It's a long way away but you've got to start somewhere so I've been listening to and playing through some of the things and imagining myself playing some of the things on the list. Sticking with my idea of some things relatively mainstream and some things less well known, I've come up with a program I can believe in and which I'm virtually certain I can learn to play and play well. This will almost certainly change, but how about this as a starter for 10:

D Scarlatti, Sonata in G, K259 and Sonata in G, K 260, combined duration about 7.20
W A Mozart, Sonata in Bb K570, duration about 18.30
K Szymanowski, Etude in Bb minor, Op. 4, no. 3, duration about 5.10
G Gershwin, "The Man I Love" and "I got Rhythm", combined duration about 4.00

It has a range of periods (Baroque, a classical sonata, the Szymanowski would do as either later romantic or early modern (it's from 1900-1902) and the Gershwin obviously is modern with Jazz influence. It has a range of mood, style and tempo. It's bang on 35 minutes.

Thoughts anyone?

Me like

I am nevertheless entertained by the duration of each work being about X minutes, but the total duration being exactly 35 minutes

Hmmm: good point.



Will "Bang on about 35 minutes" or "bang on 35 minutes +/- 10%" do?

See. I told you he'd have his programme sorted out and DipABRSM in his pocket while I am still dithering about deciding what to play!

It is nice. It is a great range of styles and techniques. it will be an enjoyable recital to listen to. Any reservations? None of the pieces is enormously demanding in the sense of an achievement just to get your hands around the notes (Well - maybe "I got rhythm" is - at the speed it is supposed to go - but it is quite short). This means that the examiners will be expecting a very polished presentation and well thought out set of interpretations. [Which I am sure they will get]

Cheers
Tom

Great piano: <-- Me ... Not sick. Jealous!

I'm afraid my main thought is that you've spelt programme incorrectly...
But apart from that it sounds good, though I do agree with Mad Tom in that none of them are terribly technically demanding to get your fingers around which does mean a lot will rely on your interpretation. Having not heard you play, I don't know whether or not that is your strong point

program / programme: According to my dictionary and my Word spell checker either is acceptable (though this board rejects the latter, which is why I used the shorter version). Besides there is the quote from Mark Twain: "Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination." However, if you're still going to be like that, in keeping with my penchant for Gershwin, "Let's call the whole thing off" !



I thought the whole idea at dip level was interpretation? To quote from the syllabus:

You should be able to demonstrate musical technique and perception at a level worthy of public performance and appreciation.


As regards technical difficulty,
1 ) surely if the entire program / programme is on the repertoire list they can have no complaints?
2 ) I have now played my way through about half the available lists and there is frankly very little that seems to demand much in the way of, for want of a better phrase, technical bravura; which is to say I'm fairly confident I could play most of it.
3 ) As Tom has pointed out, the Gershwin played at a proper speed IS one of the exceptions.

I reckon the following are deceptively difficult:

Mozart K284
Haydn Hob 16/49
and the Rachmaninoff Preludes

and that Beethoven, Sonata Pathetique, has the most wide-ranging technical demands, and requires the most comprehensive technique.

Some of the other Beethoven is demanding too (last movement of the Moonlight, and the two sets of variations).

To add to which, for instruments with a smaller repertoire than piano, it's perfectly possible to present works in a diploma recital programme which have previously formed part of the Grade syllabus. To give my oft-quoted clarinet programme as an example:

Finzi: Prelude (Grade VI), Romance (Grade VI) and Fughetta (Grade VIII) from Five Bagatelles
Saint-Saens: First (Grade VII) and fourth (Grade VIII) movements from Sonata
Weber: Second and third movements from Grand Duo Concertant (I think Trinity have had the second movement as a Grade VII piece in the past).

A DipABRSM standard performance in a Grade exam would have earned a distinction, whereas a Grade standard performance in a DipABRSM exam might have earned a sympathy vote. At DipABRSM level, one is expected to have mastered the technical aspects already, and to perform, not play.

Deborah (In need of a MadTom style personalised piano, not yet brave enough to peep at the piano Dip repertoire list, but unable to resist looking at the clarinet LRSM one )

Firstly, I don't see technical difficulty as quite the same as technical bravura. The pieces you mention are, as you say, deceptively difficult. I'm not quite sure how to express what I'm getting at here, but I think technical bravura in a piece implies that it sounds "flashy" but is in fact deceptively easy.

Having said which, hmm, yes, there are many exceptions to my wide ranging and ill-considered generalization, (mea culpa etc.) which leads me to suspect that in my play-through attempts I may have been subconsciously exhibiting bias towards those things I think I may find easy (or at least easier!)

Nonetheless, in each case, however difficult, I would be very surprised if a technically demanding piece played adequately would score as well as a less demanding piece played well, provided that the piece is on the repertoire list at all: I would expect that whatever I play for diploma when I finally do it, I will need to be able to play it well enough to make it look (and sound) easy.

