after mikrokosmos 2

[mehdifshp]

Hello all

It's my very first post on the forum though I've been registered here for a while now and trying to find my next book!

I finished mikrokosmos volume 2 by Bella Bartok, now my teacher wants to start Czerny op 599 and some works of Bach with me. I am ok with Czerny since It's an etude book and I don't look for music in it, but I just like late classic onward music, I mean Beethoven up to now. I really appreciate any suggestion, though it is hard to change my teacher idea about playing Bach, he says music starts with Bach and finishes with him too !

Anyway if you know a path to play romantic music in the future, please show that to me too.

sorry for my poor English.

[j_menz]

You cannot master romantic music without also mastering Bach.

The good news is that you will like him much more than you are expecting. In time.

[49410enrique]

wholeheartedly agree with j_menz, though he need to quit stealing all my responses and posting them before i get a chance to. that get's annoying real quick.

what about finding compromise, dive into the Bach assinged by your teacher  but ask if you can supplement with a modern transcription too?

i.e.

or

or

these would give you an opportunity to explore a more 'romantic' approach to performance of a 'baroque' work with the grainger giving you the most opportunity to do so.

i would have included famous transcriptions of the toccatta and fugue in g minor but i don't now if you have the capability to go at one of those (few do...i wish i did )

[outin]

You cannot master romantic music without also mastering Bach.

Now I am forced to ask you to provide some scientific evidence to this argument!

Are you saying that every romantic pianist/composer mastered Bach before they composed and performed their music? Or that they didn't master their own music?

I actually thought Bach was out of fashion for quite a long time in the history of pianism?

[ajspiano]

Now I am forced to ask you to provide some scientific evidence to this argument!

Are you saying that every romantic pianist/composer mastered Bach before they composed and performed their music? Or that they didn't master their own music?

haha, probably yes.

..The WTC is not so infrequently described as the pianists staple diet. One should chew on some every day if you expect to stay healthy.

And to be honest, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that even a pure genius composer could not improve if they took the time to master bach.. and infact, that more likely, the thorough study of the WTC  (and perhaps the Beethoven sonatas as well) is one of the most defining aspects of any musical education that leads to a "genius" composer..  its obviously a subjective point, but I doubt better learning material exists.

[outin]

..The WTC is not so infrequently described as the pianists staple diet. One should chew on some every day if you expect to stay healthy.

Not denying that this is how it is today, but it doesn't really count as scientific (or historical) evidence

And to be honest, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that even a pure genius composer could not improve if they took the time to master bach.. and infact, that more likely, the thorough study of the WTC  (and perhaps the Beethoven sonatas as well) is one of the most defining aspects of any musical education that leads to a "genius" composer..  its obviously a subjective point, but I doubt better learning material exists.

Even if this is all true, it still does not prove that it's the ONLY way...I don't like fanaticism (is that a word?) of any kind and I see a lot of that on this forum in regards to Bach.

I doubt I will ever be able to provide the empirical evidence to prove you people wrong, but I will certainly keep trying...

[ajspiano]

Not denying that this is how it is today, but it doesn't really count as scientific (or historical) evidence

Even if this is all true, it still does not prove that it's the ONLY way...I don't like fanaticism (is that a word?) of any kind and I see a lot of that on this forum in regards to Bach.

I doubt I will ever be able to provide the empirical evidence to prove you people wrong, but I will certainly keep trying...

For there to be evidence you'd have to either have one person live their life twice, identically, except for failing to study bach in one of them.. and then be able to somehow define the better compositions from each life.

its not fanaticism.. (must be a word, spell check didnt complain) ..the material is just incredibly good, and there is a phenomenal amount to learn crammed into it..  if I find something better I'll gladly prescribe that over bach.

......

plus there are other things.. take these quotes.. (and make of them what you will)

"About the same time, a Canadian named Eugene Canby began subjecting test plots of wheat to recordings of violin sonatas by J.S. Bach, and found that yields increased by 66%"

"Plants "listening" to selections from Led Zeppelin, Vanilla Fudge, and Jimi Hendrix became stunted or gangly, with long stems and sparse leaf growth, some bending away from the sound source; after 16 days, most of these plants died."

"Retallack also found that the discordant music of 20th century composers Arnold Schönberg and Anton von Webern also caused plants to atrophy"

..I'd rather like to read the entire studies myself, but have never bothered to track them down.

