I need help choosing a sonata!

[hwhat06]

Alright I have a college audition in a month and I want to play a sonata. Any suggestions? I don't care about the period, difficulty, length, etc. I just need some suggestions. And I do not want to play a piece that everyone has heard about 400 times...

Thanks
Will

[rc]

No criteria at all?

Well here's the first thing that popped into my head, one of my favorites (though I haven't got around to learning it, too much on the plate ATM):

Haydn Sonata in Ab, HobXVI:46 (L.31) - First movement has a flowing feel to it, long development.  Second movement is this rich adagio, it sounds like a lullaby to me, 4 part writing in spots looks like it could be tricky.  Finale is a presto, a lot of scalar runs, looks like something you could have some fun with flying around the keys at top speed.

[dnephi]

Hadyn Sonata in C-Sharp minor, think it's #26.

[cloches_de_geneve]

Alright I have a college audition in a month and I want to play a sonata. Any suggestions? I don't care about the period, difficulty, length, etc. I just need some suggestions. And I do not want to play a piece that everyone has heard about 400 times...

Thanks
Will

Here is a suggestions that is likely to (positively) suprise your jury:

F. Mendelssohn, Scottish Sonata (also called Scottish Fantasy), op. 28.

Apart from being terrific music, almost never played, you can show a huge range of musical and pianistic skills. It runs about 15 minutes not unlike some of the late Beethoven sonatas.

[pita bread]

You have a month to do this?

[Mozartian]

A month? Wow, you cut it even closer than I did, haha.

I'd strongly recommend a Haydn sonata- not as often heard as Mozart or Beethoven sonatas of comparable difficulty, and truly gems in many cases. The DM H. XVI no. 37 (like the c#m already recommended) is a nice and very short one, absolutely doable within a month.

It's MUCH better to play something "easier" confidently than something hard inconfidently, so don't try anything too crazy.

Good luck with auditions! Enjoy them- you'll probably get to play on a really nice piano, mmmmm.

[thalbergmad]

Classical - Clementi or Dussek

Romantic - Balakirev or Paderewski

Thal

[soliloquy]

Bartok, Berg, Vine 1, Dutilleux, Radulescu 4, Sciarrino 5, Scriabin 6, Scelsi 3, Morillo Cuarta Sonata, Ginastera 1, Ornstein 6, Prokofiev 4, Mosolov 2, Ravel

[phil13]

Bartok, Berg, Vine 1, Dutilleux, Radulescu 4, Sciarrino 5, Scriabin 6, Scelsi 3, Morillo Cuarta Sonata, Ginastera 1, Ornstein 6, Prokofiev 4, Mosolov 2, Ravel

Some of those seem a bit out of a month's range...

Phil

[dmk]

Some of those seem a bit out of a month's range...

Phil

I think its safe to say short of a professional all of those are outside of a months range

Vine 1 pfft......

dmk

[pies]

Prokofiev's 5th?

[cygnusdei]

Bartok, Berg, Vine 1, Dutilleux, Radulescu 4, Sciarrino 5, Scriabin 6, Scelsi 3, Morillo Cuarta Sonata, Ginastera 1, Ornstein 6, Prokofiev 4, Mosolov 2, Ravel

That must be the newly discovered Ravel sonata.

[Mozartian]

Classical - Clementi or Dussek

Romantic - Balakirev or Paderewski

Thal

The Balakirev is AMAZING, i really want to do that one sometime.

[jre58591]

The Balakirev is AMAZING, i really want to do that one sometime.

you dont know which balakirev sonata he is talking about. he wrote two, both in the key of b flat minor.

[thalbergmad]

The Balakirev is AMAZING, i really want to do that one sometime.

My God, she agrees with me.

Thal

[pianistimo]

which one are you talking about, thal?  confusion reigns.

 

[thalbergmad]

I am not sure i know myself.

I will have to look at the CD sleave.

