contemporary pieces

[echoyjeff222]

My teacher really really wants me (basically forcing me) to try out some contemporary pieces. I haven't done any before. She suggested Ravel's waltzes (eight noble and sentimental waltzes) ... but I took a listen and I am really really not a fan. My ears are just not tuned to that sort of dissonance. I was hoping if anyone had some suggestions for contemporary works that aren't so dissonant yet still present a challenge (I suggested to my teacher the pavane for a dead princess by ravel but she wasn't a fan of that -- too simple, she said ??) ...

So I was just hoping for some suggestions that would be a challenge, but would be something that I would enjoy playing as well.

Thanks!

[quantum]

Ginastera - Danzas Argentinas
(listen to all movements before you dismiss it)

Albéniz - Evocación from Iberia.  
You could also look at the other pieces from Iberia.  

Piazzolla - Adios Nonino "Tango Rhapsody"

Medtner - Fairy Tale op.20 no.1
Look at the other Fairy Tales as well.  

Scriabin - Etude Op.8 No.11

Sibelius - Impromptu Op.5 No.5

Messiaen - Prelude 1
look at the others as well

[ted]

Something by David Thomas Roberts perhaps.

[nanabush]

Contemporary is a very vague word, and you will get some answers from as early as 1901 until today.

I'd second the Danzas Argentinas (if it its in your time frame).  The first one is hilarious, the second one is beautiful, and the third will definitely reveal techniques you have never ever played before.  It's such a biting piece - I played it for an RCM exam, and it probably took my mother (who just like beautiful sounding music  ) to enjoy the piece... part of it was probably me playing it 1/4 of the speed for a few hours a day, but the sounds of it grew on her.  I'd agree, listen and look through a score at the same time.

If Ravel is being suggested, I'd also suggest Debussy - ANY of his preludes.  There are definitely the crowd and forum favorites, but they are all extremely special pieces.  This is another example of two sets of pieces where you really have to dig to find what makes them beautiful.  Some of them can just be 'played' and still sound decent (La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin, la Cathedrale Engloutie), whereas others (like Feux d'Artifice, Danse de Puck, les Sons et les Parfums Tournant dans l'air du Soir, Terrace des Audiences de la Claire de Lune, Brouillards, Feuilles Mortes, etc, etc, etc) REALLY require you to analyze and interpret.  None of them are nasty difficult like Liszt Etudes, but, similar to the Ginastera, they really stand on their own. 

With that in mind, anything by Debussy and Ravel are good!  Griffes also has some really sweet stuff (I feel like I always hear an echo in a canyon when I mention his name... barely anyone knows his stuff!!  And it is truly really good!)

Liebermann's  "Gargoyles" is very good - but I really don't know what kind of music you are playing now, and these likely will be extremely difficult.  I have a big reach and the fourth one was KILLING me when I was trying it out.

Bartok has two Roumanian Dances op8a (correct me if it is not these), and the first one is really good.  It's got an eccentric march like rhythm, goes into some very convoluted harmonies and melodies, and is in the form of a Rhapsody (basically it has the fast-slow-fast, but the slow section is very hypnotic, mystical sounding, and is just awesome).

Khatchaturian's Toccata is mentioned pretty often on the forum (not as much recently), but is a straightforward, and effective piece.  It's got some very rhythmic components to it, and it honestly is just a catchy piece.

Eummmm.... who else here.  If you want to destroy a piano, and can find a Flautist and Cellist, play 'Vox Balanae' by George Crumb.  That was probably my favorite piece I've ever played in my life, and since the Flautist was doing her Master's Thesis, she knew the background of the piece inside out.  It's ridiculously good, makes VERY good use of extended techniques, and it almost has a story arc to it that an audience can grasp.  That is a pretty contemporary piece, isn't Lisztian-difficult, but takes quite a bit of coordination of the glass rods, chisels, paperclips, etc. etc.  My teacher was probably holding back tears when we were rehearsing the piece lol.

[awesom_o]

What about Barber Excursions? Beautiful music!

Ravel's Pavane is pretty damn hard to play.... I've seen big concert pianists give sketchy-as-hell performances of it. Although I've never performed it myself, I've studied it quite deeply.... its textural and tonal demands are EXTREME!

But definitely check out the Excursions! The last one, based on the cowboy song 'Streets of Laredo' is REALLY beautiful!

[visitor]

more lateruz on !

