The Importance of Classicla Music for Pianists

[qpalqpal]

So I've been told by forum members that I should learn music from the classical era to help with technique etc. However, I don't really like Classical music, I like Romantic music most, as well as Impressionistic. The reason being... It's really common sounding and flashy and doesn't spur emotion in one's being. Well, my being.

Here's the question: is it important at all to learn a program of pieces in progressive order in the Classicsal era to improve anything other than playing those type of pieces? Another way to phrase it. Can I use the knowledge from Classical music to help learn a lot of skills to implement those skills in Romantic music? Is it a smart idea to learn a vast array of repertoire, to help learn more, even if it isn't as interesting?

Thoughts...

[outin]

I don't know if there's an answer for your question, everyone is different. But personally I would feel inadequate if I couldn't play anything from the classical era. I don't like that stuff either, but many of the pieces can be good learning tools. I think I have learned quite a lot from playing the Clementi and Diabelli sonatinas and the little boring pieces from my teacher, even though it has been more pain than pleasure. Then again if I didn't have a teacher I might have just wasted my time and not learn anything useful. I guess you could just play baroque to learn better finger technique and then enjoy your romantic pieces

[corecase]

I feel like you might have understood those "forum members" whom you speak of, a bit incorrectly.  In general "Classical Music" means the opposite of "Modern Music"(pop, rock, jazz, etc...).  "Classical Music" encompasses four periods: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Contemporary.  I believe those forum members meant that it's a good idea to learn classical pieces(meaning pieces from those four periods), because they contain the most diverse and challenging styles -- they will help you gain experience very quickly.  It's okay if you prefer the Romantic period of Classical Music over the Classical period of Classical Music    They're both "Classical Music".  It's a good idea, however, to learn music from all four eras in order to understand different styles and get used to different techniques.

[qpalqpal]

No, no, no, I literally meant the Classical era. They recommended me, to finish the first Clementi sonatina op 36, finish the entire opus, do kuhlau sonatinas, and then a Haydn, Mozart, or Clementi sonata as a guide. So my question is with that.

[j_menz]

No, no, no, I literally meant the Classical era. They recommended me, to finish the first Clementi sonatina op 36, finish the entire opus, do kuhlau sonatinas, and then a Haydn, Mozart, or Clementi sonata as a guide. So my question is with that.

Since that sounds like my recommendation, I'll pipe in.  It wasn't stated in your earlier post that you didn't actually like this style of music.

There are certain technical skills that are perhaps easiest to learn with classical era stuff, but there is no point ploughing through a vast body of material and hating every moment of it. 

Feel free to select music that you like, and use the gradings guide here to point you to pieces that are at your level. You will notice that the selection is much wider with classical era pieces; the romantics tended to write less stuff in the beginner-intermadiate range, though you should still be able to find plenty to go on with.

I would still recommend that you do some Bach, even if you don't really like it; there are things you can learn there that are essential to playing the romantic repertoire.

[qpalqpal]

Here's the thing. I don't hate his music. It actually gives me peace since it is so non dissonant. It just is t someone I am passionate about. At least it's not Schoenberg !! So yes, I'll take your recommendation.

What do I have to do in terms f analyzing classical? Is it as in depth as an invention? What should I learn as a beginner in that stuff

[j_menz]

Well, Bach is Baroque, not classical (though there are plenty of other Bach's (mostly his sons)which are classical).

Try his chorale preludes, the preludes from the 18 little preludes and fugues, more inventions, and stuff from the Anna Magdalene notebook as good places to start.

[davidjosepha]

the romantics tended to write less stuff in the beginner-intermadiate range

Looking through the PS listing for Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, and a few others is rather humorous..."8+, 8+, 8+, 8+, 8+, 8+, 8+, 8+, 8+, oh, here's an 8, and now some more 8+s"

There are certain technical skills that are perhaps easiest to learn with classical era stuff, but there is no point ploughing through a vast body of material and hating every moment of it. 

So are you saying I don't need to feel bad about avoiding the classical era as long as I'm getting a healthy dose of Bach? I really don't like classical era piano music. I'm fine with orchestral stuff, but man...the piano stuff just bores me to tears. My interests include some baroque (mostly Bach) and then romantic and 20th century...is that something to be worried about or something I should try to change?

[ajspiano]

Its not as if you must play classical period music to be any good, or as if only baroque/classical music builds technique...