Thal

[clavicembalisticum]

A very balanced piece, that also allows some exhibition would be Scriabin's 4th Sonata Op. 30. The two movements in which it is separated have moments that span from languid relaxation to pyrotechnic soundstorms. It is reachable within the month range, counting for the fact that you are probably not going to be doing 24/7 piano practice. Even if you do, you will have more time for the piece to mature.

Another, advisable one of the same composer would be the 9th Sonata (Black Mass) Op. 68. Both pieces contain enough elements to display mastery of the instrument.

If you want works that never _ever_ get played, I would go for Sorabji's Sonatas or Rachmaninoff's No 1. But that is way way more than a month.

That is about it.

[pianistimo]

he did say he didn't care about the difficulty.  hmmm.  what people say?  one month - entirely memorized?  or can you bring in the music?

[clavicembalisticum]

he did say he didn't care about the difficulty.  hmmm.  what people say?  one month - entirely memorized?  or can you bring in the music?

Scriabin is not easy, if you really want to bring in the music. Besides that, he can also go to the contest with opus clavicembalisticum if he wishes to. In anycase, personally i would pick a piece within reach that does not require me to acquire elements above reach within a month. Logistics are always more important than winning strategies and tactics.

[hwhat06]

wow like everyone jumped on this! well yes i have one month and i must play 2 pieces. for my first i will be playing chopin's grande polonaise in e flat, but i have that one memorized so i CAN bring my music for the sonata. i'll look at all these suggestions and pick the one i like the most. thanks for the advice and you can still keep them coming.

william

[ramseytheii]

A very balanced piece, that also allows some exhibition would be Scriabin's 4th Sonata Op. 30. The two movements in which it is separated have moments that span from languid relaxation to pyrotechnic soundstorms. It is reachable within the month range, counting for the fact that you are probably not going to be doing 24/7 piano practice. Even if you do, you will have more time for the piece to mature.

Another, advisable one of the same composer would be the 9th Sonata (Black Mass) Op. 68. Both pieces contain enough elements to display mastery of the instrument.

If you want works that never _ever_ get played, I would go for Sorabji's Sonatas or Rachmaninoff's No 1. But that is way way more than a month.

That is about it.

You exaggerate  - I've seen Rachmaninoff 1st sonata ("Faust") live twice, and also have two recordings of it by two different people!

I have the Berezovsky recording, but in this case I would have to say I find the Leslie Howard rendition superior.  Don't know if he has recorded it but I did hear it live.  I think it is a signature piece of his.  It was the kind of performance that makes me want to look at the score.

But I have to say, if you are preparing a sonata for college, you should be playing the classics.  At this time you should be playing music your teachers really know inside and out and can use to imrpove your whole piano approach.  If you bring in something loud and showy like Rachmaninoff 1st sonata, or I can't believe someone also suggest Opus clav., I feel it is generally pointless, because the chances will know anything about it are low.  You will probably know more about it, from praciticng it, then your teacher.  But what is the point of that?  Being esoteric only helps if your teacher is equally or more esoteric.


Walter Ramsey

[dmk]

But I have to say, if you are preparing a sonata for college, you should be playing the classics. At this time you should be playing music your teachers really know inside and out and can use to imrpove your whole piano approach. If you bring in something loud and showy like Rachmaninoff 1st sonata, or I can't believe someone also suggest Opus clav., I feel it is generally pointless, because the chances will know anything about it are low. You will probably know more about it, from praciticng it, then your teacher. But what is the point of that? Being esoteric only helps if your teacher is equally or more esoteric.


Walter Ramsey

Agreed, for the most part College's will ask for a classical sonata anyway.....the time for showing esoteric pieces can come in your 19th/20th/21st century requirement, particularly with less than a month.

I am not saying you should roll out the old 'Warhorses' like the Moonlight or the Pathetique, because that would almost be as equally ridiculous, but a bit of realism never goes astray.

