Breadth vs Depth

[ceapaire]

Hi all! I'm new round these parts, though I've been lurking for a while  I did a quick search but couldn't really find a discussion about this already existing. If I missed a thread, mods feel free to lock/merge

I have 2 questions:

1) Is it better, generally, to have a repertoire containing a few pieces by a wide range of composers, or a repertoire of fewer composers but more pieces (perhaps entire output) from those you've chosen to "specialise" in?

2) Which do you personally prefer?


Now, I know it's very important to have great familiarity with a wide range of styles and eras, but I can't help but think that if one feels a strong affinity with a select few composers, they should concentrate on those works. Life's too short to make music you don't like after all

Anyway, the reason I'm asking this is because after reading a lot of Bernhard's posts about practising schedules, I made my own list of 100 pieces for 5 years (with great difficulty narrowing it down). It is dominated by Beethoven and Bach (my two great loves  ) who take over half of the list between them, with Schumann, Chopin, Debussy, Mendelssohn and Fauré making up most of the rest. There's also a smattering of video game music and film scores, because that's always a lot of fun. I'm slightly concerned that my list isn't varied enough though  Should I limit my Bach/Beethoven diet to allow for a more varied repertoire, or stick with those composers I know and love best? I'm considering a balance between the two - giving myself 10 years to cover all the Bach and Beethoven I want so that I can add in composers I don't know very well.

For what it's worth, I've been learning piano for almost 6 years now (going to sit Grade 8 ABRSM in winter) and I've only been getting truly serious about building a repertoire over the past couple of weeks. I'm a little old for a pianist (20) as it's my second "real" instrument, but I really love the piano more than any of the others. Up til now I've been pretty lazy with the exam system dictating the pieces I learn (quickly forgotten in most cases), but I'm more than willing to make up for lost time. 

Any thoughts on this? Replies of a general nature are appreciated as much as opinions on my personal circumstance. I hope this will turn out to be an interesting discussion!

[j_menz]

Your 100 list for the next 5 years seems balanced enough to me. There are advantages to both breadth and depth, and you appear to have achieved this.

My only concern: NO SCHUBERT!!!!! 

[ceapaire]

Any Schubert recommendations? I must admit I'm not very familiar with his work at all, despite the fact that most lovers of Beethoven are big Schubert fans... I should really look into him a bit more!

I have also just realised my list of 100 counts whole works as single pieces instead of seperate movements... Damn. I will need to prune this harshly after all *sigh*

[j_menz]

Any Schubert recommendations?

Try the late Sonatas or the Impromptus.

[ceapaire]

Excellent, will do so at once! 

[thorn]

1) Is it better, generally, to have a repertoire containing a few pieces by a wide range of composers, or a repertoire of fewer composers but more pieces (perhaps entire output) from those you've chosen to "specialise" in?

2) Which do you personally prefer?

...Life's too short to make music you don't like after all

The last thing you said. That right there is at the heart of the matter.

In your first question, you use the word "generally" which leads me to say that, yes, "generally" speaking it is better to have as wide a range of composers as you can and limiting yourself to a select few is detrimental to your musical appreciation.

That being said, I think it's more about listening to as much different music as possible rather than necessarily playing it so you are not missing out on great works through ignorance.

Example, I have learned the complete piano works of Debussy (minus Pour le Piano which I find a bit rubbish) and have transcribed his core orchestral works. This has obviously prevented me from engaging with music from other composers, during the period I was obsessed with Debussy at least.

Now I branch out quite a lot and play bits of everything, but I wouldn't give anything the time of day for the sake of "balance". I'm not going to call myself an unbalanced musician because I don't like Schumann, for example, when I have tried to like him and have engaged with the music of his contemporaries.

All in all, I think as long as you don't close yourself off to other music, there's nothing wrong with specialising. The composers you are engaging with are fine and it's down to personal taste- you're not as closed minded as I once was- in my period of obsessing over Debussy, I didn't even know who Ravel was!

[ceapaire]

Ah, Ravel. I do love him (Poulenc too, who I find somewhat similar). Never had that burning desire to be able to PLAY their music though; I'm happy merely to listen

The last thing you said. That right there is at the heart of the matter.

In your first question, you use the word "generally" which leads me to say that, yes, "generally" speaking it is better to have as wide a range of composers as you can and limiting yourself to a select few is detrimental to your musical appreciation.

