Recital program

[sarah767]

Hi everyone, I'm relatively new on the boards... I am planning for next year and I wanted some opinions on my recital program, this is what I'm thinking of doing.  I've already learned the Mozart, Chopin & Bach, and I'm currently working mainly on the Prokofiev, but I still have plenty of time to change pieces:

Rachmaninov- Morceaux de Fantaisie, Op. 3
Mozart- Sonata in F Major, K. 332
Chopin- Ballade No. 2 in F Major, Op. 38
-intermission-
Bach- Prelude & Fugue in D minor (WTC 1), BWV 851
Beethoven- Sonata No. 30 in E Major, Op. 109
Prokofiev- Sonata No. 3 in A minor, Op. 28

It's for my senior recital for my music degree and the goal for time is an hour and a half.  let me know what you guys think.
Thanks!
-Sarah

[amelialw]

that's a nice program but is'nt the Mozart Sonata in F pretty easy compared to the rest. You should learn his sonata's in c minor/a minor/d major instead,those are the harder ones that really show intelligence and maturity

[ramseytheii]

Rachmaninov- Morceaux de Fantaisie, Op. 3
Mozart- Sonata in F Major, K. 332
Chopin- Ballade No. 2 in F Major, Op. 38
-intermission-
Bach- Prelude & Fugue in D minor (WTC 1), BWV 851
Beethoven- Sonata No. 30 in E Major, Op. 109
Prokofiev- Sonata No. 3 in A minor, Op. 28

I think the order is weird.  Mozart after Rachmaninoff?  Bach after intermission?  A piece after op.109?!  I would do this, although these pieces aren't terribly convenient together:
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
-
Prokofiev
Rachmaninoff
Chopin

Or, you can do the Prokofiev as an encore.

Walter Ramsey

[soliloquy]

Yeah good pieces (except possibly the Mozart; have you thought about K. 280, 533 or 576?) but I have to agree with ramsey about the order.  I'd probably go with:


Chopin
Mozart
Rach
---------------------------
Beethoven
Bach
Prok

[desordre]

 Dear Sarah:
 I agree somewhat with Ramsey: the ordering is strange. However, my main concern is about three sonatas in a row. It's not something suited to all publics. By the way, a 90 minutes recital could be in three parts instead of two. Again, long parts can be easily boring to most of the public you will find.
 So, here is a suggestion:
 - Bach
 - Rachmaninov
 - Prokofiev
 (intermission one)
 - Beethoven
 (intermission two)
 - Mozart
 - Chopin
 
 Ramsey suggestion is cool, but I would have some restriction about two sonatas in the same part.

 Best wishes!

[sarah767]

Hmm I was thinking more about the order I'd like to play the pieces and not so much what would sound good together, I should probably think of the audience too and not just myself   Thanks for all the suggestions, I think I'm going to make a playlist on itunes and listen to how the pieces sound together.  I'll check out some other Mozart sonatas also 

[franz_]

Very strange orders you guys have.
My suggestion:

Bach
Mozart
Chopin

Rachmaninov
Beethoven
Prokofiev

[desordre]

 Dear Amelia:

(...) the Mozart Sonata in F pretty easy compared to the rest. You should learn his sonata's in c minor/a minor/d major instead,those are the harder ones that really show intelligence and maturity

  Would you let me disagree completely with you?

 First, I see no problems in easier pieces as part of a recital. Indeed, a program made only of harsh works is difficult to manage, and often leads to a mess. A balanced selection is always better. Furthermore, with Beethoven's 109 what else someone have to prove?

 Second, play hard pieces only show that you can play hard pieces. Intelligence, maturity, technique, touch, aesthetic resources, stylistic intepretation, background knowledge, personal insights, and anything else you should consider important you show in every piece that you play, regardless its difficulty.
 For sure that a semi-pro or pro repertory must include at least one "major" work, but even the great masters of the piano usually include(d) less demanding pieces. And, something of paramount importance, a lot of works that we mortals would consider "hard", to them were/are píece of cake.
 According to you, any of Mozart's sonata is not worth playing, because considered in front of the complete piano repertory, they are all easy. Sonatas 310, 457 and 576 (the ones you selected) are probably the most difficult among them, but what can be considered a very difficult work, or parallel to the real "monsters" of piano literature?