If we are going to truly be helpful here these are my suggestions

Depending on how good you are Haydn HobXVI//: 32 in B minor.  Nice classical sonata- not really too hard but with good opportunity to display your skills

If you aren't quite up to that within a month (which is perfectly understandable depending on where you are at) the try Haydn HobXVI://42 in D major (i think this is the right Hob no)- It is only two movements long a slow and fast, its a little easier than the B minor but again I think its a good opportunity with this piece to show your versatility.

I think the Beethoven op 49's are too easy but I think the next step up (say around the op 2 n1) is probably harder than the Haydn.

good luck

dmk

[clavicembalisticum]

You exaggerate  - I've seen Rachmaninoff 1st sonata ("Faust") live twice, and also have two recordings of it by two different people!

Exaggerating? That work is indeed a very nice one and it is not widely played (unfortunately). If a work is played by specific artists it does not mean that it is widespread because they travel around with it. Also, he said that technical issues are non existant. A month would be enough for somebody fully trained. But in anycase, it would be a bit pushing it if you are to bring this in a college recital. If you can pull it off you walk out smoking...

Pieces like this tend to either wreck or lift you, mostly because you have to put a lot of mind into them, they force you to get played in a particular manner. In anycase, it was a suggestion made with specific criteria, devoid of the whole picture for your eventual and more realistic requirements.

But I have to say, if you are preparing a sonata for college, you should be playing the classics.  At this time you should be playing music your teachers really know inside and out and can use to imrpove your whole piano approach.  If you bring in something loud and showy like Rachmaninoff 1st sonata, or I can't believe someone also suggest Opus clav., I feel it is generally pointless, because the chances will know anything about it are low.  You will probably know more about it, from praciticng it, then your teacher.  But what is the point of that?  Being esoteric only helps if your teacher is equally or more esoteric.

Walter Ramsey

I would NOT reccomend OC to anyone but to the ones that are highly motivated and eager to go after the audience who would go and listen to that. Also, the lengthier the work, the easier it is for the "coughing" to emerge... It is not like in that case you can start skipping the "variations" easily.

Regarding the Scriabin issue, there is a point where most people I see in competitions / exams / recitals tend to put aside. Scriabin's work is not actually late - romantic russian school, and romanticizing that music may seem right, but it is not right at all. You may get away with the initial chopinesque Scriabin for example, but his later works are free of the francopolish echo. A truly scriabinesque execution of Scriabin's works has immense impact on the audience. Immense. Because it gets played the way it should be.

This is why I believe that Scriabin's works may be a very balanced way to do things within this timeframe.

But let's do not forget a decisive factor. If you are to play for an audience that things everything after Mozart is inferior, well, do not go with Stockhausen, you will only end up hurting your feelings.

Another thing:

you should be playing music your teachers really know inside and out

Why? Well, ok, I hope that eventually he will learn how to coach himself. Knowing your limits on your own, is the first step towards expanding them.

[ramseytheii]

Why? Well, ok, I hope that eventually he will learn how to coach himself. Knowing your limits on your own, is the first step towards expanding them.

The reason is you are not getting the value of the teacher if you are constantly bringing in pieces that they have never studied themselves.  Claude Frank, in fact, doesn't listen to pieces from students that he doesn't know.  And why should he?  He spent a lifetime mastering the classics, something which is decidedly out of fashion.  People should go to him to absorb his knowledge and mastery, not be esoteric. 

The other problem is that when the teacher odesn't know the music or style thoroughly, you won't receive as thorough a criticism, which will be an obstacle to your improvement.  In fact one feels sometimes that students will choose esoteric works often for that very reason: to avoid strong criticism, since nobody knows the piece.  They are only hurting themselves in those decisions.

Walter Ramsey

[clavicembalisticum]

The reason is you are not getting the value of the teacher if you are constantly bringing in pieces that they have never studied themselves.  Claude Frank, in fact, doesn't listen to pieces from students that he doesn't know.  And why should he?  He spent a lifetime mastering the classics, something which is decidedly out of fashion.  People should go to him to absorb his knowledge and mastery, not be esoteric. 

