Repertoire List (not what you think)

[amanfang]

This is NOT another "Here's my repertoire, what do you think" thread.

The question is this:

When considering your "repertoire list" what do you include in it?  Have the pieces that you have on it been seriously studied?  Are they (or were they at one time) all memorized?  Do get it just so that it's "playable" and then add it? 

[allthumbs]

My repertoire list has all the favorite pieces that I have studied seriously in the past mixed in with new pieces that I can manage that I really like.

I have all the pieces memorized that I have studied along with some later pieces that I have worked on myself.

Other pieces are in various stages in the learning process. Some I can play half decent with the music, as they haven't been completely set to memory yet, while the rest I can sight read through but they are no where near performance ready.

I have anywhere between 5 and10 pieces like this.

I also have one or two pieces that are way above my technical ability to play well and I continually work on the technical aspects to hopfully raise my technical level.

Cheers

allthumbs

[amanfang]

I mean like a formal repertoire list - like if someone asked it for professional purposes.

[thorn]

i only include in my repertoire list pieces that if i was asked to perform in a concert situation, i would be comfortable playing after a couple of days revision.

in other words- pieces am 100% comfortable with

[allthumbs]

i only include in my repertoire list pieces that if i was asked to perform in a concert situation, i would be comfortable playing after a couple of days revision.

in other words- pieces am 100% comfortable with

I don't have a repertoire!

[kriskicksass]

I don't have a repertoire!

Me neither!!! I include mostly pieces that I've performed in the past, but also some pieces that I've studied by never polished. There are limits to that, though. If it's for performance purposes (instead of conservatory purposes, where I love to pad the list >_>), I never put down something that I didn't get to the polishing stage, lest I be asked to play it and be humiliated.

[desordre]

 Dear Amanfang:
 Mr. Thorn said it: pieces that you're confortable with. Anyway, I would like to share some thoughts about this topic. You wrote that you don't have a repertoire. Excuse me, but this is probably not true. Either (95%) you have to organize yourself or (5%) you have a terrible teacher. Assuming that the later is not the case, you're problem about this is certainly of focus and goals. But let's consider some issues.

 I think that recitals are a growing thing that you take care of, something like a plant. It's impossible to make a tree grow just looking at the seeds and thinking: "Grow high! Grow high! Now!". However, sometimes in the life of a musician that is what happen. Why? Because the standards someone have are too high. Example: what are the recitals or concerts that you attented to and that you remind with fondness? Probably they are great moments of your life, also. So, when you think about your own recital, that's the benchmark you have. Just to quote a personal situation, one of these moments to myself was Mrs. Argerich and Mr. Freire, in their duo, i.e., surely a level of piano playing and musicianship that I will not reach in my whole life.

 The second issue is a delicate one, since it "attacks" almost anybody. As Bernhard wrote (at least I think that was he) "earlier is better than later". This evolves from a mix of the forementioned problem (impossible standards) with some grade of perfectionism. Here, I have to remark the last phrase of Mr. Thorn:

(...)in other words- pieces am 100% comfortable with

To achieve such a level, you have to play live your repertoire (or a single piece, for that matter) several times. So, the first time you will never be 100% confortable. It's the same with theater, for instance. So, it's better to start as soon as possible.

 Third: modesty and intelligence (directly related, again, to the first issue). OK! You love a piece, you did expend two years playing it, you had classes about it, you played it live, you used all you know about mastering a piece. And it doesn't work. Why? Because the piece is beyond you. Be careful: I'm not suggesting you must not play anything you want or have to. I think it is of foremost importance to play "impossible things" now and then, to force your limits and go through them. But is stupidity trying to play a piece in this conditions live, or to include it in a repertoire. I attend to a recital some years ago, of a very good pianist and friend of mine (he's not known, hence I'm not quoting his name). Among another works, I listened sometime before this he playing Chopin's Scherzo 3 very well indeed. But in this particular concert, he did attempt the Liszt Sonata and, unfortunately, he failed. Despite the fact that he did manage the piece in rehearsal, and I think most of its technical challenge, in the recital situation it suffered.

