Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Classical composers you have problems with?

Liking or not Bach music is a personal choice. Though I love playing Bach's WTC, I do not like listening much to them. But bear in mind that those compositions were not designed to be played in public. They are esentially research and teaching material. The fugue is a genre that works when the different voices are clearly separate like in an orchestra or a choir. On the keyboard, given the similarity of the sound, it has a much lesser effect. The beauty of these pieces is more in their architecture and elaborate composition which is what Gould was really trying to convey. So in a sense it is really difficult to fully appreciate his compositions if you do not see the underlying structure. Kirkpatrick wrote a short and very enlighting book on that subject. That said Bach also composed many organ fugues but those again were often composed to be played in a religious context. Now his style is quite different in other compositions and you should try out his partitas, french and english suites, the Goldberg, and of course all his solo violin and cello compositions.

Now I could not disagree more re the language. There is no progress in the compositional method. Monteverdi, Palestrina, Allegri composed some of the most beautiful pieces ever written and their musical langage was not inferior to Mozart's one. It was just different. If you study in details their modal writing, you will see how elaborate it is. Bach's language is not superior to the one of Monteverdi, again it is based on different principles. In fact most of Bach musical language was already around; he essentially brought it to a higher degree of elaboration and mixed it up with some elements of major/minor systems and various influences coming from Italian and french music.

I wouldn't say that the musical language of an earlier epoch is "inferior" to that of a later one. But all composers have stood on the shoulders of their predecessors, and they have widened the musical possibilities, hence the musical language, by daring things that had not been dared before. Therefore Bachs music also seemed old in the days of Beethoven, as did Beethovens in the days of Wagner. But also, clearly, there is in all music a link backwards towards music of earlier times, and Bach has, directly or indirectly, inspired every composer since.

But the musical language in which he expressed himself, would have seemed like a straitjacket to all composers after his time.

My objective with this thread wasn`t to make an objective comparison between composers and their works. I admit that I struggle with Schumann when comes to playing his solo piano works. But this is not the same as saying that he is inferior to Chopin, Brahms or other great composers. What I try to say is that it takes time to get a full understanding of almost any composer. In some cases not so much time, in other cases decades. How much time depends a lot on the background of the person. I needed very little time to catch interest in Chopin. In the cases of Mozart and Bach I needed much more time to really understand their music.

One thing I have learnt is that one should never dismiss a composer as uninteresting at any point in one`s musical development. Playing and listening to music are skills that develop with time.

Also I would never judge anybody by their musical taste. But I try to be open-minded and there is still a possibility that I`m going to enjoy playing Schumann at some time.

I really like Schumann's Album for the Young, Op.68. While the first pieces might be appropriate for a beginner student, there are a lot of complex interesting pieces in that album that are suitable for an intermediate level player. I think playing some pieces from Op.68 is a good way to get used to Schumann's style. Op.15 would be a natural progression after Op.68. BTW, Schumann is amazing!

About my personal nemesis composer, well, there might be many, but, I really want to play Chopin and I feel it is just too hard for my current skills. I tried learning one of his easier pieces, Waltz in A minor, and even after practicing it for a long time I never came even close of mastering it (or getting it up to a 90% level, I don't believe in mastering pieces, there is always some room for improvement. You may reach 99%, but that last 1% would take forever). That really sucks because Chopin might be my favorite composer and I want to play, pretty much, all his pieces (someday). Bach is also extremely hard, the whole polyphony idea just messes with my brain. Actually, I struggle with any baroque or romantic era composer. I think pieces from the classical era are much easier, maybe because I had more exposure to it.

Thanks for your tips.

Concerning Chopin`s a-minor waltz - I never found it easy to play. Many Chopin pieces are easier, including some of the other waltzes, a couple of the nocturnes. And for «essential» Chopin - look into his Mazurkas. For me «discovering» Chopin was to a high degree to learn appreciating the mazurkas and playing some of them.

Speaking of Chopin...

As a child I enjoyed listening to Chopin waltzes, and played a few. Also a mazurka and a polonaise.
But now that I am grown up, I noticed that of the pieces I learned as a child, I didn't keep the Chopin pieces in my repertoire. I kept the Beethoven sonatas, the Schubert impromptus, the Brahms rhapsody, a Mozart sonata, and a bit of Haydn. But Chopin... Nope. All the waltzes I learned, I'd have to learn them again.

The reason: Chopin seems to make too many notes and too little music. You learn technically challenging stuff, and then you ask: What for? You can tell when you listen to a Clayderman version. There you have little nodes and little music. Hot air, so to speak.
Technically, Chopin is good for professional pianists. Since it's technically demanding, it's not a bad guess to say: If you can play Chopin you can play anything. I guess that's why some music academies require Chopin etudes for the entry exam for the pianist masterclass.

However, I recently learned the Scherzo op.39, C Sharp minor. And it does seem to contain interesting music. I wozldn't say that I mastered it, but I can play through it more or less. I guess time will tell if I will keep it in my repertoire.
Also, other pieces like the ballades are also considered interesting music. But I guess one challenging Chopin music piece is enough for now.

In my opinion, Chopin is over-programmed in recitals. I did a research report on the Carnegie Hall performance history, and about 23% of the solo piano works programmed since Carnegie Hall opened were by Chopin. He dominates the solo piano recital repertoire. Second place was Beethoven at around 7%.