In anycase this is wrong. I will not argue with you any further on why a teacher may end up being the biggest limit ever from some point on, since your mentality always requires somebody to confirm what you are doing, and you never do things that have not been done by your teacher.

Frank could have just read the scores of the pieces and try to see the sound behind them. Wouldn't that be a cuepoint for him? Ravel was desperate in asking people NOT to interpret his pieces but to PLAY the score. The music is IN THE SCORE. Taking an isolated comment out of the greater context may not have the results you want. If you want me to go on this road, I will only go through it once: Sergei Rachmaninoff himself commented that Horowitz plays contrary to how they had been taught, yet somehow with Horowitz it worked. Why? The comparison is among people of similar skills here, not a highbrowed teacher / student approach. If the student is stupid, and there are many, it is obvious that the general rule applies: teacher knows best.

There is a definite, irreplaceable need for a teacher when you need to reach a standard quality level of playing and there is no doubt about that. But it will not get you any further. If you do not "get" the music, no teacher will "help" you "get" it. And that my friend is an exceptionless rule. The later years Liszt never gave direct points in his masterclasses, mainly because he wanted the "students" to get things out of their beings the way they intended too, within what the pieces offered and not to be simple copycats. The same has been done with many other great masters of the instrument (note: I say masters, not teachers), over and over again.

The other problem is that when the teacher odesn't know the music or style thoroughly, you won't receive as thorough a criticism, which will be an obstacle to your improvement.  In fact one feels sometimes that students will choose esoteric works often for that very reason: to avoid strong criticism, since nobody knows the piece.  They are only hurting themselves in those decisions.

Walter Ramsey

Specialization is a scapegoat for teachers. People who want to go after a serious level of piano playing do not need spacegoats. Quality of piano playing can be showed even through pieces you have not heard before. It seems like your approach towards the "new" piece issue is one of immitation. That will work always if there is a certain standard level to reach. Never, ever for something different.

Music is not something that from a certain point on, can be taught. That point varies for everybody.

[ramseytheii]

In anycase this is wrong. I will not argue with you any further on why a teacher may end up being the biggest limit ever from some point on, since your mentality always requires somebody to confirm what you are doing, and you never do things that have not been done by your teacher.

Well apparently I hit a nerve.  I don't always require confirmation, but it is nice to get it, even when it comes in the form of a denial.   

I also don't argue about limits, because I don't care about limits as a viable point of view.  I only consider progress and improvement as points of view.  In that sense, I was arguing about how a teacher can be the most help for improvement, and my conclusion was to work with the teacher's strengths.

It can sometimes happen that the student wants to learn an esoteric piece, and the teacher is also willing to spend the time alongside the student learning the same piece.  This happened with me in conservatory when I decided to learn Schoenberg concerto, and my teacher, who had never played it, and I had a wonderful collaboration on it.  But this has to be agreed on between teacher and student, and not just be a student bringing in esoteric works just because.

Frank could have just read the scores of the pieces and try to see the sound behind them. Wouldn't that be a cuepoint for him? Ravel was desperate in asking people NOT to interpret his pieces but to PLAY the score. The music is IN THE SCORE. Taking an isolated comment out of the greater context may not have the results you want. If you want me to go on this road, I will only go through it once: Sergei Rachmaninoff himself commented that Horowitz plays contrary to how they had been taught, yet somehow with Horowitz it worked. Why? The comparison is among people of similar skills here, not a highbrowed teacher / student approach. If the student is stupid, and there are many, it is obvious that the general rule applies: teacher knows best.

You lost me here.  Are you saying that the general rule is students have similar skills as their teachers?  Then why do they have teachers?  And what on earth do you mean by "highbrowed?"  It sounds like you are accusing the whole system of apprenticeship as having the pungent odor of elitism.

As much as we would like to believe it, the markings in a score are not objective.  A forte does not indicate a precise decibel level, and a stacatto does not indicate a precise duration.  In fact, every composer uses these things in different ways; and, sometimes markings were misunderstood by the composers themselves (for instance when composers wrote Piu andante to mean a slower tempo).  Studying works of a composer in context of his others is therefore infinitely valuable and informative. 