Finally, I did say this was only a first draft: I confidently expect to do considerable tinkering over the next year or so before finally settling on a program/me. One thing that worries me about this program is the progression of and the relationship between the keys of the various pieces: There isn't one, or at least not much. Bb and Bb minor yes, but to get a link to G it would have to be G minor and it isn't. The Gershwin pieces are in Eb major and Db major (modulating to F major through what might be C for a few bars - it certainly has no key signature, but with so many accidentals it could be anything). In terms of tonality the program's a mess, though if delivered with a confident enough demeanour perhaps a mess which works.

I'm afraid that to me, program is an irritating americanism - but anyway this is the diploma forum so who cares

Oh absolutely - interpretation is most definitely not optional, but some people have a natural gift of beautiful interpretation whereas others have to work at it more and might gain better marks with more bravura pieces in their programme

Love the pieces, especially the Mozart and the Gershwin, the only thing you might like to consider is whether 3 pieces in Sonata form is a good idea, I know with the Scarlatti you have to do the 2 because of the length of them, but just a thought.

Also I agree with you about the Bb and Bb minor, that was my first thought.

I thought the same, but are the Scarlatti sonatas in sonata form? I could be wrong but I thought that what we think of as the classical sonata form didn't start until Haydn. What Scarlatti called a sonata was something quite different. Which being the case, a pair of Scarlatti sonatas in the same programme (!) as a classical sonata (in this case Mozart but it could be Haydn, Beethoven or Schubert) shouldn't be a problem . . . should it?



BTW: MadTom your new grade is 162, exactly the same as Davids new grade! Congratulations. Mine has gone up to 107

I'll have to have a look at the form of the Scarlatti sonata's as not being a huge Scarlatti fan I tend not to play him (more of a contemporary Russian kind of gal Prokofiev and Kabalevsky) , but the quality of your playing is the most important thing, and regardless of what you decide to put in the programme I don't think it is a problem as long as you can justify your choices in the viva if the examiner decides to ask.

Mind you, I don't think I have your kind of discipline, my programmes tend to evolve on a whim of what I fancy playing next, then I'll look through my repertoire and pick, I don't think I've ever stuck to my initial thoughts.

Last season I played 12 games in the UK at an average grade of 179. Add in 18 games from the previous season at 151 = 30x162. The published rating matches this figure This can only mean that the ECF rates my 2100 average in 15 games in Dutch tournaments as no better than average 151 ECF (Which is - in the word chess players love - b-o-l-l-o-c-k-s)

I don't understand why your rating is not 20 points higher (at least)

The interesting mover at Chorley is Henry, up to 116, at 10 years old!

Sorry for the digression music-lovers!

An excellent point. Pieces like Chopin - Prelude No 22. Looks and sounds horribly difficult - but it is dead easy. And "flashy" like Hungarian Rhapsody No 2 maybe?

Does not seem to matter much

The Scarlatti Sonatas are not in Sonata form. Formally they are binary AABB (with repeats) - at least every one that I have looked at follows that form - which is a couple of hundred of the 555+ that he wrote.

However - creative genius that he was - some of Scarlatti's sonatas do introduce modulations and thematic development of the type that characterizes 1st movement Sonata form - as perfected by Haydn, adopted by Mozart amongst others, and stretched to its limits by Beethoven and later composers.

The term Sonata as applied to Scarlatti's sonatas is in the original sense of a piece sounded (on an instrument) as contrasted with a piece sung (cantata). In his lifetime Scarlatti published only 30 of the pieces that we now call Sonatas, and he himself called them Essercizi (Exercises).

This recital programme may look deeply thought through and planned but at the moment it includes everything on the repertoire list that I can actually play as well as everything I'm working on.

As to why I chose these pieces:

The Mozart I learned in 1982 when I inherited the family piano. Just to prove to myself that I could I learned a grade 8 list and this (complete in those days) was the B list piece I chose (not necessarily from that year). Although I could play it I don't think I would have passed the exam had I taken it - the pieces might have passed (just) but the scales & arpeggios, sight reading and aural would have been diabolical. I can play it better now than I could then, by quite a margin. To date it remains almost the only classical sonata I can play complete.

The Szymanowski was picked because MadTom sent me the music a few weeks ago and I liked it & decided to learn it.

The Scarlatti was chosen, I admit, because it wasn't Bach and it was on the repertoire list but these particular pieces were chosen with an eye to tonality, since they are in G. I had an idea to do a recital in G, G minor, Bb and Bb minor (spot the progression) and already had the Mozart in Bb and the Szymanowski in Bb minor.

The Gershwin was chosen (from the list) because I love it: I played Liza from the same book for my grade 8 & wanted to continue in the same vein.

It adds up, more or less, to a possibly suitable programme of approximately the right length, but an example of a disciplined approach to programming? No - just a rather pleasing coincidence based, like you, on whim and fancy. Then again, what better reason is there to choose music to play?