But essentially, as a relative beginner you may be heavily focused simply on getting the right finger number to the right note - which is fine initially. However, soon, in order to progress you will probably have to (unless you are lucky and extremely talented) begin experimenting with the fact that even just your fingers (no reference to the rest of you) can be used in quite a lot of different ways.

In earlier music, many of the figures are confined to small hand positions, not much wider than a 6th, this was considered the standard comfortable hand span, as in if you spent to much time outside of this it was uncomfortable because the hand wasn't made for it. This perhaps lead to a finger dominant technique. Fingers were always in a comfortable position and learning to operate in a powerful and accurate manor. - and this is where the major focus is, as well as music/hand independance..

In later years things changed. Piano music, most notably of chopin and listz and in turn the music of those who followed was revolutionized by the former. Chopin and Lizst are the piano music behemoths. Their music is technically and musically different (as you've noticed). Their compositions are transcendant. Wide figures, all over the piano, complex harmonies and melodic lines.

Highly developed ears, arm motions, finger technique, use of the whole body/mind becomes compulsory for a good interpretation of big romantic works.  These factors are ofcourse significant in earlier music, but perhaps not as much during a beginners development, the earlier music allows for focus on particular skill sets because you're not going to be so heavily punished for deficiencies in other respects. One might argue that there is a wider margin for error in regarded to some of the finer elements of the performance.

Put more simply, its easier to learn the basics of using your fingers/arm in the right way if you're not also having to send your arm up and down the piano at high speed and with wide intervals, leaning from side to side while focusing exclusively on how you feel and what you're trying to express. It's kind of as though you have a set hand position for each group of notes, which makes things a bit easier - rather than a constantly moving hand.

That said, later on when you do tackle beastly romantic etudes (as an example) you'll be forced to learn that there is no such thing as a fixed hand position and that every single note has a new position, even if you're playing the exact same note as the one before    ...or rather, that each series of notes is part of an overall pattern of flowing motion from each note to the next.

There are literally MILLIONS (perhaps its actually limitless) of possible ways to execute even simple pianistic figures, and finding the right ways is a life-long endeavor that comes together bit by bit with each new piece learned. The easier music is actually significantly challenging if you learn it in full detail, its just that most people (perhaps understandably) don't learn to be so precise.

We all say go learn bach (and others), because there is a great grounding is in that music. Learning that music prepares you (in a variety of fairly incomprehensible ways that you won't even be aware of for a long time yet) for the larger challenges of the later repertoire. This is important because even the easier romantic works require a phenomenal amount of finesse to perform well..

You can go start with romantics if you like..  but eventually, if you don't ever give up on trying to improve, you will come back to baroque/classical. There is a reason chopin carried around the WTC, and why Cznery based many studies on figures found in Beethoven sonatas, which is of course in turn what Liszt was studying at your age (perhaps a touch younger).

.........

I agree with j_menz though, don't plough through something if you don't like it. Usually you'll find that the music you dislike right now will one day become more interesting as you develop musically.

EDIT:
jees, I didnt realise how long and meandering that was while writing..  hope no one falls asleep reading it :-/

[qpalqpal]

Wow.. great post! And so what you are saying is that as eras progress (Baroque to Classical, to Romantic and Late Romantic), the technical aspect of pieces is significantly more taxing and difficult. I think that since Romantics were influenced by Classical composers (Clementi, Mozart, Beethoven), it would be the best idea to work on those pieces. Something I have noticed, and back me up on this, is that CHopin uses some features in his music that Mozart does to. For example, that maneuver where you play a note one semi-tone before then main note your getting to, very Classical-esque. I don't know if you understand, probably not :S

Also, why not have a wide array of repertoire to pull out from when your family and guests ask you to play a little diddy? 

[j_menz]

So are you saying I don't need to feel bad about avoiding the classical era as long as I'm getting a healthy dose of Bach? I really don't like classical era piano music. I'm fine with orchestral stuff, but man...the piano stuff just bores me to tears. My interests include some baroque (mostly Bach) and then romantic and 20th century...is that something to be worried about or something I should try to change?

There is actually quite a lot of very good classical music for the piano, perhaps you just haven't found the right pieces? If you like the orchestral stuff, try some by the same composers.

[davidjosepha]

There is actually quite a lot of very good classical music for the piano, perhaps you just haven't found the right pieces? If you like the orchestral stuff, try some by the same composers.

Well, I haven't heard anything for solo piano by Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven that I like, and they're the three bigs in the classical period, no? I really like many of Mozart's piano concertos, but I don't have any opportunity to play with an orchestra anytime soon and I feel like it'd be a bit of a waste then, considering. Do you have any suggestions?

