never understood poulenc

[ravel]

havent really heard much of his music.
just a couple of cds, one with his works for two pianos i think , and another  recordign of pascal roge playing his complete solo piano works.
i love debussy and ravel, but poulenc seems to be a very different composer. never really understood his music.  maybe i didnt listen to the music properly. but its the very sound , i didnt like too much. i dont know....
what would be THE BEST introduction to his music.

[BoliverAllmon]

complete solo piano works sounds like a good start to me.

[stevie]

pulenc is unqiue, and IMO great.

his best work, ive heard, are his chamber music.

his violin and cello sonatas are great, but my favourite is the flute sonata,

[gkatele]

I've read through (badly and slowly) his first Nocturne and the Perpetual Motions.

I find them delightful, quirky and very 20th century - in a Prokovief meets Shostakovich meets melodic Stravinsky kind of way. I'm sure that if I applied myself, I could learn the music that I mentioned.

Look at the nocturnes - they're wonderful.

[4tissimo]

You might be referring to Poulenc's "Concerto for 2 Pianos?"  We did it in undergrad and I liked it . . . a lot.  As a low brass--tbn/baritone hrn--major, I especially like his Trio for Horn, Tpt. & Tbn.

[mrdaveux]

To love Poulenc, don't take yourself too seriously. I mean, you fon't find the depth of Beethoven's op.111 or Brahms' Requiem.

His music is fresh, spontaneous, full of wit and irony, tender and melancholic sometimes. I recommand for piano solo his 13 improvisations as a good introduction.

[pianistimo]

cool.  and also, i'm working the nocturne.  it's really beautiful though probably not a starting piece. (lots of accidentals)  the thing about poulenc is that it is still 'romantic' in the sense that he is taking the basic forms of romantic (and middle ages/rennaisance music forms and combining them with new sounds and somewhat new piano technique.