Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Thank you for the replies. While it is not particularly important to me whether a piece I play is considered a "major" work, I certainly am curious. Surely there must be some common ground/criteria for detemining whether a particular work for solo piano is considered to be "major". If piano competitions are using the term without providing specific guidlelines, there must an assumption as to what those guidelies or determinig factors are.
If we know, for example, that a single Chopin etude is not a major work or that a more lengthy piece like Mozart's K.265 or K.511 is not a major work but we know that Beethoven's Op.53 is a major work, we are already using some preconceived factors which I would guess are primarly the length and complexity of the piece. While the Mozart K265 is perhaps lengthy enough, it is not particularly complex. While a chopin etude may be complex enough, it is not particulary lengthy.
Good question. When you recognize that a work is major, you take measure of what has gone into creating it ... and of what it will take you to understand it.
What he might have wanted to say is that FC’s Etudes are STUDIES ... intended as experimental keyboard gyrations, bits of which to use in later compositions.
Forgive the intrusion ... for the records, my Catalan is ropey ... as bad as my Hebrew (written backwards).
I thought the Rondo in A minor (K511) is usually considered one of Mozart's finest piano works. Wouldn't that usually qualify as a major work? It's pretty musically complex, and often played in programmes and competitions.
Thank you for the replies. While it is not particularly important to me whether a piece I play is considered a "major" work, I certainly am curious. Surely there must be some common ground/criteria for determining whether a particular work for solo piano is considered to be "major". If piano competitions are using the term without providing specific guidelines, there must an assumption as to what those guidelines or determining factors are.
I think one can see from the replies in this thread there are not hard and fast rules about what is a "major work" so many pieces fall into some nebulous grey area in the middle where there will not be unanimous agreement.
So there is not common ground/criteria that can be used for all pieces. But there are many pieces at each end of the spectrum from the most minor to the most major work that most everyone would agree on. For example, I doubt anyone would say Grieg's Arietta is a major work or that Beethoven's Op.111 is not a major work. I think most would use some combination of length and technical/musical difficulty in their deciding.
OTOH the only situation mentioned so far where knowing if something is a major work is really important is when one is playing in a competition or audition and the requirement says something like "A major work from the Classical period". If one has any doubts about a piece one is thinking of playing then you can just contact the people in charge and they will tell you if your piece qualifies.
Otherwise I think the entire discussion is just a question of semantics, and there is no hard and fast rule any more than there is a rule for defining a "masterpiece".
Good question. When you recognize that a work is major, you take measure of what has gone into creating it ... and of what it will take you to understand it.
Whether a work is "major" or not is not always black and white. It can depend on one's personal definition.
I think one should just, when learning any piece, do whatever is needed to play it the best one can. If a piece is more difficult or more "major" then it's obvious one will have to do more work to learn it, but I don't think one has to know exactly how "major" a piece is. In fact, there is no general agreement on this question.
The entire discussion really just semantics. Pne might as well try and define what a "beautiful" piece is.
Why do you this so? I think most would say "work" is just another name for "piece" and that a single etude qualitifes as both.
Certainly, and if I have do decide what it deserves to be called the most between "work" and "piece", I would go with "work". A piece is a work, a study is also a work. Everything Chopin created deserves to be called a work. Everything any composer creates deserves to be called a work.
I thought the Rondo in A minor (K511) is usually considered one of Mozart's finest piano works. Wouldn't that usually qualify as a major work? It's pretty musically complex, and often played in programmes and competitions.
Whatever K.511 is considered, I find it to be one of Mozart's most beautiful and intriguing works for solo piano.
Odd, I tend to use the word 'work' more often in relation to big works like Havergal Brian's 'Gothic' Symphony, or Mahler's 8th, or Bruckner's 8th. Or Bach's Goldberg or Beethoven's Diabelli. Anything less than 3 minutes and single movement is a 'piece'......
Another solution to how to use the word "work" might be to use it to the composers who has put a lot of effort in their music! For example, it is said that Chopin worked very hard with perfecting his pieces(therefore his pieces are works), while Schubert spitted out new music as often as he took a new breath(therefore he never wrote a single work)!
Yes but how much effort did Schubert in Did Hirt auf dem Felsen? I mean, he was such a huge talent that it seems he could write down his music without even thinking, therefore, he never wrote a single work That's not to say that his pieces actually are works(these sounds wierd), but what I mean is, he probably did not have to WORK as hard as the majority of composers in order to get his ideas down
Well, Mozart composed whole operas and symphonies and concertos in his head while playing billiards ......and he composed his greatest symphonies (no.39 - 41) in less than 3 months, even though he wasn't commissioned and probably didn't even know whether they would ever be performed.
I haven't forgotten about Mozart of course, but he is veryyyy famous for his talent. I think Schubert deserves more recognition when it comes to talent. I mean, in a year(at the age of 18(!!!!) he wrote over 20 000 bars of music, which included nine church works, a symphony, four sonatas and 150(!) lieders(he wrote several of them in just a day) and a lot more!
. 