[ajspiano]

Wow.. great post! And so what you are saying is that as eras progress (Baroque to Classical, to Romantic and Late Romantic), the technical aspect of pieces is significantly more taxing and difficult.

Not exactly -

Styles developed, what was considered humanly possible increased..   that does not make what earlier composers did necessarily easier in the end if we are aiming at a virtuosic standard, but the developing pianist may find more success a long the way if tackling things in that order..

And ofcourse, technique is not the only factor considered in grading a piece.

Consider perhaps that a professional pianists version of a grade 2 piece will be different to a beginners, and while that piece was achievable by the beginner, performing it as well as the professional would be extremely taxing and difficult without a great deal of time, practice and guidance.

It is definitely the case that the romantics were influenced by those who came before them and to perform their music well may require a study of their influences.

Much in the same way that the heavy metal guitarists of today are significantly influenced by composers such as Paganini..  and if teenage wannabe's went down that path they'd learn alot more than by just imitating metallica riffs.

that maneuver where you play a note one semi-tone before then main note your getting to, very Classical-esque. I don't know if you understand, probably not :S

Yes I do actually, though I don't know if I'd have described it that way

...

Additionally, there is the consideration for the influences the romantics had on each other. Chopin and Liszt were good friends with a healthy amount of respect for each others capabilities.

[j_menz]

Well, I haven't heard anything for solo piano by Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven that I like, and they're the three bigs in the classical period, no? I really like many of Mozart's piano concertos, but I don't have any opportunity to play with an orchestra anytime soon and I feel like it'd be a bit of a waste then, considering. Do you have any suggestions?

Interesting that you like Mozart's PCs but not the solo piano stuff. I'd have thought a lot of his sonatas were similar, though without the orchestra a bit more "exposed".

Not liking Beethoven? Well.... there's always therapy. 

Try some CPE Bach and JC Bach, some Khulau (not deep, but quite fun), Hummel or the Clementi Sonatas (somewhat meatier than the sonatinas).

If you still don't like it, well give it a break and come back to it in a few years; you may have changed your mind by then.  I think all pianists go through several phases of Mozart before they finally make up their minds.

[qpalqpal]

Beethoven. I really do not like his sonatas. I DONT SEE WHAT IS SOOOO AMAZING?? I mean come on people, its not anything super ... i don't know. I listened to the Appasionata, and I can say that it is bland, and not really... emotional, strong, its just bland. I want to like it, but i don't,.

[ajspiano]

I listened to the Appasionata, and I can say that it is bland, and not really... emotional, strong, its just bland.

LOL

Keep that one for reference. So you can laugh at yourself later..

Incidently, if this is the right link.. ?

- I found this to be a particularly emotional performance of moonlight mov 1.

[qpalqpal]

Hey, I am 14, and I am very ignorant. Maybe as I grow older I can appreciate Classicals like him. Its just not that much to me now. On the other hand, this moves me so much

[j_menz]

Beethoven. I really do not like his sonatas. I DONT SEE WHAT IS SOOOO AMAZING?? I mean come on people, its not anything super ... i don't know. I listened to the Appasionata, and I can say that it is bland, and not really... emotional, strong, its just bland. I want to like it, but i don't,.

Perhaps a bad recording, more likely you are not ready for him yet. All the Romantics you love venerated him as a god, and believed they were his heirs. There's a lot more to him than you yet realise.

Take aj's advice  

[davidjosepha]

Not liking Beethoven? Well.... there's always therapy. 

If WTC is the old testament and the Beethoven sonatas are the new, then I'm Jewish

Try some CPE Bach and JC Bach, some Khulau (not deep, but quite fun), Hummel or the Clementi Sonatas (somewhat meatier than the sonatinas).

If you still don't like it, well give it a break and come back to it in a few years; you may have changed your mind by then.  I think all pianists go through several phases of Mozart before they finally make up their minds.

Thanks for the help! I'll look into them.

[j_menz]

If WTC is the old testament and the Beethoven sonatas are the new, then I'm Jewish

So was St Paul. 

[qpalqpal]

So was St Paul. 

In that case, Beethoven must've been too... hmmm, meaning that without the WTC, his sonatas wouldn't exist. So...


Bach is god!>?

[ajspiano]

Bach is god!>?