 How to create a repertoire, then? In my modest and sincere opinion, there are some ideas that shall help:
 - lenght: start by managing half-hour of music (to divide a recital with a mate, or to play a "pocket" recital). Then, 45 minutes. Then two half-hours. Then two 45 minutes. Then an hour. And so on. Notice that it easier to have two halves than one complete hour of music.
 - difficulty: a good repertoire is a mix of several "grades". There is no problem about playing a recital made of  Beethoven's opus 106, Liszt's anything, a Prokofiev's sonata, and some Messiaen. But a good recital is less about great difficulty than great quality. In practical terms, a "bomb" is enough, but be careful to not choose something you can't manage. "Bomb" is the most difficult thing you can play without dying. The rest is made of descending levels of difficulty.
 - conception: the relation between the pieces, and the arches of the recital. Will you play a well-rounded program, or just a composer, or a genre, or what? Anything is possible, it's just a matter of originality and interest (to the public). Then, will it have how many parts and what shall be the order of the pieces?

 Yes, I'm talking about a single recital, but to construct a repertoire is just like this, but in larger scale. Anyway, there's another idea that usually makes things easier: relate your recital as much as you can. For example, your recital is:
 Mozart's Fantasia 397;
 Beethoven's Sonata opus 2/1;
 three waltzes by Chopin;
 some preludes by Debussy.
 What's next? If you choose some Haydn, plus a Scarlatti or CPE Bach Sonata, you have a preety, balanced, interesting Classical recital. Foremost, since you already play Mozart and Beethoven, it's halfway there. And these two will probably sound very better. Hence, you have a clear path to study repertoire, play it in public, have lots of prepared recitals (with 10 pieces or groups of smaller pieces you can think of dozens of recitals), and - most of all - have lots of fun.
 If you need some further help, please let me know the pieces you have studied and love to play, and the condition they are, and we might discuss what to do.
 Best to you, and Happy New Year!

[desordre]

 Dear Amanfang:
 I went through some sort of stream, and did not really answered your questions. Since I think they're important, let's go.

When considering your "repertoire list" what do you include in it?

Pieces that I've been playing for some time, with no less than four or five performances of it. Sometimes, I include a new piece that I'm very confident with. And another ones, I include a music that I did not play for a long time, but want to play again.

Have the pieces that you have on it been seriously studied?

Of course. To myself, "seriously studied" is what I'm talking about with four or five live performances. I really don't think you did master a piece and play it well since you can't do it live and loud. Do a flawless and meaningful rendition at your piano in your house is good, but is also very far from enough.

Are they (or were they at one time) all memorized?

Here's is up to you, your public and your repertoire. I can play reading as good as I play by heart. The question is, when you study very badly some piece, it's almost impossible not memorizing it in the process. Anyway, sometimes you have to play with the score: 1) because you need to play something you hadn't time to memorize (new pieces, "confront" pieces, etc) or 2) because you need to play something you can't memorize (happen a lot with contemporary music) or 3) because you don't have to memorize (accompaniment parts).

Do get it just so that it's "playable" and then add it?

Take care: something you think is playable or easy sometimes turns into a nightmare, specially when you have a deadline over your head.
 Best!

[hodi]

any piece u performed in the past u can get it under your hands very very quickly, believe me
in just 1 month.

[musicsdarkangel]

welll you have to put it in an order like this


Work 1 - Something 21st century or romantic

Work 2 - Symphonic transcription of Liszt

Work 3 - fillers (nonimportant works, like Chopin Ballades, Liszt Sonata, etc)

intermission

Work 4 - Another 21st century piece (preferably German)

Work 5  - Baroque Warhorse

Encore - another Liszt symphonic transcription, usually Wagner

[elevateme]

Work 3 - fillers (nonimportant works, like Chopin Ballades, Liszt Sonata, etc)

what do you mean nonimportant?

