what do you think about this recital program??

[jagm]

J. S. Bach
Prelude and Fugue no 6 in Dm, WTC1

L. V. Beethoven
Sonata op. 57 "Appassionata"

-------------------------------
F. Chopin
Scherzo no 1 op 20

S. Prokofiev
Sonata no 2 op 14 in Dm

Please comment, i need suggestions!!

[tds]

chopin's barcarole would fit better than 1st scherzo

[faulty_damper]

It sound's a bit odd to me.  I like how D Minor frames the program but I don't think the Scherzo works.  I'm not sure the Bach works as an opening piece, either.  The thing that would annoy me is the lack of contrast between the works.

I would definitely replace the Scherzo to something more mellow because it competes with the Prokofiev sonata.  As for the opening piece, a piece that is less agitated would be much better, and probably in a major key, like Bach's Capriccio on the Departing of a Beloved Brother which is light and fun.

[franz_]

I don't see any problem in the scherzo...

If you play good, it will be an interesting concert

[mikey6]

Why all minor keys?
Maybe a major key p&f and the 4th scherzo in place of what you have?  Although any of the scherzos work best as finishers either of the half or the recital, following it with something is quite tricky.
Have you learnt the repertoire or are you considering pieces?  coz I'm srue you could come up with a much better, balanced program.

[perfect_pitch]

Actually - I was going to say, wouldn't the scherzo be the best piece to finish with???

It has a kick-arse ending and really brings something to a close in a showy manner.

[jagm]

thank you very much to all, im considering the repertory, i have to chose the program, but i have obligatory to play a prelude and fugue by Bach, Sonata by Beethoven, a piece of Chopin, and a 20th century piece, from the same dificult level of the one i put inthe program, ill thank you very much if you can help me to chose the program, comment are very welcome!!

[dtao12]

I agree w. the comments about all minor key being too much. The simplest replacement probably would be the Chopin, e.g., you could replace the Scherzo with the 3rd Ballade in A flat, or could use one of the Polonaises like opus 53 or pus 40.

OR you could just ADD a one or two more mellow and major-keyed (and short selections) from Chopin, like some the major keyed etudes (any of these from opus 10: #1, #3, #5, #7, #8, #10, #11; or opus 25 #1, #8 or #9 from opus 25.

[ramseytheii]

thank you very much to all, im considering the repertory, i have to chose the program, but i have obligatory to play a prelude and fugue by Bach, Sonata by Beethoven, a piece of Chopin, and a 20th century piece, from the same dificult level of the one i put inthe program, ill thank you very much if you can help me to chose the program, comment are very welcome!!

Who comes up with these crazy requirements?  Those composers in many ways just don't go together well.

Even though you may not have intended it, the falling minor triad common to the Bach prelude and opening Beethoven Sonata is a plus.  However, I think it is better to put Chopin with Bach.  Why not precede the Scherzo with one of Chopin's preludes in a related, major, key?  It might be interesting.  

Chopin was a major admirer of Bach's, not that Beethoven wasn't, but Beethoven wasn't in the same way.  Chopin was interested in Bach's keyboard approach, whereas Beethoven was probably more attracted to aesthetic and esoteric forms (plus he declared Handel to be the greatest composer of all times).

Beethoven going into the second half, I urge you to be much more adventurous in your 20th century choice.  Prokofiev's second sonata is one of my favorites of his, but it doesn't go well with the Beethoven at all, and why put another sonata on the program when you have such a huge one already?  

It is hard to formulate an interesting and engaging program, with these ridiculous limitations.

I personally believe that having one great piece after another, is not an intelligent way to engage the audience.  While these are all individually great, context matters, frankly.  In this context, it's hard to make any of them shine and truly stand out.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Part of the deficiencies we often see in programming today comes from a general cultural confusion about who a pianist, and maybe even a classical musician in general, is supposed to be.

When you look at programs from the Golden Age, you will find clearly that part of the role pianists filled was that of an entertainer.  I said "part of."  Yes, they played big, serious, challenging works; but they always found room for light, sparkling, entertaining pieces.  They knew a program had to have emotional variety, just like any other form of entertainment.

Of course, there were always those like Schnabel, who found no reason not to program all Beethoven sonatas.  I feel that his method is what succeeded in the long term, and that is the dominant way of programming today, heavy, serious pieces.

In a way, programming is like wearing an outfit.  It comes from how we see ourselves, how we imagine we fit into society, and what role we think we are playing.  Whether or not it was Schnabel's intention, he fit well into the role of artist-as-priest, as an enlightened truth-teller speaking prophecy to the masses.

That works when the rest of society believes it.  That was a society totally convinced of the superiority of central European (German and Viennese) music, and who believed that that music contained universal truths.  Needless to say, the majority of people don't believe that anymore, or at least not as fervently.  So who would believe the artist as a priest, giving us a sermon in the vernacular on the Gospel in Latin?  Telling us the truth we can understand from a text of holy sanctity?

People are much too cynical for that nowadays.  So who is the artist?  Who is the pianist?  I believe that to a certain extent, we need to recapture the element of entertainment.  Some pianists are notable for doing so today, like Marc-Andre Hamelin, who has a lot of scintillating, entertaining, and fresh-sounding repertoire.  But in general this idea is lost on most musicians.

An approach to programming should be like making a movie, or a play, or something with a narrative.  I don't mean that you should program "Une barque sur l'ocean," followed by "Ondine," followed by the Funeral March.  But there has to be an emotional unity that arises from emotional variance.

There has to be enough variety of moods and textures to engage a person, but not so many that they don't cohere into an implausible cornucopia.  There should be some narrative, even in the most abstract, which relates the pieces you program together.  There should be some purpose. 

Looking at this program, it screams out "predetermined limitations."  You should push yourself to find pieces that fit those unfortunate, misguided limitations, but still have an emotional cohesion and logical relevance.

And be much more adventurous in your 20th century choice.

Walter Ramsey

[pianowolfi]

If you play all Beethoven Sonatas (and do this well) you will in all probability contribute quite a lot to entertainment, I'd say...

[wert718]

Chopin Scherzo no. 2 is better than no. 1.

[perfect_pitch]

Chopin Scherzo no. 2 is better than no. 1.

Oh - that's you're opinion. Personally I think the ending to the 1st scherzo is just much more thrilling than the 2nd.

[pianisten1989]

Scherzo no 3 would kick the other scherzi's ass any day!

No but... You need something that isn't in minor, and isn't such a big piece.
That's the problem in almost all recitals these days, none makes room for the smaller pieces..