If you are bringing esoteric works to your teacher, who has never approached the body of work of that composer, you will receive more superficial criticism, and that is not a critique of the teacher.  That is only natural. 

There is a definite, irreplaceable need for a teacher when you need to reach a standard quality level of playing and there is no doubt about that. But it will not get you any further. If you do not "get" the music, no teacher will "help" you "get" it. And that my friend is an exceptionless rule. The later years Liszt never gave direct points in his masterclasses, mainly because he wanted the "students" to get things out of their beings the way they intended too, within what the pieces offered and not to be simple copycats. The same has been done with many other great masters of the instrument (note: I say masters, not teachers), over and over again.

Actually according to Rosenthal, Liszt did this out of laziness and apathy towards teaching.  But I suppose everyone has a different viewpoint.  I think what you arguing isn't incorrect, but it's more than bland.  You seem to be assuming that once someone "gets" it, all questions are answered.  But there you are arguing from the standpoint of limits again, this time that knowledge and experience is limited.  But I say no - one can "get" something just fine, and yet improve upon it through the assistance of a teacher. 

This is especially so in the case of the classics, in which musical layering is so deep it can provide fodder for a lifetime of study.  Consider this quote by James Levine, about his teacher George Szell: "Szell forgot more about the classics then I will ever know."

I also find it curious that you take pains to make a distinction between masters and teachers.  Your post is seeming to me to be more and more anti-teacher on principle.  I can think of dozens of masters who are also teachers. 

Specialization is a scapegoat for teachers. People who want to go after a serious level of piano playing do not need spacegoats. Quality of piano playing can be showed even through pieces you have not heard before. It seems like your approach towards the "new" piece issue is one of immitation. That will work always if there is a certain standard level to reach. Never, ever for something different.

Music is not something that from a certain point on, can be taught. That point varies for everybody.

But you aren't bringing a piece to a teacher solely for the improvement of the quality of your piano playing - I hope.  The teacher is also there to provide the experience and knowledge, and sometimes ears, that the student lacks.  Actually, how can you expect someone to make a thorough critique of a piece they are hearing for the first time, played by a student?  The very notion is absurd.  And this little escape hatch is exactly how students can, and sometimes do, avoid thorough criticism.

If you consider learning from a teacher a matter of simple imitation, I only feel pity for you!

Walter Ramsey

[clavicembalisticum]

Well apparently I hit a nerve.  I don't always require confirmation, but it is nice to get it, even when it comes in the form of a denial.   

You did not. Your exemplary sophistry has already been proven ineffective more than 2000 years ago by Aristotle. Hasn't any "teacher" taught you that?

It can sometimes happen that the student wants to learn an esoteric piece, and the teacher is also willing to spend the time alongside the student learning the same piece.  This happened with me in conservatory when I decided to learn Schoenberg concerto, and my teacher, who had never played it, and I had a wonderful collaboration on it.  But this has to be agreed on between teacher and student, and not just be a student bringing in esoteric works just because.

One word: collaboration. This would require for people collaborating to be large enough to eat their own words, ie "students of the truth". When Tchaikovsky went to Rubinstein with his first piano concerto, the only thing that Rubinstein did not do was to shoot and bury him. Nevertheless, things changed after a while and Rubinstein understood what had originally been done with the work. As Tchaikovsky wrote in one of his letters:

"... I had written a Piano Concerto. Not being a pianist, I considered it necessary to consult a virtuoso as to any points in my concerto which might be technically impracticable, ungrateful or ineffective. I had need of severe critic, but at the same time one kindly disposed towards me."

You lost me here.  Are you saying that the general rule is students have similar skills as their teachers?  Then why do they have teachers?  And what on earth do you mean by "highbrowed?"  It sounds like you are accusing the whole system of apprenticeship as having the pungent odor of elitism.

