Rare Repertoire

[mig]

How much rare rep, is too much? I mean, for a person aiming at a concert career. I really would enjoy playing stuff like Alkan, but my teacher seams to be against it. I really want to play Rach 4, but he does want me to. As an argument, I say that almost everybody plays the common works, but the rarer pieces is where you can stand out. But he counters it by saying that nobody really cares for the lesser works... What's your opinion about it? In what proportion should std. rep and rare rep be studied?

[lau]

 i love xen, i like your future post

[I Love Xenakis]

I feel for you, truly.


I think that really you have to make a name for yourself by playing the common repertoire WELL and usually entering competitions.  Once you have done that I think it's ok to delve into the more uncommon repertoire, but not until you've established yourself as a good pianist.  But playing composers that are infamous for being difficult is also a way to get a name for yourself EG Xenakis, Finnissy, Barlow, Sorabji etc.

Whip out EVRYALI


And I <3 you too lau.

[superstition2]

Rachmaninov 4th is not too rare. The original version was performed in Cincinnati two years ago, for instance. If you want to learn it, stick with the original or 1927 versions. There have been too many recordings of the butchered final "revision". I'm certain that, if you learn the original or 1927 version, you'll be able to find concert halls to perform the piece in. After all, each of them has only been recorded once. People are tired of the 2nd and 3rd concertos, and the 4th (original or 1927) is a wonderful piece.

I think it's wise to learn a mixture of obscure and common pieces. That way, you're more likely to get to record (obscure) and perform (common). Who needs another recording of Tchaikovsky's 1st concerto? What we need are more recordings of Tcherepnin's 5th concerto, Rachmaninov's 4th (original or 1927), Tviett's 1st, Scriabin's concerto, etc. Scriabin's concerto is well represented by two recordings already, so it's not terribly obscure.

Obscure repetoire of the highest quality isn't easy to come by, in the piano concerto realm. But, obscure piano sonatas of high quality are relatively easy to come by, especially those of the early 20th century. Myaskovsky's 2nd and 3rd. Roslavets' 5th. Ornstein's (unfortunately, never written down or recorded... so not so easy to come by!).

A lot of obscure repetoire is banal, which is why it never caught on. That's not true in all cases, though. Roslavets wrote some outstanding pieces, but was forgotton by the music world because of Soviet politics. Myaskovsky's early sonatas became forgotton for the same reason.

[BoliverAllmon]

In reality though it all depends on what kind of a career you want to have. if you want to be famous like Horowitz, then stick to common repertoire and pray for a miracle. If you are satisfied with making a few recordings, make 60,000ish a year in concerts, and be relatively unknown then you can do the more obscure pieces. There was a pianist who came by our school a while back and did a recital by all African composers. In talking with him he mentioned that he makes a career in playing obscure stuff. in fact, he has had concerts where he had to GUARANTEE that no chopin, rachmaninoff, liszt, beethoven, bach, mozart, or any of the other greats were to be performed.  he lives nicely off of his concerts. He isn't living the high life, but it gets by just fine.

boliver

[quantum]

It doesn't matter if nobody cares what you play.  As long as you care about the music, that is what really matters as this can bring you real enjoyment. 

If you like the rare repertoire, there is no reason why you shouldn't explore it. 

[mcgillcomposer]

I agree with I Love Xenakis on this one.

Take Marc-André Hamelin as an example.  He established himself, and now he plays all sorts of obscure stuff.

- Andrew

[superstition2]

Horowitz played some rare repetoire, as far as I understand. He popularized Scarlatti and championed Clementi. He played and recorded Prokofiev's 7th sonata, a performance the composer called "a revelation". He said he played quite a bit of late Scriabin even though he didn't feel the public generally liked it.

I would have rather had him spend more time playing Russian composers like Scriabin, Prokofiev, and Rachmaninov than composers like Schumann and Clementi. It's really unfortunate, practically criminal, that there's no recording of his performance of the original version of Rachmaninov's second sonata, the piece he used at his graduation recital.

[lostinidlewonder]

Here's my two cents. You can play anything so long you know how to present it to the audience. If you play "rare" music and have no idea how to explain to the audience what it is about then you will have no hope doing it justice. If you play rare music you have to make it known to the people, let them know everything about it so it is no longer a mystery, no longer an unknown, rarely played piece.

Make sure you choose peices which connect to one another so that your concerts are not confusing. Don't do one peice from this guy and one from that, but complete works, complete movements from composers. Also there is nothing wrong balancing your repetoire with both common and uncommon, that is the best way, there is no point just doing common works or uncommon, do both, mix them around.

[mike_lang]

I agree with I Love Xenakis on this one.

Take Marc-André Hamelin as an example.  He established himself, and now he plays all sorts of obscure stuff.

- Andrew

Stephen Hough, too.

[Motrax]

While on the subject, is there a two-piano reduction fo the original Rachmaninoff 4th Concerto? Who publishes it?