what pieces to give to more advanced students?

[sybre]

For those of you who teach more advanced students or students who have finished their ABRSM grade 8 exams, what pieces do you normally give them to learn in terms of repertoire, studies, etc, and which are absolutely essential for them to learn up?

[bernhard]

As far as advanced students go, it is pretty much up to them to choose what they wnat to play next (unless they are fulfilling requirements for an exam or competition). As such I rarely impose anything - although I may share music I enjoy with them. But to my amazement I discovered a few years ago that my musicla taste was far from universal!

Having said that, If I was to suggest a syllabus fo the most important pieces fo the advanced repertory they would comprise only three works. The reason for this choice is that once you master these three works you will be able to master pretty much anything else. unfortunately it may take a life time to master them.

Here they are:

1. the 48 preludes and fugues of the WTC (Bach)[the old testament]
2. the 32 piano Sonatas (Beethoven)[the new testament]
3. the 24 piano etudes (Chopin).[Revelation ]

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[chopiabin]

Do you typically have your students learn a big chunk of a collection of works, like the etudes, or do they just pick whichever piece suits them?

[bernhard]

As I said, it is just a suggestion.

Some of them accept it and make it a long term project to learn these 104 pieces (not an easy task!). Most of them just wnat to play whatever they want to play. there is no pressure one way or the other. At this level it is really up to the student how he/she wants to proceed.

[bernhard]

I just reread your question. Maybe that is not what you were asking.

Yes, I make a point of learning whole works, if this is structurally correct. For instance I do not teach single sonata movements. If someone wantso to learn the first movement of the Moonlight, s/he must learn the whole sonata. Also some composers must be learned this way, the most obvious example being Schumann. If you like the first piece in Papillons, you must learn the whole work. But the Album leaves are not perceived as a cycle, so it is all right (with me) to learn isolated pieces.

Likewise, the Chopin etudes are not really a cycle, so it is all right to learn separate pieces (although it makes sense to cover them all). However the Preludes are definitely a cycle and should be all learned.

At the end of the day I cannot force anyone to do what I want, but I can be pretty persuasive (in a nice way).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[allchopin]

3. the 24 piano etudes (Chopin).[Revelation ]

27.

Some of them accept it and make it a long term project to learn these 104 pieces

And thus, 107.

[bernhard]

Er.. I meant only Op. 10 and Op. 25. The 3 nouvelles etudes are not on the same level and therefore not required (by me).

So I stand by 104.

[bernhard]

And come to think of it, Beethoven wrote other sonatas apart from the 32 and Bach wrote more preludes and fugues than the 48.

I still stand by 104.

But of course anyone can (and should) learn whatever they want to learn.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

rach 3 my brothers and sisters. espicially the cadenzas. advanced students a willing to go to hell to get this rite

[Greg_Fodrea]

Bernhard's suggestions are hard to argue with!  I might add one composer with whom I've found much success with my advanced students, particularly those desiring to improve their sight-reading skills: Satie.

Now, before you advanced pianists jump down my throat, I KNOW that Satie is not the most complex music in the world, quite the contrary - Satie was one of the first minimalists, but his music is a great for sight-reading training because it is unpredictable.  Besides, my advanced students seem to really enjoy playing his music.

Just my two-cents worth...

[comme_le_vent]

i would say the next logical step is to play alkan's op 39 - the mount everest of the piano literature.

out of curiosity bernhard.....what do you do if your students want to learn these pieces....or even the dreaded sorabji opus clavibalisticam(or whetever)?

[bernhard]

I would teach it to them (after all I'm a teacher

However it will cost them

[BET23]

im curious, bernhard

if you play the piano enough still (r maybe you are too busy for some many hours of playing)... for you, yourself to play a piece from a work such as the opus 39 (alkan)... or something like a few of the godowsky studies?

thanks,

[bernhard]

im curious, bernhard

if you play the piano enough still (r maybe you are too busy for some many hours of playing)... for you, yourself to play a piece from a work such as the opus 39 (alkan)... or something like a few of the godowsky studies?

thanks,

Er... I'm not sure I understood your question

What exactly do you want to know?

