Hi you guys

I'm in the process of choosing my recital pieces for DipABRSM piano and this is what I've chosen. Do you guys think this is a good mix of pieces? And do the pieces work well as a whole together?

The recital is:

Bach - Prelude and Fugue in F# minor BWV 859 (Book 1)

Messiaen - Regard de l'etoile - No.2 from Vingt Regards sur l'enfant Jesus

Debussy - Les sons et les parfums tournet dans l'air du soir (Prelude No.4 from Book 1)

Beethoven - Sonata in C minor Op.13 'Pathetique'

I'm happy with it I think because it covers a wide range of eras and styles of music. I'd be really glad if you guys could give any tips

thanks

kev

I think it is great. Four very different periods and styles, the nicest of the vingt regardes, and one of the all time great sonatas. But you certainly don't believe in making things easy for yourself do you. Two questions: Does it fit comfortably in the available time and are you going to play them in that order - so as to have the big finish with the Beethoven, or in a more conventional chronological order?

Hi MadTom,

Thanks for your reply. Yes I'm pretty sure that the recital fits into the time constraints, although I'm worried that I may end up slightly under, which shouldn't be a problem.

I'm not sure about the order. I like the idea of finishing with the Beethoven but what do you suggest? Do most candidates perform their recital in chronological order?

By convention chronological is the default, on the idea that later music builds on the ideas of earlier music, and extends what we consider to be harmonious and acceptable. But that is not always the case. In the end there are no rules. It all depends on how the pieces follow on from one another and the effect you are trying to create.

Please enter at a London centre so I can come and page-turn.



When I did mine (clarinet, not piano), it ended up in reverse chronological order. This wasn't a deliberate ploy on my part, just the way things fell out. Of the three pieces I played, the newest had more of a "beginning" feel, and the oldest had a very showy last movement (the other two ended with a whimper rather than a bang), so it had a definite "end of recital" feeling to it.

If you're not sure, try playing the pieces in all of the different orders and see which you feel works best.

"When I did mine (clarinet, not piano), it ended up in reverse chronological order. This wasn't a deliberate ploy on my part, just the way things fell out. Of the three pieces I played, the newest had more of a "beginning" feel, and the oldest had a very showy last movement (the other two ended with a whimper rather than a bang), so it had a definite "end of recital" feeling to it.

If you're not sure, try playing the pieces in all of the different orders and see which you feel works best."


Thanks for your advice everyone. Ye i know what you mean Deborah - I want to end with a bang and the only very show-offy piece i have is the Beethoven - the last movement is stunning. And The Bach is fast and fun but that's only the Prelude - the fugue is very calm and I'd rather open with a nice Prelude (As it is an introductory piece). The Messiaen and Debussy are both quite slow so I'm not too fussed about which order they go in as long as they're not openers or closers.

I like the idea of chronolgy as, especailly for the pieces I've chosen, as the music becomes more modern it's easy to see a development of musical idea and form - the Bach is functional and quite simple in terms of ornamentation and fancy passages. The Beethoven is very fast and uses more keyboard techniques and then the Messiaen is the height of 20th century piano music - very chromatic and it has no direction - but it doesn't have a big finish. It ends on a strange chord and very quietly.

Thank you for your help everybody. I'll take this all into account when I make my final decision

Whatever running order you settle upon, be prepared to discuss your running order, and the reasons behind it, in the Viva. My examiners had picked up on the fact that my programme ran in reverse chronological order and asked about this. Fortunately they didn't pick up on the fact that the programme was also in alphabetical order of composer surname - a coincidence, promise!

knowing that there's no rule about whether one should memorise their music, but i would have thought that most pianists play without music.....

and mine was in a purely 'nice sounding order' rather than chronological / alphabetical etc.

However I was fully prepared for the question about " why did you select that order" and was able to answer it along the lines of the xxx 'released the tension' created by the previous piece and that the slower more stately work created a contrast with ... etc

The examiner seemed well satisfied with my answer and in fact commented on " a delightful programme'.

Don't feel that you have to follow a specific order but do be sure of your rationale behind the order you select

A general question, so I hope I'm not hijacking a thread, but it's relevant.

When I did ALCM I didn't have to do a viva, and chronological order suited the nature of the pieces anyway, so that just seemed the most natural thing to do. However, thinking for the future, I would like to simply play first whatever I was most comfortable with - to get settled. Assuming that this was something that was also easy on the ears, would it be reasonable - following on from what musicman said - to say that you were easing your 'audience' in gently, rather than put them under too much pressure from the outset? I do think some beefier music is easier to listen to after listening to 'easier' stuff first, so it wouldn't just be a cop-out.

As has been said, Chronological order seems to be the default and for good reason. However, "rules" like that are there to guide judgement, not to usurp it and should always to be taken with a pinch of "break these rules if it works better". In this case I really like the order you've put. At the end of the recital you can just imagine an audience bursting into applause and you taking your bow after the final run & chord of the Pathetique, whereas after the other three it doesn't quite seem such a powerful image.

I will add my usual rider about the Pathetique being Hackneyed (though I may try it myself when the time comes - who knows!) and taking the path less travelled, but apart from that - a very nice program. Good luck

Thanks Ye i agree the end of the pathétique is just more "finishy". Two nice big chords and a run down the piano. The Messiaen and Debussy are very quiet and gentle pieces and the Bach Fugue is never going to be a big finish. I'm still considering swapping the pathetique for another beethoven sonata for the reason you give - it is over played and a lot of the time it isn't played very well so I don't want to not do the piece justice!

P.S. got my grade 8 results back yesterday :D 130

Fantastic piece. To play it well you need an almost complete technique. So it properly demonstrates your ability (or exposes your weaknesses)

All the more reason to play it and play it well

Congratulations



True, but when I did it there was a compulsory 3 hour paper (quite a stiff one) on theory and the history of music, and you had to know ALL the scales and arpeggios, major and minor, chromatic, similar and contrary motion, a 3rd apart, etc. etc.

This looks a bit scary!
How many of you have played your programme from memory? I wasn't planning on doing that at all!! In fact, I know I would go to pieces (no pun intended!) if I tried!

I haven't read the syllabus for a while, but as far as I can remember there is absolutely no requirement for candidates to perform from memory. There are, of course, certain conventions for real live performing professionals - anyone singing in an opera would look a bit daft with the score in front of them; conversely, I can't really imagine a whole orchestra performing from memory - but an exam is an artificial environment.

Whatever you do, be prepared to discuss it in the Viva (the sample questions quoted in the syllabus do include a couple about performing from memory).