Traditional V.S. Modern?

[G.W.K]

Just something I want answered:

I notice that most pianists will stick to performing traditional pieces such as "Moonlight Sonata" and "Clair de Lune" and Rachmaninoff pieces...but why isn't there a demand or desire to perform "modern music"?

Although I know how to play traditional pieces, I prefer to play more modern pieces such as "The Heart Asks Pleasure First" and "Comptine d'un autre été" (although these aren't "modern", you get the idea that they aren't "traditional" pieces). Others may perform pieces such as "Speed of Sound", etc.

So WHY do people play traditional, old pieces before modern, new pieces? Is it in more demand? Do people just prefer to stick to tradition? Please enlighten me.

G.W.K

[healdie]

Note This is all from my personall experiance

but there seems to be some stigma attached to alot of modern music and this is by no means a new problem it took decades for people to seriously start performin the music of Beethoven so people always do prefer to stick with what they know rather than exploring somthing new

Soon I will be performing in a small informal concert and I wanted toplay a Shostakovich Prelude (not even that modern) and I was asked to play somthing more traditional as thats what people expect

[mad_max2024]

Do jazz, blues and rock count?
If so I think I am very eclectic in my playing, I play whatever I can get my hands in (even when I'm not very good at it  ).

I usually don't play modern simply because:
They are copyrighted and harder to find.
I don't enjoy most modern pieces enough to buy the sheets and place the effort to learn them when there are so many classical/romantic pieces I would love to play.

Matter of taste probably. Most modern concert hall atonal music is incomprehensible to me. And even the tonal ones sound a bit odd.
I have played poulenc and will probably try my hand at shostakovich when I get done with the pathetique though. Learning stuff you are not used to doing is always refreshing from time to time.

As for movie soundtracks. They are usually pretty but fairly simple and not very attractive to learn deeply.
I have the "piano" scorebook by Nyman and sometimes I sightread through the pieces for fun but I lack the motivation to spend the extra time analysing, memorizing and practicing. They are just pretty.
Going through the complexities and demand of the Pathetique or the Mozart sonata I did earlier is so much more compelling as a challenge and learning experience.

[jabbz]

Concert going audiences somehow have managed to assume that atonal = bad. They just need more exposure, which is never going to happen if the performers themselves are still unwilling to embrace variety. Anyway, I'm not a professional performer, but the last time I played I did a mixture of Bach, Messiaen, Schoenberg and Beethoven.

[healdie]

I have noticed alot of that at the RNCM concerts that they are doing for this year they are doing an awful lot of Schubert followed by Schoenberg, which in one sense looks bizzare because they are so different but it is good exposure for Schoenberg who will get to a whole new Schubert loving audience

[borealis]

I prefer 'traditional' music to modern stuff; part of the reason is because twelve-tone makes me want to vomit.  In addition, the RCM Piano syllabus lists a whole pile of '20th and 21st-century compositions' that they euphemistically call 'character pieces,' which mostly sound like a two-year old randomly banging on keys instead of recognizable music.

However, I'm interested in lesser-known classical and romantic composers, not just the big names.  On my 'to-do' list for piano is a piano sonata by Czerny.

[tanman]

does Ravel count as modern?

2 weeks ago, I played Ravel Une Barque Sur L'Ocean and everyone loved it.

[G.W.K]

does Ravel count as modern?

No, that would count as Traditional.

G.W.K

[punkpianist360]

Just something I want answered:

I notice that most pianists will stick to performing traditional pieces such as "Moonlight Sonata" and "Clair de Lune" and Rachmaninoff pieces...but why isn't there a demand or desire to perform "modern music"?

Although I know how to play traditional pieces, I prefer to play more modern pieces such as "The Heart Asks Pleasure First" and "Comptine d'un autre été" (although these aren't "modern", you get the idea that they aren't "traditional" pieces). Others may perform pieces such as "Speed of Sound", etc.

So WHY do people play traditional, old pieces before modern, new pieces? Is it in more demand? Do people just prefer to stick to tradition? Please enlighten me.

G.W.K

Traditional music seems to have the inspiration of all the modern music.  I, personally, enjoy the melodies of the Romantic pieces, such originality.  Complex with out obscure melodies.  The list goes on..

[G.W.K]

Traditional music seems to have the inspiration of all the modern music.  I, personally, enjoy the melodies of the Romantic pieces, such originality.  Complex with out obscure melodies.  The list goes on..

In other words, you prefer Traditional?

G.W.K

[healdie]

I prefer 'traditional' music to modern stuff; part of the reason is because twelve-tone makes me want to vomit. However, I'm interested in lesser-known classical and romantic composers, not just the big names.  On my 'to-do' list for piano is a piano sonata by Czerny.

wow you really don't like 12 tone music

many composers of the 20th century wrote great piano music without been 12 tone like prokofiev, shostakovich, most of stravinsky, Satie, Poulenc (his nocturnes are great)

[borealis]

wow you really don't like 12 tone music

many composers of the 20th century wrote great piano music without been 12 tone like prokofiev, shostakovich, most of stravinsky, Satie, Poulenc (his nocturnes are great)

Yes, I know that several 20th century composers didn't use twelve-tone music, and for that I am truly grateful.  However, most of the stuff I've heard of the modern style is what they dish out on the RCM exam CDs, and I kid you not when I say my seven-month old son could pass the 'list E' section of the exam by banging on the keys at random.  It sounds that bad.