That being said, I think it's more about listening to as much different music as possible rather than necessarily playing it so you are not missing out on great works through ignorance.

Excellent point. I do listen to a lot besides piano music, but I'm always under the impression that I could never know a tenth of the music out there if I had 20 lifetimes to listen to it.

Example, I have learned the complete piano works of Debussy (minus Pour le Piano which I find a bit rubbish) and have transcribed his core orchestral works. This has obviously prevented me from engaging with music from other composers, during the period I was obsessed with Debussy at least.

Now I branch out quite a lot and play bits of everything, but I wouldn't give anything the time of day for the sake of "balance". I'm not going to call myself an unbalanced musician because I don't like Schumann, for example, when I have tried to like him and have engaged with the music of his contemporaries.

All in all, I think as long as you don't close yourself off to other music, there's nothing wrong with specialising. The composers you are engaging with are fine and it's down to personal taste- you're not as closed minded as I once was- in my period of obsessing over Debussy, I didn't even know who Ravel was!

Great story! I must admit I love Debussy a lot too - I first discovered him through my flute studies. That opening to Prelude á L'aprés Midi d'Une Faune is one of the most famous in the flute repertoire. From there it was but a short step to finding his piano music. I wouldn't go as far as to learn all of it though He is pretty amazing, though I prefer Fauré.

Lots to think about, thank you!

[stoudemirestat]

I'm of the belief that you shouldn't necessarily specialize...but rather play the pieces that you WANT to play. If that leads toward you having a very wide ranging output go for it. Also of course, as you live with music (if you keep searching for new rep) you will keep wanting to play new works - and also works that you  didn't like once before you will start to like, etc. But bottom line I don't like the idea of playing pieces I don't want to or am not passionate about...but I like enough rep to keep me busy for a LONG time - and I will only like more and more as I go on. Whatever you do however, whatever pieces you play you need to learn them well - that's the number one concern (which playing what you're passionate about helps with, mind you).

Also, I like your idea...but no Liszt?

[ceapaire]

Fair enough. There's always wriggle room in my 100 list anyway. To be honest, at this point in my life I'd be absolutely over the moon to have 100 performance-standard pieces ready to go, regardless of the lack of range. That said, I don't want to limit myself either.

I do have La Campanella on there, but I must admit I'm not really a Liszt fan (blasphemy!). Or Mozart.

[thorn]

I think Ravel's piano music is more difficult than Debussy/Fauré/Poulenc. Though the latter two are a different sort of composer. I enjoy them all =]

Glad to be of some sort of help!

Also, I find your Liszt comment strange. Not you personally, I've heard it a few times. The general reason people give for not being a Liszt fan is that his music is all technique and flash with no substance. Although I completely disagree with this judgement, I find it strange that those who give it have any time for La Campanella, which out of all of Liszt's works is one that I would agree fits into the above sweeping statement...

[ceapaire]

Ravel's music has much of the same spirit to me, even if the likes of Miroirs is quite technically different to say, the Arabesques or the Sicilienne. I love them all though

It is strange though, taste rarely has logic to it! I just find Liszt rather unappealing. I wouldn't go as far to say that his music is crass and flashy, but it simply isn't my cup of tea. I've noticed a lot of people on these boards hate Schumann, who I adore, so ... *shrug*.

Funnily enough, I do like the Liebestraum but I don't listen to it very much.

[stoudemirestat]

Ravel's music has much of the same spirit to me, even if the likes of Miroirs is quite technically different to say, the Arabesques or the Sicilienne. I love them all though

It is strange though, taste rarely has logic to it! I just find Liszt rather unappealing. I wouldn't go as far to say that his music is crass and flashy, but it simply isn't my cup of tea. I've noticed a lot of people on these boards hate Schumann, who I adore, so ... *shrug*.

Funnily enough, I do like the Liebestraum but I don't listen to it very much.

I don't mean to push this too much - of course, you are fully entitled to your own opinion and I respect that, and I realise this is derailing the thread a  bit...It's just that when people say they don't like Liszt (while liking other romantic era composers) it is almost always based on either having listened to the wrong music, or not understanding what Liszt was trying to communicate in the music they have heard. I wonder, what pieces have you heard from him?

