Any Schubert recommendations?
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!
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.
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!
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.
Topic: Breadth vs Depth 