It may be possible to argue scientifically that listening to and studying those earlier composers, perhaps especially bach, is just good for your brain on a biological development level. So it may not only be what you learn about music, but that you just get better at thinking.

[outin]

For there to be evidence you'd have to either have one person live their life twice, identically, except for failing to study bach in one of them.. and then be able to somehow define the better compositions from each life.

Actually it is possible to analyze the skills one can learn from playing Bach (polyphony for example) and find out if there are any other ways to learn/teach those. If no-one has done it, it means things are just taken for granted when it comes to Bach.

I'm beginning to think piano pedagogies are just being lazy, because if they didn't use Bach they might need to come up with something new

its not fanaticism.. (must be a word, spell check didnt complain) ..

Maybe not on your part

"About the same time, a Canadian named Eugene Canby began subjecting test plots of wheat to recordings of violin sonatas by J.S. Bach, and found that yields increased by 66%"

"Plants "listening" to selections from Led Zeppelin, Vanilla Fudge, and Jimi Hendrix became stunted or gangly, with long stems and sparse leaf growth, some bending away from the sound source; after 16 days, most of these plants died."

I have read about that study, although interesting, the limitations in validity where so many that the results didn't actually prove that much.

They made a study here about whether cows produced more milk when made to listen to Bach. I can't remember the actual results, but I'm into playing piano, not producing milk 

[ajspiano]

I'm beginning to think piano pedagogies are just being lazy, because if they didn't use Bach they might need to come up with something new

I would agree wholeheartedly with that..  but I rather think that in order to replace bach, one would have to be as competent as bach - which I firmly believe is an achievable aim (gasp! blasphemy!)..

..but I'm hardly in a position to do something as good as bach yet, so I'm just going to keep using bach.

..

To be honest, for myself I use bach as a model for how to write improvise play polyphonic works now..  but I learn most of it through roughly imitating his style, or altering his ideas, ..generally messing with the works not actually playing his music as written. I haven't run into a lot of students that I can tell to do that though, they lack either interest or enough background understanding.. they usually just want to play one thing in particular that sounds cool, not actually learn to play generally.

[outin]

I would agree wholeheartedly with that..  but I rather think that in order to replace bach, one would have to be as competent as bach - which I firmly believe is an achievable aim (gasp! blasphemy!)..

OK, I admit that you are not a fanatic

To be honest, for myself I use bach as a model for how to write improvise play polyphonic works now..  but I learn most of it through imitating his style and messing with the works not actually playing his music  as written. I haven't run into a lot of students that I can tell to do that though, they lack either interest or enough background understanding.. they usually just want to play one thing in particular that sounds cool, not actually learn to play generally.

Understand and I see nothing wrong with using Bach (at least some of it), I am just tired of everyone force feeding it in large quantities to those poor people like me who find his stuff musically boring... Learning some Bach in addition to other things is not same as "mastering Bach" (quote from J-Menz with no disrespect).

[ajspiano]

Learning some Bach in addition to other things is not same as "mastering Bach" (quote from J-Menz with no disrespect).

No its not, but thats not really what j_menz means I think..  so much as mastering the ability to conceive and handle contrapuntal lines, and to a level where you have very independent control over separate ideas. Its far more obvious and easy to learn/understand in baroque work (not necessarily bach) than it is in romantic work...  (at least I certainly think so).

Romantics also present obscene physical challenges that can totally cloud your mind from focusing on controlling lines/phrasing - you're just too busy trying to play the right notes at the right speed..  and a lot of us (myself included) are trying to play these phenomenally difficult works with complex harmony when in reality we probably still have a long way to go just controlling a line of single notes.

Its a case of walk before you run..  you can go a really long way managing what I might term the "obscenely complex simplicity" found in a lot of baroque music, before you try to handle what I perceive to be a lot more challenging - having the same level of understanding and control over whats happening in later repertoire.

...

the earlier repertoire is far more easily (though it probably doesn't seem to be so at first glance [or attempt]) replicated. The harmonic constructs are more rigid, and that rigidity is more visible in the score.. and MUCH more audible when listened to.  This is at contrast to the way more modern composers can use much richer complex harmony and more convoluted chord changes and modulations.

In baroque (for example) you can learn to manage harmony in obvious, relatively simple consonance or dissonance at any one moment.. instead of harmony using every conceivable interval all at once..  you get to build up to rich sound, instead of starting with rich sound and no fundamental idea of how you get there and why it works.