Surprisingly enough, even bach had influences from the great music that came before him.. and keyboard composers can be influenced by composers for other instruments. This is obviously noted in the romantics.

https://www.classical.net/music/composer/dates/comp9.php - you'll find J.S. a few hundred down this chronological list..

........

Not to diminish other significant musical aspects of the WTC, but perhaps one of the reasons it is so significant is because it was the effort of a pioneer (in a similiar way to which chopin and liszts efforts were - changing the way others thought about the instruments potential)..

This was the first time a keyboard composer was able to write in all 24 keys without sounding like a chainsaw. Its kind of like the original pianists bible..

Thats why there's only 15 inventions and sinfonias. The other keys sounded like turd at the time they were written. The WTC paved the way for new musical ideas.

[qpalqpal]

Anyways, back on topic. What skills exactly are learnt in Classical compositions that can help in Romanticism. What is characteristic of music in that time.

[davidjosepha]

So was St Paul. 

You have won the metaphor. Until next time...

[ajspiano]

Anyways, back on topic. What skills exactly are learnt in Classical compositions that can help in Romanticism. What is characteristic of music in that time.

There isn't really a definitive answer here..  its not as if there's a checklist for you to tick off.

Each of the skills within the array of music/piano playing just develops gradually the more you play, some aspects more significantly than others in certain music.

...

Here's bernhards list of skills developed in bach inventions, ofcourse you'll have to study them the way he suggests if you really want to get everything you can out of them..

1.      Independence of the hands.
2.      Contrapunctual thinking.
3.      Finger dexterity and independence.
4.      Development of cantabile.
5.      Equal development of both sides of the body (since usually both parts are perfectly balanced).
6.      Aural training (following 2/3 melodic strains)
7.      Reading/sight-reading.
8.      They make excellent material for training in memory methods.

..I tend to find that numbers 1 and 6 are the ones that blow peoples minds here..  where they feel like the task is either incredibly challenging (usually in the case of number 1) or have previously not considered it as a possibility at all (in the case of number 6)

[qpalqpal]

Yes! I read his post on invention 1, and Im using his method. A lot of what he tells us to do is a little much though, I think that I need a teacher for that type of analysis. And also, @asjpiano, I have a question, Ill pm you.

[chopin2015]

How could you not like Beethoven?

[j_menz]

How could you not like Beethoven?

Ask his sister-in-law. 

[outin]

Perhaps a bad recording, more likely you are not ready for him yet. All the Romantics you love venerated him as a god, and believed they were his heirs. There's a lot more to him than you yet realise.

I'm 45 and still not liking Beethoven and don't see much hope of progressing anymore, because I have seriously tried. His music is both boring and annoying at the same time. A personality disorder probably

But since Hummel is considered a classical composer, then I do like at least one classical composer. The way he wrote for the piano is just so charming. Unfortunately I find most of his stuff a bit too difficult for the moment. qpalqpal, you should check out his stuff.

[j_menz]

I'm 45 and still not liking Beethoven and don't see much hope of progressing anymore, because I have seriously tried. His music is both boring and annoying at the same time. A personality disorder probably

Most of the good/great Beethoven is a bit beyond your playing level at present, I believe.  When you advance to actually being able to play some, you may well find your views change. Then again, maybe not.  Not sure it is so much a matter of age.  I note you are also not a fan of Bach, and would suggest the same may apply there, perhaps even moreso (I've never understood how anyone listened to fugues for fun unless and until they could hear them properly).

Does you serious trying with Beethoven include the symphonies/quartets/concerti?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Hey, I am 14, and I am very ignorant. Maybe as I grow older I can appreciate Classicals like him. Its just not that much to me now. On the other hand, this moves me so much

I'm starting to like you kid!

Once you explore more of Rachmaninoff's music...  You'll be like, 'Dude what the heck is going on here?!'.  It's like someone blowing sand in your face.  Except it's not unpleasant.

But yeah, I have a feeling That were gonna get along REALLY well...

[outin]

Most of the good/great Beethoven is a bit beyond your playing level at present, I believe.  When you advance to actually being able to play some, you may well find your views change. Then again, maybe not.  Not sure it is so much a matter of age.  I note you are also not a fan of Bach, and would suggest the same may apply there, perhaps even moreso (I've never understood how anyone listened to fugues for fun unless and until they could hear them properly).

It has crossed my mind that maybe his music is better played than listened. But as you say that has to wait. Whatever I have tried that is my level I have disliked.

Does you serious trying with Beethoven include the symphonies/quartets/concerti?).