Read what I wrote again and again, until practice makes it perfect:

There is a definite, irreplaceable need for a teacher when you need to reach a standard quality level of playing and there is no doubt about that. But it will not get you any further.

As much as we would like to believe it, the markings in a score are not objective.

The notes are. Dynamics is the word you are trying to find here, and dynamics may differ after composition time, with the composer himself changing them in live performances of his own works. This is an argument that has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but at it stands, "harmonics" has always the override on "dynamics" since dynamics becomes dependent on it. The same goes with the tempi you have to follow. Another example comes from romantic pianism vs Scriabin when it comes for example to the later Scriabin works. This is why, we find unusual italian words garnishing the scores like ... "legendaire". By using a tautological argument you prove no point.

A forte does not indicate a precise decibel level, and a stacatto does not indicate a precise duration.  In fact, every composer uses these things in different ways; and, sometimes markings were misunderstood by the composers themselves (for instance when composers wrote Piu andante to mean a slower tempo).  Studying works of a composer in context of his others is therefore infinitely valuable and informative. 

I admit that this is mandatory, but when we "study" the works, it is not the dynamics that is of most importance but the harmonics, who always come first and impose themselves on everything else. Previously addressed in this reply.

If you are bringing esoteric works to your teacher, who has never approached the body of work of that composer, you will receive more superficial criticism, and that is not a critique of the teacher.  That is only natural. 

You are limiting yourself to simple technique - related issues, I have said over and over again: fully trained. And that is what my "treatise" was about.

Actually according to Rosenthal, Liszt did this out of laziness and apathy towards teaching.  But I suppose everyone has a different viewpoint.  I think what you arguing isn't incorrect, but it's more than bland.  You seem to be assuming that once someone "gets" it, all questions are answered.  But there you are arguing from the standpoint of limits again, this time that knowledge and experience is limited.  But I say no - one can "get" something just fine, and yet improve upon it through the assistance of a teacher. 

Rosenthal was not Liszt. You have avoided the Rach/Horo question btw, so here comes another one for you: Horowitz feared that a pianist studying with him might end up a Horowitz clone, so the sessions were not publicized and Horowitz insisted "I am not teaching you. I give you tips." Again, read as well the Ravel comment before.

Or, as Neuhaus said, "I taught Richter nothing...". And I could go on and on endlessly. Every "teacher" can create a "student". A master is something completely different.

This is especially so in the case of the classics, in which musical layering is so deep it can provide fodder for a lifetime of study.  Consider this quote by James Levine, about his teacher George Szell: "Szell forgot more about the classics then I will ever know."

Separate the respectul comments from the real ones. Already responded.

I also find it curious that you take pains to make a distinction between masters and teachers.  Your post is seeming to me to be more and more anti-teacher on principle.  I can think of dozens of masters who are also teachers. 

I see that you take pains as well as to understand the difference between a teacher and a master. A teacher may never be a master, but a master may also be a teacher. Since some are obviously making a living out of this, it is crucial to understand that they will always be needed up to a certain point, once they understand this, they will also understand when to, put it bluntly, "butt" out. Read again what I wrote before:

There is a definite, irreplaceable need for a teacher when you need to reach a STANDARD quality level of playing and there is no doubt about that. But it will not get you any further.

But you aren't bringing a piece to a teacher solely for the improvement of the quality of your piano playing - I hope.  The teacher is also there to provide the experience and knowledge, and sometimes ears, that the student lacks.  Actually, how can you expect someone to make a thorough critique of a piece they are hearing for the first time, played by a student?  The very notion is absurd.  And this little escape hatch is exactly how students can, and sometimes do, avoid thorough criticism.

"For those who have eyes to see, and ears to listen". Again, you totally misaddress the issue.

If you consider learning from a teacher a matter of simple imitation, I only feel pity for you!

Walter Ramsey

Likewise, for you unconsciously do this exact thing.

[ramseytheii]

I'm actually dumbfounded by the needless hostility in your post, which started in the one previous to this.  All I did was state my opinion, and nothing in it was personal, but you mount a personal attack here, which is shameful, and also, adding insult to injury, you get your facts wrong.  Enjoy!