Paul's new grade is impressive too: 127 (from 107 last year)

(sorry too: end of chesschat)

If you're comfortable with playing big chords and the strange left-hand scales, it's a good piece. I played it for my DipABRSM; my motivation was different to yours, however - I wanted a modern piece that didn't sound naff .

In terms of playing recycled Mozart, is that the best idea? Old habits do die hard, and there's no shortage of classical sonatas you could have fun with - as pianists we are blessed with an immense repertoire from which to choose.

My gut feeling is don't recycle for a diploma. It just throws up little warning signs about mislearnt passages creeping back in. As far as bravura is concerned its an overated concept (she says as a soprano who pads programmes with coloratura showpieces full of finests bravura technique) It's fluff. Surely a well executed Lizst Petrach Sonnet or Debussy La Cathedrale Engoutie is going to demonstrate a better range of technique; examiners are not as easily hoodwinked as audiences.

Apart from the fact the Mozart is a rehash, I like your programme. Play what you feel will sell your style of playing the best. Don't be sucked off by the fluff brigade and remember you'll have to back everything up in your programme notes and Viva anyway!

Points well made: For the classical era piece I originally had it in mind to do a Beethoven or Schubert sonata (and I suspect my teacher will have me learn at least half a dozen before we actually go for it, and I think she likes Haydn) but I was looking for something in Bb major or G minor and this seemed (still seems) to be the only one that fits that particular bill. That I could already play it was a coincidence.

Still, since tonal progression in the programme seems to be something that can be quietly ignored, perhaps I will return to plan A after all. Now, which of the Shubert or Beethoven fits the time slot??

Actually, I'm not sure that matters too much - most of the rest of the program will probably get changed as well: La Cathedrale Engloutie was in my plan six months ago, but to make room for it as well as playing the Szymanowski and the Gershwin seems impossible. The Liszt Petrarch sonnet on the list is another I think my teacher has her eye on and I know she's very keen on always having some Bach on the go, so give me a month or two and I may have a completely revamped recital for you - Bach, Beethoven or Schubert, Liszt and Debussy!

As for "Play what you feel will sell your style of playing the best", I feel that this new possible program would be something I could deliver just as well and convincingly, given time: I could still believe in it. I'm sure that if I didn't believe in a piece of music it would show very quickly.

sounds like a good program to me, but thats only personal opinion and i don't know anything about diplomas, i just like the pieces you've picked.

have you had the grade 8 results yet?
x

Don't think of it as a rehash, think of it as having put a piece away for a rest and relearning it for a performance. When you relearn things they do always come back stronger and more secure than before, but the mislearnt passages comment is a very valid one, you have to be very disciplined and treat it as a completely new piece looked at for the first time, you haven't mentioned if you are learning with a teacher or not, but a second opinion every now and then will help.

Great programme Robodoc, with my favourite piano piece of the twentieth century on it - Szymanowski Prelude in Bb minor (and technically more difficult than some might claim, I reckon)
denmark

Yes I have and yes I am!

Ok, so i don't read that thoroughly

I did have half a brain wave this morning: If I put in the Bach Sinfonia no 11 in G minor as a personal choice I could have the program tonality go G, Gmin, Bb, Bbmin, Db (finishing in F) and finally Eb. It also plays the pieces in Chronological order, except the Gershwins are back to front. The down side is it would add 3 minutes or more to the program, which might still be inside the limit but once you add in breaks, unless I play faster than I was intending, it would be a non starter (for a Progamme I'm not going to play in it's current state anyway). Still, nice idea (and a lovely piece).

I don't really believe the examiners are sensitive to a logical progression of keys through a programme. I've decided to do the Gershwin's as well, but as start and finish of the whole recital. Presumably this is allowed?

Are they listed as separate items on the syllabus? If so, I wouldn't have thought there would be a problem with topping and tailing your recital with the Gershwin works, but be prepared to put your reasons forward in the viva.

My programme ended up in reverse chronological order, and when the examiners asked why I'd chosen the running order I did, I had to fight very hard to resist saying "Because the running order put the composers in alphabetical order of surname" (a happy coincidence, not deliberate planning, promise!).

Well my reasons are similarly unmusical. Whilst it is true that the I Got Rhythm ends with a real flourish, the first Gershwin opens with a languid rolling chord - great for your first feel of a brand new piano

Forgetting the actual pieces I think one of the advantages is that you are only utilising 4 composers.

This will make it easier for you to score well on your programme notes I think because I found the 1100 + /- 10% words quite restrictive as I had 6 composers.

You'll be able to get a decent bit of composer bio in and then go onto analyze the pieces, comparing / contrasting etc where you have the pairs of pieces.

I found trying to cover the bio and the analysis a bit tight - which was in fact commented on " a bit short on bio" - or something like that on the mark sheet but I decided better to concentrate on the piece details rather than composer details - I knew I'd be struggling - luckily I still scored well despite a bit of skimping in that area.

With just the 4 composers you'll be better placed I think for your notes to have all areas required covered within the word limit