Sam

Interesting about Chopin v 'the rest.' I'm by no means a good pianist as I've mentioned very often, but whereas Beethoven and Mozart (and other) sonatas have long fallen by the wayside for me I find myself playing the Chopin waltzes very often and still have more to practise. I used to play the 'interesting bits' as a beginner and after many years I'm patiently fleshing them out when time and interest permit. They are a kind of endless entertainment to me at the moment. Mazurkas, well every so often I'll spend a happy hour or so playing through them; they are, like the waltzes, a lot of fun but more relaxing and if anything more varied.
The 'major composer' who I really don't get on with is Bach. Sure, I sometimes use his easy pieces as warm-ups and enjoy playing them, but for the rest they just don't interest me. A failing on my part I'm pretty sure.
Oddly enough, Chopin nocturnes haven't stayed the course either, come to think of it, but I think I could be tempted to spend more time on the Polonaises.

I consider the Chopin Scherzi and Ballades to be out of range. I rarely have the opportunity to practice more than 4 hours a week (typically 45 minutes a day including warm-up). About a third of this time I have to work on accompaniment of art songs and choir repertoire.

Therefore I have to limit myself to smaller format pieces. I have a Haydn, a Mozart and a Beethoven sonata on my repertoire, and I spend a little time on maintenance of these pieces. But Chopin mazurkas suit me pretty well, and some of them have much music without so many notes. The same is true for some og Grieg`s Lyric Pieces and Mendelssohn`s Lieder ohne Worte. Faure`s nocturnes are very deep musically, and at least two of them are short enough for me to work on. Poulenc has many short and very interesting pieces, some quite difficult, but many of them possible for an intermediate player. Albeniz has many pieces I like to work on, Recently I «discovered» Cyrill Scott. He has some pieces and movements I`d really like to look into. So has Scriabin. For some reason these composers all appeal more to me than Schumann. His music is nice enough to listen to, but sounds so difficult.

I am also a great fan of Faure music. There are a few pieces he wrote that are quite short like his romances sans paroles opus 17. They are much easier than the nocturnes, barcarolle and valses. You may try out Granados. He wrote several albums of short pieces which i like a lot like the 8 valses romanticas or the 6 estudios expresivos.

There are few composers that i would not listen to. Usually it would be those that use various algorithm or some sort of mathematical process to make music like Schoenberg, Boulez, xenakis.

Thanks for referencing Cyril Scott. I was not familiar with him but really like his music

Lotus lands
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3aw9v8yHk

Discover something new on PW everyday.

I also feel that Chopin is over programmed. But I think the percentages are somewhat misleading because many of Chopin's works are quite short while most/many of the Beethoven pieces performed are sonatas. A recital could easily contain five short works by Chopin lasting the same length as a shorter Beethoven Sonata.

Another way to survey would be what percentage of times at least one work by each composer was performed on a solo recital. I bet the percentages for Chopin and Beethoven would be much closer.

That would give better results, but the Carnegie data doesn't include performance time - not surprising, since no one keeps track of that, and the data goes back to the 1890s. But the most performed Chopin piece in solo piano recitals at Carnegie Hall is the g minor Ballade, which is not short.

Of course, these statistics are all things I came up with while researching my project - your mileage may vary...

Sam

This is what I feel about Liszt. But I don't like to diminish composers and I would be grateful that someone would prove me wrong.

To me, Chopin and Liszt make plenty music. What do you mean "Too little music"?

Is this directed to me?
If yes, I wanted to say: If you take away all the fancy notes that don't contribute to the harmonic functions (i.e. the notes Richard Clayderman leaves out), you are not left with much harmonic complexity or development.

At least that's an impression I have for some pieces by Chopin and Liszt.

Another impression (aka prejudice): With Mozart, Bach or Haydn, there are less notes; but they are all important. And if you play a wrong note, it stands out like a sore thumb. Not so much with Chopin or Liszt. You can play lots of wrong notes instead of the fancy notes Chopin or Liszt wrote, and it still sounds impressive.

But that's just a prejudiced opinion from me; and maybe stems from laziness to practise properly.

I partly agree to your comment. Although I think that harmonic progression is not the only factor signifying great composition. And in some cases I have found that what sounds like just brilliant runs are not always as "empty" as might be the first impression. I'm presently working on an art song (Lied, romance), Chanson triste by Duparc. The first impression listening to this song is that the accompaniment is just an endless sequence of arpeggios running up and downwards. There is some interesting harmonic development, though and that was the reason why I started with it. For the record I only do the piano part - I cooperate with an excellent soprano. I have to admit that everything looked very simple, and I thought that learning this would be just a piece of cake. So was not the case. It turned out that the arpeggios were quite complex with many hidden middle voices. You may listen to it if you like.


https://youtu.be/J__f-Xq5Gqo

I also find many similar things in Chopin's music. And Chopin has many less flashy pieces with considerable musical depth. I assume that this is even the case with Liszt and Schumann. I have just not discovered it yet.

All this said - I'm most of all impressed by compositions where much is said with few notes. But even Mozart and Haydn use many notes in some of their pieces.

This is often the case with Chopin. There is great harmonic sophistication in intricate passages. Op. 25 No.11 is the perfect example of this.

I find plenty of satisfaction in both Chopin and Liszt's harmonic progressions, which is a major part of why I like to listen to them.

Don't really know what else to say. Perhaps people hear things in different ways? It makes me wonder whether we're listening to the same composers.

At this point in MY piano journey, it's not that I have problems finding pieces to play, it's that the pieces I do find are quite unhappy that I found them.