[BET23]

can you physically play a piece such as alkans concerto for solo piano, r say the godowsky studies...

can you play that musically and at correct tempo... thats what i mean...

[bernhard]

No, I cannot because such music does not interest me. However if I developed an interest in it I certainly could play it.

It all boils down to time. I don't think I will ever be able to play all the piano music I am currently interested in (so much music, so little time... ), so I have to be selective.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[BET23]

could you tell me your feelings on ALKAN? im just curious as to how you feel about his music...

what you think is good , bad, etc?

thank u...

i see that it doesnt interest you, is that because you find it superficial? what composers do you tend to gravitate towards from the 19th century...?

thanks



Posted by: Bernhard Posted on: Mar 1st, 2004, 11:33pm
No, I cannot because such music does not interest me. However if I developed an interest in it I certainly could play it.  

It all boils down to time. I don't think I will ever be able to play all the piano music I am currently interested in (so much music, so little time... ), so I have to be selective.

[bernhard]

could you tell me your feelings on ALKAN? im just curious as to how you feel about his music...

what you think is good , bad, etc?

thank u...

i see that it doesnt interest you, is that because you find it superficial? what composers do you tend to gravitate towards from the 19th century...?

This is completely personal and has nothing to do with the merits of the composer. Also I am talking here about music that I want/do not want to play. There are many pieces I like immensely to listen to, but have no desire to play. There are other pieces I have no desire to play or to listen to. And finally there are pieces that are a pleasure both to play and to listen to.

Consider the matter of piano concertos. I love most of them, yet I am not be interested in playing any of them for the very simple reason that not being a professional performer my chances of ever getting to play a concert with an orchestra are pretty much nil. So there is little point and the time I would spend in such an ultimately futile endeavour can be best spent learning and playing one of the thousands of piano solo pieces that are on my list.

Now consider the matter of certain specific composers like Alkan and Rachmaninoff. My hands are not that big. I would be able to play certain of these pieces with great difficulty and the results would not be very satisfactory. Therefore I must take into account my physical limitations and look for repertory that is ideally suited to me personally. As you can see it has nothing to do with the merits of the composer/composition.

Finally there is the matter of my personal taste. I have got to the point of my life where I can learn whatever I want to learn (I have the technology – and I don’t need to conform to any syllabus or list of required pieces). And there is much I want to learn. So I have to get on with it and not get distracted by stuff I don’t care very much about, stuff that I am not ideally physically fitted to tackle and stuff that would require so much ancillary support (like an orchestra) that would be unlikely to come to fruition.

My taste has changed over the years. As a teenager I could never get enough of Chopin. Nowadays I cannot bear another Waltz or Mazurka or Nocturne. In fact the only pieces I still like are his preludes and Studies. I was never particularly crazy about Lizst, although he is without a doubt one of the greatest romantic composers (I love Gnomenreigen though).

Just to show you how my personal taste does not necessarily imply the greatness or inferiority of a composer, Mendelssohn is one of my favourites and yet I would probably have to say that he is a minor composer (for the piano at any rate). A major minor composer, but a minor composer nevertheless. And the same applies to Grieg, another composer I cannot get enough of.

Alkan on the other hand, although I am not particularly attracted to his music (I love his Esquisses though) is definitely a major composer, of the same ilk as Chopin, Liszt and Schumann. Underrated, but major nevertheless. And I am not that keen on Brahms  - another major, amazing composer that I much admire and yet do not like all that much.

At the moment, my favourite 19th century composer is Schumann. There is incredible depth and originality there. His music stands out immediately as something really special. Even his children pieces (Album for the young) are masterpieces.

In general I like specific pieces, rather than wholesale composers. For instance, I love Schubert’s Impromptus, but cannot stomach much else that he wrote.

Ultimately there are two different criteria for music appreciation: an objective one, where you analyse a piece and stand in awe at the composer’s greatness of vision, his skill in handling form and structure, his inventiveness in bending the rules and yet sticking with them, his daring in doing away with rules altogether and creating his own universe of sound. This is really intellectual.