/end rant

[j_menz]

No its not, but thats not really what j_menz means I think..  so much as mastering the ability to conceive and handle contrapuntal lines, and to a level where you have very independent control over separate ideas. Its far more obvious and easy to learn/understand in baroque work (not necessarily bach) than it is in romantic work...  (at least I certainly think so).

Yep.

On the romantics and Bach though; Beethoven had, according to his teacher, mastered the WTC by 11; Chopin carried a copy everywhere; Liszt wrote transcriptions of it; Mendelsohn was the one to make it "fashionable" again. What romantic music doesn't stem from these?

[outin]

Yep.

On the romantics and Bach though; Beethoven had, according to his teacher, mastered the WTC by 11; Chopin carried a copy everywhere; Liszt wrote transcriptions of it; Mendelsohn was the one to make it "fashionable" again. What romantic music doesn't stem from these?

Are you saying the Russian composers are all just derivatives from the Germans/Liszt/Chopin? 

[outin]

No its not, but thats not really what j_menz means I think..  so much as mastering the ability to conceive and handle contrapuntal lines, and to a level where you have very independent control over separate ideas. Its far more obvious and easy to learn/understand in baroque work (not necessarily bach) than it is in romantic work...  (at least I certainly think so).

Romantics also present obscene physical challenges that can totally cloud your mind from focusing on controlling lines/phrasing - you're just too busy trying to play the right notes at the right speed..  and a lot of us (myself included) are trying to play these phenomenally difficult works with complex harmony when in reality we probably still have a long way to go just controlling a line of single notes.

Its a case of walk before you run..  you can go a really long way managing what I might term the "obscenely complex simplicity" found in a lot of baroque music, before you try to handle what I perceive to be a lot more challenging - having the same level of understanding and control over whats happening in later repertoire.

...

the earlier repertoire is far more easily (though it probably doesn't seem to be so at first glance [or attempt]) replicated. The harmonic constructs are more rigid, and that rigidity is more visible in the score.. and MUCH more audible when listened to.  This is at contrast to the way more modern composers can use much richer complex harmony and more convoluted chord changes and modulations.

In baroque (for example) you can learn to manage harmony in obvious, relatively simple consonance or dissonance at any one moment.. instead of harmony using every conceivable interval all at once..  you get to build up to rich sound, instead of starting with rich sound and no fundamental idea of how you get there and why it works.

/end rant

You have many valid points.

But many people with little understanding of these things (myself included) read this forum, and sometimes what is written comes out as: “Don’t want to spend the rest of your life with Bach? Forget about learning to play the piano!”.

[ajspiano]

You have many valid points.

But many people with little understanding of these things (myself included) read this forum, and sometimes what is written comes out as: “Don’t want to spend the rest of your life with Bach? Forget about learning to play the piano!”.

That's probably fair..  In reality I never thrust any piece onto a student if they don't like it. I only point in the direction of what will be beneficial.

I think that people get given pretty direct and blunt answers here, often times encapsulating several years worth of learning into a short post that just essentially just says "go do this mammoth task". That's not how it works in person.. You deal with one thing at a time, and what the plan is for the next week or two of work. Which would never be so plain as "here, learn this Bach" - that doesn't teach much.

[ajspiano]

Without providing the required explanation..

I would be happy introducing someone to the same ideas using this little gem.

[j_menz]

Are you saying the Russian composers are all just derivatives from the Germans/Liszt/Chopin? 

Not "just".

[outin]

Not "just".

Ok, I guess you didn't say that...

Since I am a big fan of you (in both your phases) I hope I don't come out as argumentative just for fun... I am seriously worried about my dislike for certain greats...For example when I listen and look at Gould playing Bach, I am amazed by his finger technique and preciness. But that's it, the music just goes through my head, I can't keep myself interested in the substance of it.
Same with Arrau and Beethoven, he's amazing but the music just doesn't give me anything...

[mehdifshp]

Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate it.

What I got from reading your posts is that playing Bach is very beneficial(even IF there are better ways, It is still does the work pretty good), so I started to play notebook for Anna Magdalena.

[slane]

You've gone through all of  mikrokosmos I&II?? You poor thing.

If you're looking for more albums of pedagogical works like that how about bergmuller progressive etudes op 100? He's a romantic. Schumann's album for the young? Another romantic. And what about kabalevsky 30 pieces for children?
I was gonna say anna magdalena's notebook (although I think almost none of it is composed by JS??) but you read my mind.