This quote:




... got me thinking.

I understand the importance of a varied programme for either a concert or an exam but I have been wondering about the inclusion in the syllabus of what some call 'over played' works. I'm specifically talking about piano here e.g. Beethoven's 'Moonlight' and so on. Surely, if they are in the syllabus, examiners must be prepared to listen to them should the candidate wish to play said pieces? I often see on this forum, when a programming question arises, people replying saying there is not enough variation or the prospective candidate is playing one or two works that the examiners 'may be sick of hearing'. Should the candidate avoid such works just because the examiners may have heard them a few more times than average? I would think not, given that because the works are on the syllabus list, therefore it could be said that it's the AB's fault if the examiners have to hear it often!?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if every candidate 'ventured off the beaten track', some of the well-known works may be played significantly less, but if it is those works that the candidate enjoys most and believes highlights their ability most then why should they be afraid of choosing it?

if it's something that you like, i'd say go for it. but, as i've said before, other than playing the piece technically well, one has to bring something out from the piece, such as the character of the piece as well as yourself, which i still find it hard to achieve sometimes.

I noticed that with violin too...actually, at all 3 post-grade levels, the syllabus is packed with stuff that serious violinists in Japan will have studied at pre-university or university level (I don't want to start an argument about suitability or mastery or whatever, that's another discussion ). People kept saying "that's diploma level" regarding pieces that I hear played at student concerts quite often, so I got curious and went and had a look.

On the one hand, at some post-Grade levels you can sub your own choice, can't you? And on the other hand, it seems like a good checklist of repertoire that a young music student will find it handy to know. I can see that son's violin teacher would even be happier for him to work on Dip or LRSM (if he were at that level, which he's not!) rather than Grades, precisely because the syllabus is a handy gig-bag full of stuff which will turn up on audition lists for years to come.

Of course, I'm not the one that has to play the pieces!

Ooh, a thread devoted to a quote from me. It's almost like being famous!


People shouldn't necessarily shy away from playing the most popular works - hey, I played some of the Mozart clarinet concerto for my Grade VIII - and many of the most popular works are justifiably so: they're great pieces of music and/or a significant staging post in the development of the instrument in question. Nevertheless I can't help feeling that for a diploma, the candidate should be able to demonstrate knowledge of more than the half-dozen most popular works for their instrument. If you want to play the Moonlight sonata, then do, but be a bit daring with what it's coupled with!

Just what I would have said. And add that Beethoven's "Pathetique Sonata" in particular is popular for good reason. It is one of the most important pieces in the history of the piano. It also allows you to show off a tremendously wide technical range (tempo, dynamics, touch, chords and passage work) and every emotion from wretched despair, to hopefulness to joy and contentment.

On top of that - almost everyone (famous pianists included) plays it badly - so you have plenty of opportunity to impress the examiner with a sensitive and thoughtful interpretation.

a thread started from an advice in my thread
yes those are famous titles in my programmes
maybe deborah wanted to say that we should not neglect other pieces because they are good too
performer shouldn't only know those famous ones

You get the same in other instruments... If I hear Czardas or Vivaldi's spring played one more time...

I actually think that it's more difficult to play these famous works in order to put your own stamp on them, so to speak.

I think that if a balanced program is called for, then "balance" includes balancing the well known and the novel. A piano program that consists of a Bach P&F, a Beethoven Sonata (especially a named one), a Chopin Nocturne and a Debussy prelude might in principal fit the bill and certainly such a program is possible without departing from the repertoire list. My worry would be that such a program may have crossed the line from "safe" to "timid". I feel that a "balanced" program would require at least one (but not necessarily all) of these to be dropped in favour of something a little more off the beaten track: There is plenty in there to choose from.

On the other hand, a Diploma program that is drawn entirely from Bartok, Berkeley, Copeland, Fuare, Hindemith, Poulenc, Ravel, Scarlatti, Scriabin, Symanowski and the like (all listed for Dip ABRSM and covering the required range of periods) might well make a compelling recital in concert terms but in Diploma terms could also be accused of a lack of balance: Where are the "standards"?

A good meal is a starter, a main course and a dessert (not a desert - too dry). The starter is usually smaller than the main course and usually savoury. The main course is probably savoury with some meat, some veg, some spice, some stodge and some sauce. The desert is probably sweet. The meal that Reggie Perrin ordered in episode one of his Fall and Rise was Ravioli starter followed by Ravioli main course and Ravioli for dessert. It was obviously ridiculous - that was the joke.

Translating that to music, a meal made of all stodge is bad: So is a meal of all spice. Have a balance and you may have a menu.

'Tis true. Things like tempo, for example. If, say, Czardas is always played really really fast, people will expect you to be able to play it really really fast, even if you prefer it slightyl slower.

Then too bad for their expectations. Since when has it been the performer's function to simply meet the preconceptions of their audience? It is not if I prefer it slower. It is if, after consideration, I believe that a slower pace communicates better the meaning of the composition.

In the words of Claudio Arrau:

"If you are sure that what you have to say is unique, then you are not out to please, or not to please, or to impress or not to impress. You have your message and that's it. If they like it that is alright, if they don't ... ... I don't know whether it is clear"

That's a good quote, MadTom! Some may prefer a certain work to be played faster and other may prefer it to be played slower. At the end of the day, you can't please everybody; so ultimately, you should play in the way that pleases YOU the most.

I'd say that people will automatically compare your performances of these more famous works with other artists’ performances/recordings, though...even if it's not intentional.

When in doubt play something less well known or fresh that suits you personally; especially for an amuse bouche or dessert.

When I did my degree recital I was determined to sing Faure Apres un Reve despite my singing teacher stating it was such a well-known piece of vocal repertoire that I'd have to be careful.