And then there are emotional  criteria. This is basically a primeval reaction to music: “I love it”, “I hate it”. There is no analysis, no argument, no explanation.

Ideally one should inform the other: We might discover great intellectual depths in music we instantly like, and conversely we might come to like music we initially disliked – or were indifferent to - through an effort at understanding it .

However it is also possible to understand deeply the greatness of a composition and nevertheless dislike it intensely. As it is possible to love something we do not really understand at all.

And finally there is music that is like a time bomb. We think we don’t like it, and yet in due time it will explode us to smithereens.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[BET23]

thank you, great post...

[comme_le_vent]

bernhard do you ever recommend alkan to your students? or have you ever taught any of his works?

i have to admit im not the greatest intellectual on music in the world, and im not embarrased about it either,

i have another question bernhard, a tad unrelated, but anyway....
how can anyone say a piece of music is any greater than another objectively?
2 examples of great pieces of music -
A - beethoven's 9th symphony
B - yesterday by the beattles

more people have enjoyed yesterday than beethoven's 9th, but most classical experts would scoff at the idea of
it being as great a piece of music.
beethoven's 9th has musical architeture of a far grander scale, and far greater complexity.
how can any person definitively say which is the better piece of music?

[Clare]

but most classical experts would scoff at the idea of
it being as great a piece of music.

I don't agree. From my tiny experience doing music at university so far, all the experts there have a huge respect for masterpieces like 'Yesterday' and so on. Last week, in class, we had to listen to the Carpenters.

But, anyway, I'm being totally off topic.

[bernhard]

bernhard do you ever recommend alkan to your students? or have you ever taught any of his works?

No.

He is an advanced composer, and therefore it would take an advanced student to play it. My policy towards advanced students is that they should choose their pieces. Sadly no one has yet requested Alkan.

I am however very interested in his Esquisses. They are on my list of pieces to learn (for myself), I should get to them in another two years (I have a big list!)

how can anyone say a piece of music is any greater than another objectively?
2 examples of great pieces of music -
A - beethoven's 9th symphony
B - yesterday by the beattles

how can any person definitively say which is the better piece of music?

In absolute terms you cannot. Or at least no one has come up with an answer to this question to which everyone agrees.

The ultimate consensus seems to be this: How many times can you listen to a piece of music before you get completely fed up with it? And what makes you get fed up with a piece of music and not another?

So, yes, complexity, architecture, they all will play a part. But there is something much deeper. Here are two ways of looking at it:

1.      Music is a game with rules. As we get familiar with the rules we start enjoying the game more and more. We seem to particularly appreciate when composers come up with something completely unexpected but still within the rules. Sometimes, we also enjoy rules being broken. If we really enjoy this breaking of rules, they become the new rules and the process of enjoying unexpected effects within the rules repeats itself until the rules are again broken and the whole cycle restarts. Hence the different periods in music (Baroque, Classical, etc.). Hence the stagnation of classical music: Apparently all rules have been broken and all unexpected effects within the rules have been tried.

Good music is like a game of chess or go. Pop music is like tictactoe. Bad music is like a game whose rules are badly thought out.

The least important criterium is popular taste.

2.      Music is vibration. Our bodies have vibrations of their own. As music is played vibrations interact, resonate and have effects that are not perceivable at the conscious level. Superior music has beneficial effects. Inferior music has malefic effects. Such effects however are never perceived immediately, but only later in time. And then no one makes any correlation.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[comme_le_vent]

i dont 'get' the 2nd one, and i dont agree with the 1st completely

most people think(im pretty certain about this) that popular taste IS the ultimate concensus.

im not saying 'most people' are right, im just saying that it is interesting to ponder which is more VALID about the consensus - the opinion of the masses, or the opinion of someone like you and I.

and if youd like, please recommend or at least bring up alkan to your students, i think he is the single most generally attractive unknown composer. and i try to promote him at every chance, including now  

[bernhard]

most people think(im pretty certain about this) that popular taste IS the ultimate concensus.

im not saying 'most people' are right, im just saying that it is interesting to ponder which is more VALID about the consensus - the opinion of the masses, or the opinion of someone like you and I.