You did not. Your exemplary sophistry has already been proven ineffective more than 2000 years ago by Aristotle. Hasn't any "teacher" taught you that?

I will let that quote speak for itself.

One word: collaboration. This would require for people collaborating to be large enough to eat their own words, ie "students of the truth". When Tchaikovsky went to Rubinstein with his first piano concerto, the only thing that Rubinstein did not do was to shoot and bury him. Nevertheless, things changed after a while and Rubinstein understood what had originally been done with the work. As Tchaikovsky wrote in one of his letters:

"... I had written a Piano Concerto. Not being a pianist, I considered it necessary to consult a virtuoso as to any points in my concerto which might be technically impracticable, ungrateful or ineffective. I had need of severe critic, but at the same time one kindly disposed towards me."

Sorry, you lost me in your eagerness to display your command of oft-repeated historical anecdotes.  Are you contradicting my point in some way?  Once again you seem to be subtly insulting teachers: " This would require for people collaborating to be large enough to eat their own words."  I'm assuming you mean teachers are arrogant and dictatorial in general.  In fact I never said my teacher had to eat words.  Who is eating words?  If a teacher encourages a student to study an esoteric piece, who is eating words?  You are not making any sense. 

Read what I wrote again and again, until practice makes it perfect:

There is a definite, irreplaceable need for a teacher when you need to reach a standard quality level of playing and there is no doubt about that. But it will not get you any further.

What you wrote is uninteresting to me.  I am not interested in limits as a viable point of view, I am only interested in potential.  The person who starts from limits, is the person who views the situation negatively to begin with.  If one is always thinking, "This teacher can only get me so far," one had better go to a teacher that actually provides inspiration.

The notes are. Dynamics is the word you are trying to find here, and dynamics may differ after composition time, with the composer himself changing them in live performances of his own works. This is an argument that has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but at it stands, "harmonics" has always the override on "dynamics" since dynamics becomes dependent on it. The same goes with the tempi you have to follow. Another example comes from romantic pianism vs Scriabin when it comes for example to the later Scriabin works. This is why, we find unusual italian words garnishing the scores like ... "legendaire". By using a tautological argument you prove no point.

The word you are searching for here, my dear, is not italian but French.  Perhaps you have rejected your language teachers as unnecessary? 
If you think that harmonics is "more important" than dynamics, then play a bunch of chords at indiscriminate levels of volume and see if anyone cares.

But you still haven't addressed my original point, which was that the interpretation of a piece of music comes not from objective criteria that are forever carved into stone, but from lifetimes of experience and knowledge, knowledge not only of the work at hand, but the whole body of a composer's work, and the music before and after it.  All these things bear on interpretation, and if a student brings esoteric pieces in to the teacher who has no knowledge of this music, the advice they are going to get is necessary limited.  And teachers freely admit this, at least the intelligent ones do.

Nobody said they were doing this, but when I added my own opinion to this thread, the personal attacks made it necessary to explain my point further.

I admit that this is mandatory, but when we "study" the works, it is not the dynamics that is of most importance but the harmonics, who always come first and impose themselves on everything else. Previously addressed in this reply.

I like the quotes around "study," as if you don't believe such a thing is possible.  Well... enjoy your "studying!"

You are limiting yourself to simple technique - related issues, I have said over and over again: fully trained. And that is what my "treatise" was about.

No, because a good teacher can improve the technique of a student from any piece, whether the teacher knows it or not.  I am actually opening up the consideration to include the musical issues at stake in any piece.  It was you that imagined these lessons to be based solely on piano playing: "Quality of piano playing can be showed even through pieces you have not heard before."

Rosenthal was not Liszt. You have avoided the Rach/Horo question btw, so here comes another one for you: Horowitz feared that a pianist studying with him might end up a Horowitz clone, so the sessions were not publicized and Horowitz insisted "I am not teaching you. I give you tips." Again, read as well the Ravel comment before.