[ceapaire]

No it's ok . I've an album of the Symphonic Poems, and I've listened to most of the études. I wouldn't say I'm familiar with much else of his output.

I find it amusing that people are picking up on the lack of Liszt but have no comment on my lack of classical composers such as Haydn, Mozart or CPE Bach I'm thinking of adding in more Baroque like Scarlatti and Handel, but tbh I think I'm overkilling it with JS Bach 

[stoudemirestat]

No it's ok . I've an album of the Symphonic Poems, and I've listened to most of the études. I wouldn't say I'm familiar with much else of his output.

I find it amusing that people are picking up on the lack of Liszt but have no comment on my lack of classical composers such as Haydn, Mozart or CPE Bach I'm thinking of adding in more Baroque like Scarlatti and Handel, but tbh I think I'm overkilling it with JS Bach 

Bingo The Symphonic Poems, despite their immense influence on future composers, are certainly not for everyone - and are probably the most criticized part of Liszt's gargantuan output (except the Hungarian Rhapsodies of course). The Etudes also aren't for everyone, although I think they are truly works of pianistic genius, they do have a certain flashiness about them that many will find unappealing - especially if misunderstood. With Liszt, start from the top. The Piano Sonata is perhaps his best piano work and it is really a great survey of Liszt's overall style. Try it, if you haven't already. If that doesn't change your mind, try the complete Années de pèlerinage, followed by the Consolations.

Haha, well you're not going to be hearing any of that from me. I'm really not big on the solo piano music of Mozart, Haydn, etc. Well, you can never have enough Bach!

[ceapaire]

Bingo The Symphonic Poems, despite their immense influence on future composers, are certainly not for everyone - and are probably the most criticized part of Liszt's gargantuan output (except the Hungarian Rhapsodies of course). The Etudes also aren't for everyone, although I think they are truly works of pianistic genius, they do have a certain flashiness about them that many will find unappealing - especially if misunderstood. With Liszt, start from the top. The Piano Sonata is perhaps his best piano work and it is really a great survey of Liszt's overall style. Try it, if you haven't already. If that doesn't change your mind, try the complete Années de pèlerinage, followed by the Consolations.

Haha, well you're not going to be hearing any of that from me. I'm really not big on the solo piano music of Mozart, Haydn, etc. Well, you can never have enough Bach!

Heh, perhaps you're right. I'll have a look at the works you mentioned and keep an open mind. I do like the symphonic poems, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan of them. I wasn't aware Liszt had written a sonata - I'll definitely listen to that.

Tut tut tut True enough, Bach is the master of all  He's pretty damn amazing.

[stoudemirestat]

Heh, perhaps you're right. I'll have a look at the works you mentioned and keep an open mind. I do like the symphonic poems, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan of them. I wasn't aware Liszt had written a sonata - I'll definitely listen to that.

Tut tut tut True enough, Bach is the master of all  He's pretty damn amazing.

Try Arrau.

[ceapaire]

Will do, thanks for the link

[ceapaire]

I've been thinking about this a lot over the last few days. I really really hope to do the DipABRSM this time next year (even though I haven't sat Grade 8 yet ) and I'm trying to put together a potential programme. This is so I can perfect the pieces over the summer break (the only advantage of being unemployed *sigh*). Anyway, this is what I'm considering:

Bach - F minor P&F from WTC 1 (or perhaps the F# minor - undecided).

Beethoven - Sonata in C min (op 13), Ab (op 26) or E min (op 90) - also undecided

Fauré - Barcarolle no.6 in Eb (op 70)

Chopin - Mazurka in C#min (op 50, 3)

For the Beethoven, I'm leaning towards the Ab Sonata for 2 main reasons: 1) The opening movement is a Theme & Variations, which is always a nice addition and 2) If I keep Chopin on the list, I can make a connection between the two composers; Chopin had issues with Beethoven's music but he loved and played this sonata alone.

I really don't think my proposed programme is balanced enough - opinions? I also considered the Tango for Piano by Stravinsky or the Toccata no 3 by Poulenc in lieu of the Chopin... The Ravel Sonatine could go instead of the Fauré Barcarolle either.

Perhaps I'm biting off more than I can chew by aiming for next year, but there's no harm in preparing anyway and seeing how things work out. I can always put the exam off for another few months/a year if I don't feel ready by say, January