[healdie]

Yes, I know that several 20th century composers didn't use twelve-tone music, and for that I am truly grateful.  However, most of the stuff I've heard of the modern style is what they dish out on the RCM exam CDs, and I kid you not when I say my seven-month old son could pass the 'list E' section of the exam by banging on the keys at random.  It sounds that bad.

I know what you mean I am studying with Abrsm and the C list pieces are always bad the tend to be slightly more contempory

I am studying this piece thats sounds like a really dull Satie so boring to play

and they always include a really bad Jazz piece now i have nothing against Jazz but if they are going to put one in please make it a good one
my friend did his grade 7 a while back and there was a piece called                             
"Willy waglsticks walkabout" (for anyone unfamilier with the ABRSM syllabus grade 8 is the last one)

[thine]

i think it's better if artists learn how to be versatile.

thus making performances more flexible and `open-minded`

[a-sharp]

People like to play what they know. And like to play stuff that other people recognize. It's sort of human nature. AND, some of that "traditional" stuff is beautiful - regardless.

Personally - I like to listen to, and play music I haven't heard before. I LIKE the unexpected. But most people are not that way - they find comfort in familiarity.

JMO!

[bella_brito]

Most of my repertory is "traditional", like Bach, Beethoven, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, etc, but I'm always playing some movie or anime soundtrack, pure Pop music (don't judge me), or some Bossa Nova. I think everybody should play something like this, just for fun, or to please people who doesn't like classical.

[communist]

Most of my repertory is "traditional", like Bach, Beethoven, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, etc, but I'm always playing some movie or anime soundtrack, pure Pop music (don't judge me), or some Bossa Nova. I think everybody should play something like this, just for fun, or to please people who doesn't like classical.

well it is very hard to not like ANY classical composer at all

[G.W.K]

well it is very hard to not like ANY classical composer at all

That is true, but hardly the point.

G.W.K

[bella_brito]

well it is very hard to not like ANY classical composer at all

Believe me, this kind of people exists.
But I wasnt talking about people who plays or even knows something of music, but of my friends and family. Most of them think that classical music in general is boring.
It hurts, but is the true.

[mad_max2024]

Believe me, this kind of people exists.
But I wasnt talking about people who plays or even knows something of music, but of my friends and family. Most of them think that classical music in general is boring.

Join the club.
If I play Rachmaninov people tell me it sounded like someone was hitting the piano with a  jackhammer.
If I play some simple and on the fly blues riff people stare at me in awe. Especially if I throw glissandos.
I stopped caring long ago. lol

[general disarray]

So WHY do people play traditional, old pieces before modern, new pieces? Is it in more demand? Do people just prefer to stick to tradition? Please enlighten me.

G.W.K

I think, first, that most people are drawn to learn an instrument because of some composition that struck them as beautiful.  So, normally, that would be one of the traditional pieces that get wide circulation. 

Furthermore, most of these famous pieces are famous and popular for a reason -- they're inspired masterpieces.  It's so difficult to learn how to really play the piano well that I can understand why folks would invest their precious time on only the greatest of compositions.  Personally, I'm not about to master a complex second-rate composition just for the sake of being called "adventurous" by some critics.  Life's too short. 

Still, there are indeed many inspired and great "contemporary" works and neglected works by forgotten composers that deserve performance.  But the problem with the piano is always this:  we have much more and greater repertoire than any other instrument.  Life is short, mastery takes time, so what do you choose to learn?  Dunno.

You'll notice that pianists who play unusual repertoire, like Hamelin and Powell, are supreme virtuosi who don't need to labor like I do to master a couple of Chopin Etudes.  They probably had all of them in their fingers by the time they were 10 and moved on to other stuff quickly.  Such facility is rare and it seems these guys play the adventurous stuff.  For which I'm grateful!  I don't have that gift, so what I choose to learn is usually what I've heard and admired all my life and want to master.

[Petter]

I like General Disarrays explanation. That´s probably my approach aswell. As much as I like contemporary composers music I´ll never be able to play anything like Kapustin or Sorabji that I´ve came to known through these forums, so I´d feel content by learning at least some classical repertoire. I´ve been thinking about focusing on neglected woman romantic composers.

[G.W.K]

I like General Disarrays explanation.

Yes, I too liked General Disarray's explanation as it not only said what he learns, it provides information about WHY people prefer traditional over modern. Traditional has been going for so long that it is more likely to be heard, and inspire, by people than modern will.

However, do continue.

G.W.K

[darnmat]

well, i voted for mixture of both. but in terms of my repertoire, i play so much traditional pieces... but i explore and i'm very open minded to modern music. i usually play the compositions of my colleagues and music by Prokofiev, Ravel and Debussy. I still have to learn to realize the beauty of Schoenberg and Messien - they're too intellectual for me. In a Philosophical level, I like Copland.