Are you telling me that 100 000 lemings cannot be wrong?

Actually I tend to side with Charles Rosen on this one. It is not the listening public that really matters - it it the playing public.

A piece will remain in the repertory not because the listening masses demand it, but because someone is determined to play it.

Alkan is a good example. It is mostly because Hamelin decided to play it that we know of it. It does not matter how many zillion persons want to listen to a piece, if no one will play it, that is pretty much it.

Therefore we, pianists rule!
Yeah!

[minsmusic]

A piece will remain in the repertory not because the listening masses demand it, but because someone is determined to play it.

Yep.  I'm taking some of my students to a recital this Friday night.  It didn't matter to me what he was playing, I just wanted my students to have the experience of being in the audience listening to a professional performance.

So if you come to Aussie and all you play is Alkan, I'll arrange a studio excursion to come and listen to you commelevent!

Bernhard, do you perform?

I only perform at my studio's recitals now and then (kids want to hear me, parents have requested etc - I only do it occassionally because the night belongs to the students, not me).  If so,  do you tour?  Or do you ever conduct workshops/seminars for teachers?  Or is this something that has never interested you.
Ooops, I guess this should go in the Dear Bernhard thread.  

[bernhard]

Bernhard, do you perform?

I only perform at my studio's recitals now and then (kids want to hear me, parents have requested etc - I only do it occassionally because the night belongs to the students, not me).  If so,  do you tour?  Or do you ever conduct workshops/seminars for teachers?  Or is this something that has never interested you.
Ooops, I guess this should go in the Dear Bernhard thread.  ;D

I do not perform professionally.

I do perform (as much as I can) informally (e.g.: I do the accompaniment for my recored students in exams and festivals, I play for friends and family, I participate in the occasional local school musical events, etc.)

I believe performing (in the sense of sharing music - not necessarily in the sense of becoming a concert pianist) should be the ultimate goal of piano learning.

Without exceptions all of my adult students tell me they don't want to perform, they just want to play privately for themselves. Without exception they are lying (he he he ;)). They are possessed of shyness which is a feeeling made up of a great desire to please and the even greater fear to fail to do so.

However after some lessons, they discover that performing is actually what they secretly wanted all along. It is like learning a magic trick (with which learning the piano has surprising parallels). What sould be the point of it unless you went on to fool someone?

I do advanced classes for teachers (which mostly consist of watching me teach followed by a discussion of what they have seen and why did this or that. I must say however that  I've never done so with a teacher that was not also a parent, that is up to this date the only teachers that showed an interest in what I was doing were the ones whose children studied with me in the first place. But that is fine. I am not inot the missionary business he he ;D)

One last word: I never perform in students recitals since the evening should really be theirs witout me "stealing the show" (not that I necessarily would be able to). The only exception to this rule is four hand or six hand pieces or recorder duets/consorts, when I may join in, but even there if possible at all I will have students doing it all.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[steven]

I cannot find the list ifor the Beethoven Sonates in order of difficulty like there is one on the WTC and the Chopin Etudes in this forum. Does anybody knows......

steven

As far as advanced students go, it is pretty much up to them to choose what they wnat to play next (unless they are fulfilling requirements for an exam or competition). As such I rarely impose anything - although I may share music I enjoy with them. But to my amazement I discovered a few years ago that my musicla taste was far from universal!

Having said that, If I was to suggest a syllabus fo the most important pieces fo the advanced repertory they would comprise only three works. The reason for this choice is that once you master these three works you will be able to master pretty much anything else. unfortunately it may take a life time to master them.

Here they are:

1. the 48 preludes and fugues of the WTC (Bach)[the old testament]
2. the 32 piano Sonatas (Beethoven)[the new testament]
3. the 24 piano etudes (Chopin).[Revelation ]

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I cannot find the list ifor the Beethoven Sonates in order of difficulty like there is one on the WTC and the Chopin Etudes in this forum. Does anybody knows......

steven

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2748.msg23723.html#msg23723
(Bernhard & Hmoll give a progressive difficulty list for all 32 sonatas)


Best wishes,
Bernhard.