Complex large-scale piano works

Related to this topic - I remember realizing that one of the biggest differences between the classical and popular music world is that in the popular music world - audience demand defines the popularity of the music.
But in the classical world - popularity of works has been shaped more by performers than audiences.

In my exploration of the piano repertoire - there is a lot of music that is FAR EASIER to enjoy on first listens than a lot of the ‘great works’ that are performed.

This suggests that most people go for concerts of the faith of being a fan of performers, and then being guided by the performers choices of repertoire.

The fact remains that if someone is a serious pianist - they will practice a fuck load - and practicing easily appreciable simpler music is just not meaty and rewarding enough to sustain their long term interest.

So you get the rise of popularity of something complex and weighty like Liszt’s Sonata. And the decreasing in popularity of lighter repertoire like Weber’s Invitation which was hugely performed at one time.
It really is the tastes of the performers themselves that keep pieces in the repertoires more than public demand!

I’d argue that part of the reason classical has a limited audience is the lack of awareness of this lighter repertoire - I genuinely believe it’s legitimate and can be great in it’s own way. I think that it would be fun if pianists were to perform more of this music too.

I myself like the fact we have different weight divisions of pieces, sometimes I like a featherweight piece, and sometimes a super heavyweight like the stuff we are discussing here :grinning:

Which left hand prog did u unleazh?

if u combo diz comme inzightz + da nursin home idea

I c da clear comme career path :



















da André Rieu of da 88
a multi-million dollah plan tru :sunglasses:

3 Likes

Hahaha who?

Absolutely. I’ve spent years studying and playing through the Art of Fugue, and I still don’t ‘get’ all of it. It’s a whole other level of complexity than what I can grasp. Bach truly was a genius.

Randomly, the music I was listening to that prompted this topic was Feinberg 5 and 6. They’ve been favourites of mine for a couple of years. They’re so unique and satisfying. I guess I’m hoping to conquer some new works and have the same revelatory feeling afterward. (Just to be clear, I mean this in a listening and studying the score kind of way. I sure as hell can’t play these. Maybe Feinberg 2 might be within reach for my skillz, but not really.)

Also, I think this rush I get lately from learning to appreciate complex works comes from my jazz listening. In a jazz setting, an improvisation is the first time anyone is hearing the music and depending of the performer’s skill and harmonic language it can be a chore to fully ‘get’ what they’re saying. I’ve had several concerts and recordings where I’m left disappointed at first, only to realize - 10 listenings later - how brilliant and cohesive the music actually was.

And the reason I ask for post 1900 stuff is because I’m familiar enough with classical through late romantic styles that I don’t typically have trouble following the musical ideas, so intense study and repeated listening isn’t as necessary. 20th century music kind of changed the game in many ways, and I’m still not up on all the different styles.

Actually, Art of Fugue is one that I need to get to know better as well. And Book 2 of WTC.

I cannot remember all of it but think it was Bach-Brahms Chaconne, some liszt piece (pozz a sheeyat that exists in multiple version, including one for left hand), Scriabin op 9 (both pieces) and a Moszkowski etude. It only needed to be a short programme thankfully. I prepared it in three weeks.

1 Like

Are you familiar with the story of Blind Tom?

He was possibly the most legendary autistic savant - a ‘musical parrot’ - so he could hear ANY music and play it back.

What’s interesting was that he encountered real issues near the end of his career when challenged to hear and repeat music by new composers in the early 20th century. He was totally stumped.

It really frustrates me when people call music ‘a language’, because in reality every single different style is a whole new language.

The best way to compare it to language is to think how you would hear and recall 20 seconds of speech.

Recalling 20 seconds of speech in a language you know is HUGELY easier because
A - you can chunk the data into bigger groups
B - you can contextualize grammar and tense and the usual flow of words
C - you can implement your understanding of the ‘meaning’ of the statement to aid recall

So in attempting to recall 20 seconds of speech in a completely alien language - we are forced to compute only the raw phonetics. We would have to learn it to be able to have equally good recall.