[visitor]

from The Garden of Eden

[echoyjeff222]

Thanks for all the recommendations! I'll be taking a look through them today. The last piece I played was Brahms' intermezzo op. 117 no. 3, which I really really enjoyed.

I told my friend that I was sort of closing myself off to anything past the romantic era, heh. I've never really played much of it, and consequently my ears aren't too used to the dissonance/lack of structure. It's funny, I used to hate baroque music because it was too structured and boring (back a few years ago when I was in high school) and now I absolutely love it. I should probably open myself up to the contemporary era as well ... who knows what'll happen!

[visitor]

Thanks for all the recommendations! I'll be taking a look through them today. The last piece I played was Brahms' intermezzo op. 117 no. 3, which I really really enjoyed.

I told my friend that I was sort of closing myself off to anything past the romantic era, heh. I've never really played much of it, and consequently my ears aren't too used to the dissonance/lack of structure. It's funny, I used to hate baroque music because it was too structured and boring (back a few years ago when I was in high school) and now I absolutely love it. I should probably open myself up to the contemporary era as well ... who knows what'll happen!

contemporary music is actually subject to much more strict/stringent guidelines in organization, 'rules' and musical 'cues' and instructions than older music.  it is no less lovely (there are some awful stinkers though, but the barqoue-romantic have their share of garbage too). the most extreme strict rules are what we actually see with true 12 tone matrix composing.

there's tons of stuff to look at past the early part of the last century; perhaps start with lesser played 'neo romatnic stuff' that is a bit more daring that the normal fare....
one of my ABSOLUTE FAVORITES!! The incredible Francisco Mignone

good luck. i'll keep on adding as stuff comes to mind. there's so much i'm aware of that i forget unless i actively try to remember pieces and composers i particular like

[ahinton]

Almost all the works mentioned in this thread are not "contemporary"! Most are by deceased composers and a few are are getting on for a century old! There's no hard and fast definition for the word, of course, but surely it should suggest living composers and works by those alive or dead that dated from, say, the past quarter century or so.

Best,

Alistair

[goldentone]

Francisco Mignone!  You've opened my eyes to music I've never heard in a more contemporary grove.  Back in his time, they may have thought "There's a Liszt in the making!"  Brahms succeeded Beethoven, in time's 'natural' order of course, but Brahms' architecture is amazingly structured.  Order within music does not restrict the beauty, rather I would say reinforces it.

[j_menz]

Almost all the works mentioned in this thread are not "contemporary"! Most are by deceased composers and a few are are getting on for a century old! There's no hard and fast definition for the word, of course, but surely it should suggest living composers and works by those alive or dead that dated from, say, the past quarter century or so.

Best,

Alistair

Quite so. 

I'd also suggest nothing written before one was born, so "contemporary with you"!

[j_menz]

One composer you may like, combining baroque forms, neo-romantic and ear friendly contemporary is Gary Noland. Still alive and kicking, too.

Here's a piece from 2009:

Or you could try some Tryvge Madsen preludes and fugues. Sample...

[visitor]

Francisco Mignone!  You've opened my eyes to music I've never heard in a more contemporary grove.  Back in his time, they may have thought "There's a Liszt in the making!"  Brahms succeeded Beethoven, in time's 'natural' order of course, but Brahms' architecture is amazingly structured.  Order within music does not restrict the beauty, rather I would say reinforces it.

+1  to comments.

And yes, Franky M is the bomb-digz. Certainly worthy of frequent serious stage performance and recording. Was very well regarded in his time, and not totally unknown today though only in circles that seek this type of music out unfortunately.

Another worth exploring, though not nearly as prodigious in output (died very young like many) is Levitzky.

only recording I know of the Op 1 concert Waltz. Though his Op 2 is very famous and easily found on YT (it is worth seeking out. it is more frequently recorded and programmed in recitals) this is more substantial and rare

[mjames]

Ginastera - Danzas Argentinas
(listen to all movements before you dismiss it)

Albéniz - Evocación from Iberia.  
You could also look at the other pieces from Iberia.  

Piazzolla - Adios Nonino "Tango Rhapsody"

Medtner - Fairy Tale op.20 no.1
Look at the other Fairy Tales as well.  

Scriabin - Etude Op.8 No.11

Sibelius - Impromptu Op.5 No.5

Messiaen - Prelude 1
look at the others as well

Explain to me how composers who have been dead for over  50+ years (some have even been dead for almost 100) are considered contemporary? 

