is intensely poetic. When you listen to recordings of Schubert's songs, they're always sung with such amazing inflection and color. Bringing that same inflection and color to the piano is far more difficult.

Fourth, emotionally, Schubert is very complex. Nothing he writes (in my opinion), is obvious or one-dimensional. With Beethoven Op. 57, or a Chopin prelude, the emotional connection is more immediate. With Schubert, it's far more subtle. Pick any of the Moments Musicaux for example.

Fifth, in Schubert we have a composer with classical restraint and an intensely poetic voice. How do we reconcile these? In Schumann, Chopin, even Beethoven, extremes in tempo, articulation, and dynamic contrast seem much more in character than in Schubert, where those extremes seem forced and artificial. But again from the songs, we know Schubert's depth of feeling, so how do we manage that?

Sixth, the number of great Schubert interpreters is a very small list. Curzon, Richter, Lupu, Schnabel. Any others? Even with the zillion or so recordings of D. 960 that come out every year, most are rather lackluster.

[sarcasm]

The answer must depend entirely on how many recordings by great pianists there are of the composer's music. Therefore, all of the mainstream composers are eliminated from consideration.

[/sarcasm]

In line with the above, sarcastic or not, I would put Alkan way up there.

I do get where you are coming from. Off topic a bit, what are your favorite Alkan recordings that you can recommend to me?

I agree with wr in a way. I'm not that familiar with Alkan's music, but because of his many mentions on the forum, I've been listening to him a lot recently.

I do think he's difficult to interpret from the standpoint of his music, while great, needs help.

Let me explain. Some composers tend to "play themselves." I put Chopin and Debussy in this category. Their music beautifully fits the piano and the hand, so in a way, once you're able to navigate their works technically, really beautiful poetic music comes out. Sure, there's a great deal of depth to explore, but a competent performance is still a joy to listen to.

I don't think this is true for some other composers. Brahms comes to mind, as does Bach, and Alkan. Once you're able to technically navigate their music, you still have a lot of work to do to make it sound naturally musical. A competent performance will likely fall flat.

In other words, the difference between a mediocre performance of Beethoven's 5th symphony and a great performance of Beethoven's 5th symphony is not as pronounced as the difference between a mediocre and great performance of Brahms's 1st symphony. A mediocre performance of Brahms 1 can easily feel boring and horribly long-winded. In a mediocre performance of Beethoven 5, we still feel the strength of the message, diluted though it might be.

This is what rings true to me for Alkan. A mediocre performance of Alkan leaves me thinking that his obscurity is well deserved. But a great performance of Alkan has me wondering why he isn't standard fare on recital programs.

I confess that the first movement feels much the same way in any performance I've so far heard. Just me of course, yet I love the other movements, and the other Brahms symphonies.

As with Liszt. A mediocre performance makes Liszt sound tawdry, sentimental and bombastic- perfect fodder for those who dislike Liszt... and there are plenty who feel that way regardless. But a great performance once again demonstrates to me that Liszt is one of our finest composers. Kuanpiano's recent post of the Dante Sonata was a case in point.

Back to Alkan, one recording I heard of the Op. 35 etudes didn't make much of a case for the value of the music, but in following the score, I kept thinking 'there's something amiss here'.

I agree with both you and Kreisler on this one. Try listening to Mark Viner and Ronald Smith's recordings of the 10th, 11th, and 12th etudes from Op. 35 and see if you like those any more.