I am preparing for a DipABRSM.
Does anyone have any comments on this programme.
Scarlatti Sonata in E minor & Sonata in E
Beethoven Pathetique
Debussy La Plus Que Lente
Bartok Mikrokosmos (2)
Does the fact that the Scarlatti are called sonatas and therefore I'm playing THREE sonatas create a problem.
Is there enough variety - is four pieces enough I think this will be a bit on the short side but not sure if 5 things is too many. The programmes I've seen stick to 4 items.
I could add a Brahms or Chopin in before the Debussy (Going in historical order)
Full Version: Proposed Program DipABRSM
Looks good to me, though I don't understand why EVERYONE has to play the Pathetique for DipABRSM.... it's a great piece, but there are other equally good or better sonatas (in my opinion) on the list that aren't as overplayed 
But if that's what you want to play, go for it! The three sonatas isn't a problem at all because the Scarlatti sonatas aren't really "sonatas" in the classical sense... but I would imagine that you would be expect to talk about that in the Viva.
But if that's what you want to play, go for it! The three sonatas isn't a problem at all because the Scarlatti sonatas aren't really "sonatas" in the classical sense... but I would imagine that you would be expect to talk about that in the Viva.
I think everyone on here will tell you that five pieces is too much.
However, I do see a huge gap between Beethoven and Debussy which some Brahms or Chopin would fill nicely. But for God's sake don't use the Brahms op 118/2; obviously you are free to play what you like regardless of which pieces are more popular, but I think a Pathetique followed by 118/2 would have your examiners wanting to bang their heads off the table.
Then there is the Debussy/Bartok- both 20th century composers, both dead. If you are going to have two 20th century composers, I would recommend one of them to be a living one, so when you are asked about it in the viva, as I was, you can answer with how you think it is important to use the work of a living composer to remind us that people do still compose today.
However, I do see a huge gap between Beethoven and Debussy which some Brahms or Chopin would fill nicely. But for God's sake don't use the Brahms op 118/2; obviously you are free to play what you like regardless of which pieces are more popular, but I think a Pathetique followed by 118/2 would have your examiners wanting to bang their heads off the table.
Then there is the Debussy/Bartok- both 20th century composers, both dead. If you are going to have two 20th century composers, I would recommend one of them to be a living one, so when you are asked about it in the viva, as I was, you can answer with how you think it is important to use the work of a living composer to remind us that people do still compose today.
QUOTE(Invidia @ Jul 23 2011, 07:55 AM) 
I think everyone on here will tell you that five pieces is too much.
However, I do see a huge gap between Beethoven and Debussy which some Brahms or Chopin would fill nicely. But for God's sake don't use the Brahms op 118/2; obviously you are free to play what you like regardless of which pieces are more popular, but I think a Pathetique followed by 118/2 would have your examiners wanting to bang their heads off the table.
Then there is the Debussy/Bartok- both 20th century composers, both dead. If you are going to have two 20th century composers, I would recommend one of them to be a living one, so when you are asked about it in the viva, as I was, you can answer with how you think it is important to use the work of a living composer to remind us that people do still compose today.
I played Debussy and Bartok for my Dip... it didn't seem to be an issue with the examiners because their influences were so different.
QUOTE(Invidia @ Jul 23 2011, 12:55 PM)
But for God's sake don't use the Brahms op 118/2; obviously you are free to play what you like regardless of which pieces are more popular, but I think a Pathetique followed by 118/2 would have your examiners wanting to bang their heads off the table.
Excuse my ignorance but why have these 'popular' pieces on the syllabus if examiners are not going to want to hear them?
QUOTE(Scaramouche @ Jul 23 2011, 01:25 PM)
QUOTE(Invidia @ Jul 23 2011, 12:55 PM)
But for God's sake don't use the Brahms op 118/2; obviously you are free to play what you like regardless of which pieces are more popular, but I think a Pathetique followed by 118/2 would have your examiners wanting to bang their heads off the table.
Excuse my ignorance but why have these 'popular' pieces on the syllabus if examiners are not going to want to hear them?
What percentage of the examiners have any control over the syllabus? (Genuine question, not implication that none of them do).
If I was having to examine under a syllabus set by someone else, however professional I tried to be about it, my human nature would lead to me switching off after the first handful of Pathetique/Moonlight, Brahms Intermezzo, Debussy Cathedrale, Gershwin transcriptions I heard in the week.
I don't think the point of the Diploma syllabus is to show what examiners want to hear, it is more a general indication of which repertoire is manageable by someone of that level. How many "what level is this piece" posts do music forums get?
I don't buy the "all examiners would be happy to hear every last piece on the diploma syllabus" reasoning at all. Conversely you may get an examiner who doesn't like to hear anything but the old chestnuts. They're human beings at the end of the day.
It's a point we could debate until the cows come home. But the point still stands - should diploma candidates be expected to anticipate what examiners expect to hear or not hear, given the lack of guidance given in the ABRSM diploma syllabus to this effect ? I can't answer this question myself.