You know what’s fascinating about music though…spoken language has explicit meaning, you can’t pick up Chinese so well without either being told or using intelligence to gauge context - like someone pointing to a dog and using a word and realizing tha word must mean dog.

Music on the other hand is totally different, totally abstract. But the same musical language thing applies.
In the 20th century innovation was rampant and each new great composer had a whole new language largely of their own creation, built upon the syntax of their influences of course, but it was often revolutionary.

With me not being hugely familiar with a lot of 20th century music, I do wonder how much transfer and overlap there is in the acquisition of a listening skillset from one composer to another?

In the 19th century for example compare Schumann to Grieg - they are very different of course but I’d say if someone has developed the skillset required to take in all of Schumann’s work - it is largely transferable to Grieg, even given all Grieg’s Scandinavian quirks.

But for example - where does studying the Rite of Spring get you with a late Shostakovich symphony?
Where does studying late Schoenberg get you with Boulez?

Are you starting from scratch with each composer or is there a lot of transfer within these 20th century composers?

1 Like

Messiaen, especially the bird pieces, comes to mind. They are some of the most unique music ever written, and quite hard to grasp.

1 Like

I love the Catalogue d’oiseaux. For me that was easy to understand, though it helps to follow the score and read his introductions. Great music.

1 Like

i found tha GUDBURGAH 6th zon much eaziah n mo pianizdick than tha zecond zon at leazt fo my handz :lib:
i dun kno which one i prefer probably tha zecond but i haff nevah really tried to learn it :doc:

az fo complex large zcale workz i haff playd tha villa loboz ROBBAHPOEMA ovah tha yrz n i rezpec it n apprezheeyat it but wud not argue if zumone zaid that it iz a bit zheeyat n annoying to lizten to :sunglasses:

The Feinbergs are really interesting works. I liked the one Hamelin played last autumn (4 I think), and loved the one Thomas showed us here last month. I don’t think I’m familiar with any of the others, but will undoubtedly be in due time if Hamelin is traversing them.

Frankly though… Thomas plays better.

Some of my suggestions:

  • Hindemith Sonatas (I don’t know no. 1 but 2 and 3 are great)
  • Messiaen 8 Preludes
  • Frank Martin: 8 Preludes (dedicated to Lipatti, who was supposed to premiere theme but unfoetunatel died… I played 5 of those since my teacher loves them, and they are really good pieces)
  • Gubaidulina Chaconne
  • Nielsen Chaconne
1 Like

This is a piece that I liked even though I never became familiar enough with it to really get a sense of its form. Also, you can’t really call it tonal but it’s not strictly atonal either.

I’m gonna put it out there…

Does anyone here actually LIKE Sorabji’s large scale works?

Pozz…

Years and years ago now I set out to get in to his music and chose Gulistan as my entry point. I listened to it every night for I think around two weeks. I never loved it, but I did like it once I knew it well enough to hum along as it were. To this day however it’s the only work of Sorabji I feel something for - but to this day it’s also the only work I’ve tried to penetrate.

I am intensely skeptical towards his music however. I can’t see myself ever trying with the OC, and my opinion is still that the man largely was a charlatan.

The man was a classic example of trying to spread one knob of butter over 100 loaves of bread.

He had talent for sure, I love the Sadko pastiche.

I’m amazed someone has went to the efforts of doing this but I’m glad they have.

Terrifying piece.

3 Likes

Sorabji
:doc:
:88ztreet:

Alzo, I vote for an 88ztreet emoticon.

1 Like

hahahahahahah DAYUM tha fury at 2’44 :whale: :bar: :whale:

zidezheeyat bout theze obzcur ruzzian piano zonz: i alwayz think the peopl who record theze zheeyatz alwayz bring out everything except tha m*lody - tha gudburgah zonz on tha tube n otha random workz ztruck me thiz way :dong:

i realiz i iz wrong n theyv ztudy them quite a bit n obviouzly kno what they iz doin
pozz tiz tha way they iz micd fo tha recording :lib:

2 Likes

Tru da farmah may be FURIOUZ :tmfury: but u ztill haf to be able to reconize he iz a farmah dezpite diz :man_farmer: :man_farmer:

1 Like