I suffered a lot of that stuff as a kid and I dislike his orchestral music even more.

But to be honest I'm not a huge fan of all the romantics either. Rachmaninoff has some nice stuff but in general I find his music too... how should I put it... too sentimental or too obvious in it's emotionality. Very good as film music

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Most of the good/great Beethoven is a bit beyond your playing level at present, I believe.  When you advance to actually being able to play some, you may well find your views change.

Since when does someone have to be able to play something to like it? 

[outin]

Since when does someone have to be able to play something to like it? 

You do have a point here

[j_menz]

Since when does someone have to be able to play something to like it? 

You don't. But sometimes it helps; sometimes it gives you that insight you were missing.

[outin]

I seem to like a lot of composers that are not really that famous/popular. One might think that it is because I think it's cool to be different, but it's not the reason. I just have a weird taste, and this applies to many other things as well as music. It doesn't mean that these B guys (and the M) don't deserve their fame, because my taste is no better than the majority's, just different.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I seem to like a lot of composers that are not really that famous/popular.

Such as...?

Because I remember someone saying that Scriabin and Liszt wasn't well known or popular.

[j_menz]

I seem to like a lot of composers that are not really that famous/popular.

I think we probably all have a collection of these (though around here there is also probably someone who thinks they are vastly "overplayed"). Always trust your instincts, but never allow them to become prejudices. Go back and listen to composers you earlier dismissed every so often, sometimes you find that they've improved their game in the interim.

[outin]

Some that come to mind now...
Franck
Scarlatti
Hummel
Glinka
Balakirev
Lyapunov
Moszkowski
Scharwenka
Some may be popular among pianists, but not so much real people...

[j_menz]

Such as...?

Because I remember someone saying that Scriabin and Liszt wasn't well known or popular.

We sometimes forget that out in the real world, no one is famous unless they're in an ad. And then only while its on air.  Frankly, Bugs Bunny did more to make Liszt famous than anyone else.

[ajspiano]

We sometimes forget that out in the real world, no one is famous unless they're in an ad. And then only while its on air.  Frankly, Bugs Bunny did more to make Liszt famous than anyone else.

I might suggest that out in the real world, the majority of the inhabitants interpret well known to be dependent on "whether or not I've heard of them" rather than how many other people have heard of them.

[outin]

I guess I should list Scriabin to the list, he is not very well known either among the general population.

I don't really care much for Listz, which I find odd, because he is so important for the development of piano music. To me it's more technique than music. His concertos are kind of sweet in their strangeness though.

[j_menz]

I don't really care much for Listz, which I find odd, because he is so important for the development of piano music. To me it's more technique than music. His concertos are kind of sweet in their strangeness though.

Try some of his very late works, you may get a new perspective on him (and one you may like).

[ajspiano]

To me it's more technique than music.

How much of it have you listened to, or perhaps "what" specifically?

[outin]

How much of it have you listened to, or perhaps "what" specifically?

Now don't get me wrong. I did not mean that I don't like anything by him, just that the majority of his works don't appeal to me. Many of the most famous ones I don't like at all (Campanella, Hungarian Rhapsody, Liebestraume). Some of the Transcendental etudes are nice, but I will never be able to play any of them

At any time I usually have at least one composer that I am trying to get to know better (and possibly learn to like). Right now it's Prokojev. But it's not going too well...

[danhuyle]

Learning classical music does help improve

technique
sight reading
note reading
interpretation

Skills that can be applied in music that is not classical.

Besides, to be able to play classical music like classical sonatas, you'd want to develop those above skills or you'll struggle. Plus, you don't have to play classical music to develop the above skills. Either case, you'll want it and there's a lot of great classical pieces you want to play anyway because it's so good.

[outin]

Try some of his very late works, you may get a new perspective on him (and one you may like).

I like the trancendental etude in G minor. If there’s more stuff in this style by him, I’d be happy to listen to it?

Most of his music is either too jumpy, too thumby or too sweet for my taste. If you get what I mean?

[qpalqpal]

@outin I think that you are very picky, which is a good thing in a lot of ways! I can bet that your interpretation for the music you play is going to be a lot darker/brighter or faster/slower than most, because you have a different view on music. And this can make you an interesting performer

[outin]

Who knows, I don't think I can talk much about interpretation at the moment. It's more about trying to reproduce the notes...

[qpalqpal]

I know, but once you advance higher to the point of interpreting and have gotten past technique, we'll see your interpretation, which will be interesting.