[amanfang]

I'm thinking more along the lines of giving to a school who wants a repertoire list along with an audition - not necessarily a repertoire list of what I plan for a concert tour.

[pianistimo]

i'm in complete agreement with desordre about mostly everything she says.  and, that your teacher should have helped you long before now - to have this list complete.  if he/she did not help you keep a repertoire list - or doesn't have record of it - this is shameful.

teachers should look ahead for their students.  of course they are going to want to go further than their current teacher.  it is obvious that one teacher is never enough.  so - to prepare them - you have to give them recital opportunities to fulfill the performance of a piece/s and set it in the student's mind as 'learned repertoire.' 

now, i'm not of a mind to say that it all HAS to be memorized. that started with liszt.  imo, i think it should be music that you don't have to stop and start in - and music that you enjoy playing and can put some feelings into.  my list comprises everything i ever learned.  no matter how small.

for instance...make sure you itemize all your bach preludes and fugues.  why not?  it's not passe.  all the little folk songs.  whatever.  i don't care.  make your list look big.  it doesn't look good to have three pieces and the rest of the page blank.  but, i have a feeling you have a larger repertoire than you think.  go to your music room - sit down.  pull one book off the shelf after another.  write down ALL the pieces you have EVER worked with AND without a teacher.  put stars by the pieces you learned with a teacher.  put them first on your list.  alphabetize and also - look to someone here to help you formally write out your repertoire in the most precise and up-to-date manner.  the universities are probably looking for an element of 'quality' to a person's repertoire list.  they want someone who is serious about piano.

be HONEST..and write at the end of your repertoire list the pieces that you have learned on your own (without help) and just call it 'in progress.'  it may not be performance standard - but it's something you are working or have worked (and probably already know all the notes and just need some finessing).

ps the school may actually have a formal policy in place (such as repertoire must be completely learned).  if this is the case - forget the 'work in progress' stuff - and just follow their guidelines.

here's a cute blog about 'tending a repertoire garden.'
https://musewings.blogspot.com/2005/10/tending-repertoire-garden.html

[nightingale11]

repetoire, in my opinion, includes pieces that you have done all the homework on(analysis, interpretion- which will in some cases change, the story behind the piece etc. - Bernhard has supplied on the forum a detailed list of this homework) and can play if someone ask you to. If you work on 20-30 pieces each month 10-15 of these should be repetoire pieces that you have learnt and are perfecting to performance and these can be considered repetoire but only temporary because  when you are satisfied with them you replace them with new pieces. However the real repetory begins when you have learned several pieces several times from scratch in a period of maybe 3-5 years so that you know them for life.

[desordre]

 Dear Pianistimo:

i'm in complete agreement with desordre about mostly everything she says.

Thank you very much, but I'm actually a man.
 Best!

[Mozartian]

any piece u performed in the past u can get it under your hands very very quickly, believe me
in just 1 month.

That's what my teacher told me, also. Does that mean memorized, btw? There are many pieces I can play decently that aren't memorized...

[pianistimo]

maybe it depends on your age?  at my age - i'm trying to make it come back.  at most of yours - you should be able to - no problem!  whatever it takes.  ginko, exercise (to me, this is super de duper important if you want to have less mistakes), and record yourself or listen to cd's over and over.  play with the tape.

for university, it's probably important to have as much memorized as possible.

ps.  i am very sorry desordre - for confusing you for a 'she.'  the name seemed similar to deidre or something - but it's a completely different name.  must be the dyslexic in the back of my head trying to come out. 

[amanfang]

I decided to put the things that I have seriously studied to the point of memorization, or at least partial memorization from the last 6 years (since the start of my university studies).  I have not kept everything memorized of course, and some of them I could not play right now (as in, it would take me a few weeks to get larger works back up to performance par).