bach,beeth and moz

[matt haley]

  hey folks

 jus wondered does anyone agree that the music of these composers is harder to play perfectly as opssoesd to composers such as liszt and chopin...
i know there is a lot of rubato in chopin but i find that theres so much clarity needed to perform an awesome diplay of a a mozart,beethoven or bach peice...

i just feel there is a lot less margin for error and you can get away with more when playing chopin/liszt...

am i tallkin nonesense or does anyone see my point

   thanks

   matt haley

[mike_lang]

I don't think necessarily that it is more difficult to play Beethoven, Bach, Mozart for the reasons you mention.  Someone once said (maybe it was Bolet - someone help me out here) that there are only a handful of pianists in every generation that can play Liszt well.  The problem is that the standard is not as high on Liszt, for one - the technical aspect becomes an end, rather than a means to the musical potential that Liszt saw in the piano through great piano writing.  Food for thought.  I think that there is more to be found musically in Beethoven than Chopin and Liszt, but perhaps in Chopin and Liszt the musical richness is less accessible because of the technical barrier.

I hope this gives some food for thought - it wasn't clear to me whether you were considering this from a technical standpoint or from a musical one.

Michael

[matt haley]

 well you made a good point,i wasnt reffering to technical ability but just soley musically....
i agree the majority of liszts work and some of chopins may entirley be more difficult  (still subjective)but musically as you put it NOT AS RICH... i think thats a crucial point you made...

 my question should of been do you find beethoven and bach etc harder musically say to chopin and liszt..


although liszt was a phenomenal pianist and wrote some fantastic works i still feel that a lot of his music for example transcendental etudes( excluding te no 10) do very very little for me musically...

i can apprecite the difficulty technically needed but i hear very little music...... 

[Kassaa]

i can apprecite the difficulty technically needed but i hear very little music...... 

Then you are deaf.

[matt haley]

kassaa my friend i am not swiping liszt...i am only stating an opinion..

im a pianist my self and one of my favourite pieces ever written is liszt hungarian rhapsody no12 which i learnt a few years back, i love a lot of his music...

however..

why is it whenever i speak to audiences ive played for do the majority despise the works of liszt,they all know and love liebestraum but play any te etude or grand etude,they are never keen on them...

over the years ive come to realise there point....

may be a painful one for you but  IMHO there is far much more music in bach and beethoven and i think that is the reason why they are seen upon the highest mantle!!!

[pianistimo]

maybe you mean the melodies are shorter and more acknowledgeable.  with liszt and chopin - they faze in and out and sometimes you really need more of an understanding of composition to catch the intricacies of what they are doing.  but, then you have mozart, who 'seems' extremely open - when really he's doing something tricky, too.  maybe it's just what you play well and are in the mood for.  certain people's personalities seem to fit their music - just like people to pets.  you watch them walk by and see the similarities.

i am drawn to music i can play.  it might not be koji's music (actually i like his choices, too) but i don't start getting envious really because i enjoy listening to him play whatever he's playing and like the differences.  if we all played or liked the same thing - life would be boring. 

kind of tend to like smaller pieces and more detail in the smallness.  but, occasionally big pieces, too.  also, i think pianists choose what they can do time-wise.  i've learned it's much better to finish a piece than sit on it for years.  i hate not to completely learn a piece.  just workinga little bit on it every day.  even if it is sightreading over and over until i 'get it.' 

even the smallest pieces in repertoire can be 'charming' as people ususally say.  you astound them with your tone, your melodiousness, and your wayward rubatos that never fully cross over the tempo but - tease it.  i've learned to be a bit more strict - and yet not too strict - because then y ou have people saying 'plays like a robot, not musical.'  on the other hand, (with classical music) you can have people saying 'takes too many liberties, plays it too 'romantically.'  i like clear concise listening whether beethoven/mozart or liszt/chopin/debussy.   have learned that the secret is not always to pedal right on the beats.  sometimes some quick three-step pedalling, sometimes half-pedalling, sometimes whatever makes it sound good (really light, to full pedal).  maybe what matters more than what you play - is if it sounds good.

[mike_lang]

Also, while Chopin (in my opinion) did not develop in his life time to the extent that Beethoven did, or Stravinsky, I think that Liszt changed a lot.  He matured a lot over his 75 years, from the days of Paganini imitation to things like Nuages Gris.  I regret that I generalized when I made my comment earlier about Liszt lacking complex musicality.  Just as we look at Beethoven's later works, his string quartets, his last piano sonatas, etc., we must also look at Liszt's later work.  This is the work that is the composite of his life's journey.  Just as Beethoven's op. 2 no. 1 is not representative of his finest work, neither are the Paganini etudes.  I think it was Earl Wild who sectionalized Liszt's works for a series of 3-day concerts into the Demonic Liszt, the Poetic Liszt, and perhaps Liszt the transcriber (unsure about this one).  We can't just look at the etudes and the character pieces, but at the ones that represent a life's work.

Food for thought.

Best,
Michael

[bach-liszt]

I spoke with an orgainst friend who commented that a Bach piece he was performing was "so exposed"---  meaning so open for mistakes to be easily discernable, thus making it more challenging.

[maxy]

  hey folks

 jus wondered does anyone agree that the music of these composers is harder to play perfectly as opssoesd to composers such as liszt and chopin...
i know there is a lot of rubato in chopin but i find that theres so much clarity needed to perform an awesome diplay of a a mozart,beethoven or bach peice...

i just feel there is a lot less margin for error and you can get away with more when playing chopin/liszt...

am i tallkin nonesense or does anyone see my point

   thanks

   matt haley

I think I see your point, and I agree.

IMO, in order of difficulty starting with nastiest: Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven... 
I find it is extremely hard to play their pieces very well.

Chopin, Liszt, Prokofiev may require greater physical "preparation" before even considering tackling their pieces, but once that is taken care of, their pieces are not that nasty overall.

[supertonic]

I agree with Matt that it's harder to play Bach, Moz, Beet perfectly. The problem is, the more you practice and the more familiar you are with the pieces, the worse it become because you start to lose the concentration and focus on every single note, when every note become so automatic and spontaneous (or carelss, I should say). At least this is true for me.