 About this particular sonata, it is a masterpiece of Classical style, and one of Mozart's first great mature works. Did you ever listen to Mitsuko Uchida or Glenn Gould playing it? If so, do you really think that is impossible to show "intelligence and maturity" in this work? My opinion is quite obvious; however, if you disagree, I respect your position, although I just can't undertand it.

 Best wishes!

[ramseytheii]

Very strange orders you guys have.
My suggestion:

Bach
Mozart
Chopin

Rachmaninov
Beethoven
Prokofiev

Strange eh? Well your surrounding the sublime, philosophical late Beethoven with the sentimental, audience-pandering (op 3 no2) Rachmaninoff, and the barn-storming Prokofiev party piece suggests bad taste.  After the distant strains of simple dominant and tonic harmonies closes the radiant op109 variations, the last thing that would be appropriate is the rude opening of the Prokofiev, which has the further insult of starting in the same harmony (E major).  Unless you were being ironic and poking fun at the Beethoven sonata, in which case you shouldn't be playing it at all.

I reassert this suggestion:
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
-
Prokofiev
Rachmaninoff
Chopin

The Prokofiev opens so strongly, that it always sounds like an introduction to something.  It's not wise to use it as the last piece in a program, especially since its length is a bit on the flippant side.  It also, though, makes an ideal encore.

Bach should always open a program unless it can be inserted philosophically later on, not just at random.  Bach on a concert program always makes a statement.  If you insert it in between works, the audience will always wonder why.  It won't be there, in their minds, just because.  So unless you personally can give a convincing reason, open the concert with his music, which is always refreshing, pure, and energizing.

The Mozart makes an effective contrast, because as a fantasy, it suggests another mood than a highly ordered fugue.

Beethoven should in a sense stand alone, at least among this repertoire, because it is the most individualistic piece, especially among the pre-20th century pieces you have there.  It is better to end the first half with it than the second, because frankly you will get more applause ending the concert with a barn-stormer.  Although the Chopin's last bars are pianissimo, that's an effect of wit and story telling, and actually that only lasts about 10 seconds, and ends in a "poof," (a technique Rachmaninoff adapted to such great effect), rather than the slow, philosophical ending of the Beethoven.

The Prokofiev, also energizing and refreshing music, is ideal for opening a program.  Since in this case you have Bach, use it to open the second half.

For the second part of the program, you can dwell in more lush, emotional, romantic music, the Rachmaninoff.  Every piece in that set is a huge success with the audience, though the music isn't as deep as the Beethoven.  That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Finally, a Chopin ballade, a perfectly encapsulated "piece" that tells a story with a beginning, a climax, and an end, with brilliant piano technique, familiar musical material, and for God's sake, it's Chopin.  Everyone can relate.  It's a perfect ending for this diverse program.

I doubt you will hear anyone else defend their lists in such detail.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Hmm I was thinking more about the order I'd like to play the pieces and not so much what would sound good together, I should probably think of the audience too and not just myself   Thanks for all the suggestions, I think I'm going to make a playlist on itunes and listen to how the pieces sound together.  I'll check out some other Mozart sonatas also 

But how do you choose an order except by how they sound together?  All chronologically ordered programs are only that way superficially - chronological order is the easiest way to ensure a coherent development of sound, and not have anything shocking or crude.  Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Messiaen, it's a natural development.  The only way to devise a program is by contrasting or pairing sound worlds.

Walter Ramsey

[sarah767]

But how do you choose an order except by how they sound together?  All chronologically ordered programs are only that way superficially - chronological order is the easiest way to ensure a coherent development of sound, and not have anything shocking or crude.  Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Messiaen, it's a natural development.  The only way to devise a program is by contrasting or pairing sound worlds.

Walter Ramsey

I wasn't thinking about connecting the pieces, but you give a very good defense of your order in the previous post!  The school has stupid rules about the printed program and I can't have the program notes that I want, so I'm going to talk about each piece before I play it, I figured that would give enough diversion that people wouldn't be thinking too much about the previous piece by the time I started playing the next one.  I am leaning towards your order since it makes more sense to me now.  This is the first recital I've done where I have total choice, and of course it's graded, so I'm glad I'm able to 'discuss' ideas on the forum.