I put my foot down and sang it. I suppose it is a bit like this with Beethoven's Pathetique If you know you can bring something to it, then play it, despite it being one of the best known pieces of piano pieces ever written.

Singing wise. at FRSM level one need to take care with Mozart Et incarnatus est, and Schubert Gretschen am Spinrade

Alto's need to take care of Rossini Una Voce Poco Fa, Bizet Sequidilla-Carmen, Bach Erbarme Dich

Intersting: the hackneyed repertoire comes in at fellowship level for us singers, so as well as being hackneyed it is also technically extrememly exacting.

Do you have plans for a fellowship diploma? I am thinking about getting in ATCL/DipAB level but am unsure of repertoire at this point.

Yep!

I'm going to do a specialised programme focussing on French and Spanish Song with The Bell Song from Lakme, Les Filles De Cadiz, (Delibes) Pleurez des Yeux (Massenet) aand Rachmaninov Vocalise as the central works, and songs by Ravel, Debussy, Duparc and Manuel de Falla to complete the programme.

Wow. Sounds great Are you aiming for December?

No.

December is busy enough without me sticking an FRSM into the mix too.

Surely Summer and Winter are both busy in different ways?

Yes, but when you're a mum and your children are busy doing constant Christmas things, you are preparing the family Christmas, and just to add spice to the mix your youngest son has his birthday, I can always guarantee December is a high-stress month. July often is, but I can normally work around it because the high stress dates are not set in stone in the same way.

Going back to Scaramouche's original thread...

I often wonder what a 'balanced' programme would look like. Judging from what forum members have posted in the past, it seeems to involve a balance of

tempi (a mixture of faster and slower items),
style / texture (lighter contrasted with heavier),
keys (major/minor and sharp/flat),
periods (eighteenth / nineteenth / twentieth centuries),
nationalities (so ideally not an all German programme...!)

From the DipABRSM Syllabus:

"In your choice of repertoire, you should aim to present a generalist programme that
offers a wide-ranging yet coherent mixture of periods, style, mood and tempo, with no
more than one work by any single composer (except where a combination of
movements or pieces from a composer’s collection is indicated in the prescribed lists).
You should be able to demonstrate musical technique and perception at a level worthy
of public performance and appreciation."

Thanks Robodoc I guess I should have looked at the syllabus first.

There is, I suppose, an unwritten code, suggesting very popular works (Beethoven's Moonlight as a random example) are risky choices in recital exams. The 'core' repertiore is presumably welcomed (even expected?), but if everyone chooses the same few pieces, won't it send the poor examiners into a catatonic state...?

So my question perhaps should have been: in choosing a 'balanced' programme, is it wise to aim for a balance between popular/well known works and less well known / rarer repertiore? Posters on this thread seem to agree to an extent...

denmark

correction 'repertiore' = repertoire

My theory is that the examiners are less interested in a balanced program for its artistic effect, or to see your programme building skills than in wanting to see a wide range of techniques and skills and styles so as to assess your all round competence.

So this is a way (Like having lists A, B and C in the grade exams) to stop you stuffing the programme with three pieces that all demonstrate the one thing you can do really well!

So popular/well known or common/rare might not be the essence of it.

It might be about: homophonic/polyphonic, sparse harmony/dense harmony, fast/slow, trills and ornaments, scale and arpeggio passages, alberti bass, other figuration, double notes, octaves, broken octaves, tremeloes, skips and leaps, dynamic range, staccato, non-legato-legato, singing tone/percussive tone, metronomic tempo/rubato, polyrhythms, and mood - happy/sad/playful/teasing/ecstatic/peaceful/sleepy/angry/miserable/hopeful/despairing ... How much can you demonstrate in four or five pieces, and still create a musically pleasing performance?



p.s. Looking at my list - doesn't it make Beethoven's Pathetique sonata rather a good choice.

I believe you are not making mutually contradictory claims:

Firstly I'm quite sure that Madtom is right about demonstrating as wide a range of skills as possible whilst still creating a musically pleasing performance. In many ways a classical sonata such as the Pathetique is a recital in miniature within itself anyway - the various movements being effectively separate compositions brought together (in this case by a brilliant composer at the height of his powers) in order to make a pleasing and musically coherent whole.

However, I do think that a musically pleasing diploma recital program should almost of necessity include some well worn old warhorses and some pieces that are less well-known.

Of course, it's only my opinion, and I could easily be wrong! At the moment I'm wondering if it's possible to put Szymanowski, Scarlatti, Beethoven, Liszt, and Gershwin into a sensible program within the time limit. I suspect something will have to give and in any case I will probably end up changing most of it before I get there. Where will I put Chopin, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Debussy and Poulenc? To say nothing of Schubert & Schumann.

Oh the choice, the choice!

I can see the wisdom of your point, Mad Tom - the more of your technique you can demonstrate, the better, regardless of the popularity of the actual pieces..

And Robodoc, I share your problem of being bewlidered by choice - its so difficult, having to be pragmatic in deciding which composers to include, even if that means cutting out many of the 'core' giants of music at the same time. We just cannot do justice to them all in the time available in a diploma exam, sadly!

Or even in a lifetime.

Ye i see where you're coming from but my take on it is that if you really enjoy the piece then go for it. the key to playing these overworked pieces (Beethoven Moonlight) is to bring something new to it. I guess it is the AB's fault if they have to hear the work over and over again so it would be unfair of them to mark against candidates for choosing something they've heard 5 times that day!

The key to it all is to bring your own personal style to the work, whilst still making the work sound from the era which it is from (if that makes sense). i'm thinking about choosing the Moonlight or the Pathétique for the DipABRSM but I may end up doing a lesser known Beethoven.

GOOD LUCK whatever you decide