[visitor]

Eshpai I believe is still alive

[classicalnhiphop]

I believe that most people refer to contemporary as a certain style with dissonance becoming more prominent.  So, early Scriabin doesn't count, but guys like shoenberg (spelling) would, I think, even if they have been gone for a while. 

[quantum]

Explain to me how composers who have been dead for over  50+ years (some have even been dead for almost 100) are considered contemporary?  

Explain the assumptions you have made with regard to your use of the term "contemporary"?  

[quantum]

Denis Bédard - Duet Suite, for organ & piano

Ann Southam - Fidget creek
(if you like this you might like Rivers - there is a 2008 revision of the work)

Alexina Louie - Put on your running shoes
(if you have heard some of her earlier works, this is a bit different)

John Burge - Studies in Poetry
(a series of etudes)

Peggy Glanville-Hicks - Prelude for a Pensive Pupil

Heather Schmidt - Chaconne

Ruth Watson Henderson - Prelude and fugue

[j_menz]

Explain the assumptions you have made with regard to your use of the term "contemporary"?  

Contemporary means at the same time as.

So, with a reference, "Clementi was a contemporary of Mozart" is perfectly correct.

As an abstract term though, it means "up to date, of the present", so "contemporary music", without a "contemporary with" qualifier, means music of now.

Unless you're Humpty Dumpty, of course.

[quantum]

Perhaps we should reread the original query.

My teacher really really wants me (basically forcing me) to try out some contemporary pieces. I haven't done any before. She suggested Ravel's waltzes (eight noble and sentimental waltzes) ...

We see "contemporary", we also see the teachers recommendation of Ravel (1875-1937).  There are several perspectives here to consider.

Was the use of the term "contemporary" inaccurately applied due to the general lack of knowledge of genre?  Is the term used accurate, yet interpreted differently by teacher or student?  Is it a term used by an examining board or competition to denote a certain period of musical composition?  IMO it would be better to interpret within the spirit of the query rather than argue on the semantics of the word.  

[j_menz]

 IMO it would be better to interpret within the spirit of the query rather than argue on the semantics of the word.  

You're no fun at all. 

[quantum]

At times I may underestimate the spirit of Pianostreet and its penchant for creative tangents

[j_menz]

At times I may underestimate the spirit of Pianostreet and its penchant for creative tangents

It is a serious matter, though.  We now use the term in a manner that is not only at odds with it's conventional "proper" usage (which may be forgivable within any specialised context) but also devoid of any meaning at all.

In it's usage amongst pianists, calling a work "contemporary" in the waffly "anything after the romantics" sense tells me nothing at all about a piece. No hint as to what joys or horrors it might contain.

If we are to claim some exemption from normal English in our usage it should be justified on the basis of at least enhanced (or, at the very least, some) meaningfulness, not merely that we have been too lazy and unimaginative over the last century or so to come up with something that does actually mean something.

[goldentone]

+1  to comments.

And yes, Franky M is the bomb-digz. Certainly worthy of frequent serious stage performance and recording. Was very well regarded in his time, and not totally unknown today though only in circles that seek this type of music out unfortunately.

Another worth exploring, though not nearly as prodigious in output (died very young like many) is Levitzky.

Thank you, Visitor.  Fame can be a funny thing.  It can make one tongue-tied on a stage.

[mjames]

Explain the assumptions you have made with regard to your use of the term "contemporary"?  

Scriabin has been dead for almost 100 years and you're going to argue that his music contemporary? Lmao, alright what ever you say.  
If you mentioned something like his vers la flamme or any other of his late works I would understand, but his op. 8 etudes? You're going to argue over that?  
The only guy I would barely accept as contemporary is messiaen and he's been dead for over 20 years.

[theholygideons]

Scriabin has been dead for almost 100 years and you're going to argue that his music contemporary? Lmao, alright what ever you say. 
If you mentioned something like his version la flamme or any other of his late works I would understand, but his op. 8 etudes? You're going to argue over that? 
The only guy I would barely accept as contemporary is messiaen and he's been dead for over 20 years.

Scriabin's early works earned him the nickname, 'Chopin of Russia', and he would be closer as a contemporary of the Romantic era than of anything of today. Even his later sonatas, with the synthetic harmonies and chromaticism, are nothing out of the ordinary by today's standards. Scrabin is too popular nowadays anyway. If the composer were an obscure one and his works were abstract enough, then perhaps no one would question whether or not he were contemporary.   

[mjames]

Scriabin's early works earned him the nickname, 'Chopin of Russia', and he would be closer as a contemporary of the Romantic era than of anything of today..  

