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!
Topic: Repertoire List (not what you think)