QUOTE(hoboe @ Jul 23 2011, 12:04 PM)
Does the fact that the Scarlatti are called sonatas and therefore I'm playing THREE sonatas create a problem.
No. In fact he called them "Essercizi", I believe. Added to which, they're only one movement and not in sonata form.
I also think that the Debussy and the Bartok are quite contrasting, regardless of their both being dead!
Thank you all, you're all helping enormously.
The Pathetique is sheer laziness because I can get it up to standard really quickly - it is up for change but probably to a Mozart or Haydn not to another Beethoven.
The 20th C thing is a bit more of a conundrum - I really love playing the Debussy PlusQL and I think I play it really well. But it I go in chronological order - it would then be the last piece and isn't really suitable for the last piece.
My definites are Scarlatti and Debussy LPQL
So...
Scarlatti
Mozart
Debussy
??
What are the Diana Burrell constellations like - how much work and would they fit in. Would be nice to have a female (and alive?)
The Pathetique is sheer laziness because I can get it up to standard really quickly - it is up for change but probably to a Mozart or Haydn not to another Beethoven.
The 20th C thing is a bit more of a conundrum - I really love playing the Debussy PlusQL and I think I play it really well. But it I go in chronological order - it would then be the last piece and isn't really suitable for the last piece.
My definites are Scarlatti and Debussy LPQL
So...
Scarlatti
Mozart
Debussy
??
What are the Diana Burrell constellations like - how much work and would they fit in. Would be nice to have a female (and alive?)
The Diana Burrell Constellations I & II are typical of contemporary music (if there is such a thing) - freely dissonant, and atmospheric. A challenge but not too long, quite short in fact at two pages (ish).
The 'Spectrum' album, from which they are taken, is well worth having for sight reading practice too, in preparation for the Quick Study. Lots of modern styles in there to explore.
denmark
The 'Spectrum' album, from which they are taken, is well worth having for sight reading practice too, in preparation for the Quick Study. Lots of modern styles in there to explore.
denmark
QUOTE(Invidia @ Jul 23 2011, 12:55 PM)
I think everyone on here will tell you that five pieces is too much.
Not necessarily, provided the overall recitial is the right length and there are not too many composers: Four composers is fine.
QUOTE
However, I do see a huge gap between Beethoven and Debussy which some Brahms or Chopin would fill nicely.
But there is no need: Debussy and Bartok are so different you can happily use them both (see below)
QUOTE
But for God's sake don't use the Brahms op 118/2; obviously you are free to play what you like regardless of which pieces are more popular, but I think a Pathetique followed by 118/2 would have your examiners wanting to bang their heads off the table.
In general I would agree, but if I saw a professional with a reputation doing a recital with both these pieces I would look forward to it: The qualification is that to do the better known end of the repertoire you have to be able to do it really well. If you can, no problem.
QUOTE
Then there is the Debussy/Bartok- both 20th century composers, both dead. If you are going to have two 20th century composers, I would recommend one of them to be a living one, so when you are asked about it in the viva, as I was, you can answer with how you think it is important to use the work of a living composer to remind us that people do still compose today.
Not sure I agree with the Debussy/Bartok thing being a problem. The point about a living composer is a good one but lots of people (me included) pass the recital, program notes & viva with nothing later than Debussy.
Actually I rather like your program. Provided that it is the right length and you can do justice to such a well-known piece as the Pathetique, go for it & good luck.
I think the category 20th century is a very wide one and obviously many things are acceptable and contrasting.
Having just completed a degree in contemporary music, my opinion is that it becomes very boring to simply think in terms of "this composer made these innovations which challenged conventions, and they use dissonance and new rhythmic ideas". Because that is how it can get, when there is so much more to it than that. Also, I think that whilst composers are highly aware of their musical surroundings, performers and audiences can be less so and are happy to play/listen to what they feel is expected of them.
The Diana Burrell pieces: the first piece is easy note wise but difficult to make music out of. It is not dissimilar to the Sculthorpe Night Pieces in this sense. The second Burrell piece along with Roxburgh's Moonscape (also in Spectrum book) are the reverse, the notes take some work but they are easier to interpret.
Having just completed a degree in contemporary music, my opinion is that it becomes very boring to simply think in terms of "this composer made these innovations which challenged conventions, and they use dissonance and new rhythmic ideas". Because that is how it can get, when there is so much more to it than that. Also, I think that whilst composers are highly aware of their musical surroundings, performers and audiences can be less so and are happy to play/listen to what they feel is expected of them.
The Diana Burrell pieces: the first piece is easy note wise but difficult to make music out of. It is not dissimilar to the Sculthorpe Night Pieces in this sense. The second Burrell piece along with Roxburgh's Moonscape (also in Spectrum book) are the reverse, the notes take some work but they are easier to interpret.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.