You get me.

You get me.

<3

no one would question whether or not he were contemporary.   

I would, the *** was born in the 19th century.

[quantum]

Lmao, alright what ever you say.  

I kindly return the favor.   

[quantum]

Scrabin is too popular nowadays anyway. If the composer were an obscure one and his works were abstract enough, then perhaps no one would question whether or not he were contemporary.   

Perhaps this is part of the problem.  Much of the musical aristocracy has allowed for the condition of popularity to crudely define the identity of a given composer or music.  People are discouraged from challenging norms defined by popularity, and instead flock to the obscure in hopes that their opinions may be taken more seriously on the condition that most people know little to nothing on the subject.  Even worse, is the quashing of differentiated ideas that diverge away from the popular consensus of the musico-aristocracy, and the attitude that there is only space for a singular state of idea. 

[j_menz]

the musical aristocracy  

Not so much the aristocracy, merely the upstart intelligentsia.

[theholygideons]

Perhaps this is part of the problem.  Much of the musical aristocracy has allowed for the condition of popularity to crudely define the identity of a given composer or music.  People are discouraged from challenging norms defined by popularity, and instead flock to the obscure in hopes that their opinions may be taken more seriously on the condition that most people know little to nothing on the subject.  Even worse, is the quashing of differentiated ideas that diverge away from the popular consensus of the musico-aristocracy, and the attitude that there is only space for a singular state of idea. 

I believe you misinterpreted my statement. Every pianist is familiar with the name Scriabin, and to say that he is contemporary shows a lack of knowledge on your part. I'm not saying that contemporary music has to be obscure and appeal to the intellect rather than to the masses.

[quantum]

Every pianist is familiar with the name Scriabin, and to say that he is contemporary shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

I believe you are making numerous assumptions in that statement.

[theholygideons]

I believe you are making numerous assumptions in that statement.

What, that not all pianists know Scriabin? impossible

[j_menz]

not all pianists know Scriabin?

He's been dead for quite a while, most of us never got the chance to know him.

Oh, and I assume you're talking about Alex. There are others.

Oh, and do try and keep the language PG.

[theholygideons]

He's been dead for quite a while, most of us never got the chance to know him.

Oh, and I assume you're talking about Alex. There are others.

Oh, and do try and keep the language PG.

greetings Mr. Obvious. 

[j_menz]

I believe I expressed a state of wonderment, as in 'not everybody knows who the exquisite, Mr Alexander Scriabin is?

Go read the forum guidelines re language.

You'll be surprised to know, quite a lot of people have never heard of Beethoven.

[theholygideons]

Go read the forum guidelines re language.

You'll be surprised to know, quite a lot of people have never heard of Beethoven.

you didn't see nothing.

are we talking about the general public here, or learned musicians...

[j_menz]

you didn't see nothing.

Much better.

are we talking about the general public here, or learned musicians...

Mostly the former in the case of Beethoven.

In the case of Scriabin, plenty of pianists, and most instrumentalists (violinists, flautists, singers etc...) probably haven't.

[mjames]

Why can't intelligent people see the simplicity in things? Yeah I wouldn't call Scriabin a popular composer, I mean he's obviously well known among pianists but that's pretty much it.

[visitor]

spam

[symphonicdance]

Paganini Jazz by Fazil Say?

[goldentone]

are you sure? had a pretty popular run of movies, and seemed to be a big hit with the young crowd  

Yeah, there wouldn't seem to be any segment of society where Beethoven hasn't claimed sovereignty of awareness.

[j_menz]

Paganini Jazz by Fazil Say?

Or his Alla Turca

(which is a whole new league in silly faces, too!  )

[visitor]

[visitor]

More! Really ouststanding. so beautiful!

[visitor]

https://www.musiccentre.ca/node/37826/biography

[quantum]

[roncesvalles]

The trois preludes written by Dutilleux are very attractive and present a worthwhile challenge.  They are to me, like a link between impressionism and more contemporary methods of composition.   Tristan Murail's piano works are worth looking into.  His earliest compositions from piano are influenced by impressionism, and his later efforts are fascinating to me.  Likewise Takemitsu is a favorite of mine--there is often a beautiful, abstract, meditative quality to his music.

If you are looking for contemporary works that are less "dissonant" then maybe you could take a look at Carl Vine or Silvestrov.

[visitor]

Peterson had his bits Of impressionistic flair...