Horowitz had students, and this was known publicly.  In addition, he did create poor Horowitz clones, and damaged their psyches.  You need to read up more on Horowitz's excursions into teachings before you try and "learn" someone else.

I see that you take pains as well as to understand the difference between a teacher and a master. A teacher may never be a master, but a master may also be a teacher. Since some are obviously making a living out of this, it is crucial to understand that they will always be needed up to a certain point, once they understand this, they will also understand when to, put it bluntly, "butt" out. Read again what I wrote before:

There is a definite, irreplaceable need for a teacher when you need to reach a STANDARD quality level of playing and there is no doubt about that. But it will not get you any further.

"For those who have eyes to see, and ears to listen". Again, you totally misaddress the issue.

Likewise, for you unconsciously do this exact thing.

Basically, I am uninterested in your bland and essentially useless idea that "a teacher is only needed up to a certain point."  Who cares?  What matters is the potential of the teacher to influence and assist the student.  Addressing this, I believe it better that a student bring works that the teacher knows well, and has a lifetime experience that they can impart on to the student.  So that's what I advised.  Then you freaked out, called me all sorts of names, and put on an admittedly hilarious air of pretension and bombast. 

Somehow we see a lot of this kind of behavior these days on piano forum.  But I will continue to go against the grain, because I enjoy being anti-establishment, and the establishment around here has definitely shifted in favor of the esoteric.  Unfortunately, an exclusive focus on the esoteric usually comes without the benefit of hard-earned knowledge; the esoteric remains forever on the surface of things, only searching for what is new or unusual, and avoiding at all costs depth of knowledge.

Walter Ramsey

[clavicembalisticum]

I will let that quote speak for itself.

Infact you did not get it, as you do not get the rest anycase. First of all nobody has insulted you but your own self, Nobody has called you names either. Victimizing yourself will not turn you into a hero, you are only constantly bothering more with your puny and arrogant way of imposing your opinion upon others without seeing anything else past the monitor. Your lack of knowledge regarding this particular aspect is "astonishing". But I guess that there was a teacher who "taught" you that.

We are done, sir, you are off topic.

[rc]

First of all nobody has insulted you but your own self, Nobody has called you names either.

->

Victimizing yourself will not turn you into a hero, you are only constantly bothering more with your puny and arrogant way of imposing your opinion upon others without seeing anything else past the monitor. Your lack of knowledge regarding this particular aspect is "astonishing". But I guess that there was a teacher who "taught" you that.

Time for a chill pill...

[cmg]

Alright I have a college audition in a month and I want to play a sonata. Any suggestions? I don't care about the period, difficulty, length, etc. I just need some suggestions. And I do not want to play a piece that everyone has heard about 400 times...

Thanks
Will

Am I missing something here?  All this rancor over a poster who's not in the least concerned about "difficulty" or "length" of a sonata, which he claims he will master in a MONTH?  For something as important as a college AUDITION?

Anyone with this kind of facility would have about a dozen sonatas in his repertoire, on tap and ready to roll.  I think we're being led down the garden path here, folks.

[ramseytheii]

you are only constantly bothering more with your puny and arrogant way of imposing your opinion upon others without seeing anything else past the monitor.

I am sorry that a person with two legs to stand on makes you so insecure.  If you didn't rely so heavily on cliched anecdotes that don't relate to any topic at hand, you might feel a little more confident yourself and be able to argue your opinions without hyperbole.  In the meantime, I don't dumb myself down in order to help people not feel so insecure by my opinions.

Walter Ramsey

[clavicembalisticum]

I am sorry that a person with two legs to stand on makes you so insecure.  If you didn't rely so heavily on cliched anecdotes that don't relate to any topic at hand, you might feel a little more confident yourself and be able to argue your opinions without hyperbole.  In the meantime, I don't dumb myself down in order to help people not feel so insecure by my opinions.

Walter Ramsey

Tautology, Projection, Solipsism.

You are still off - topic.