Audition- Substantial contemporary work

[anfieldstuff]

Hello everyone,
Could you please recommend a contemporary work that I can prepare for my auditions? I'm looking to study at a top music college in the US..
Could you recommend me some good pieces (not too difficult) by Debussy, Scriabin, Shoshtakovich, Rachmaninoff and co? Thanks a lot.

[alistaircrane4]

Debussy- La fille au chevaux de lin, Arabesque in E-major, Reverie
Rachmaninoff- prelude op 23 no4 and no5.
Prokofiev- Montagues and Capulets piano version naturally..

[anfieldstuff]

Thank you! I read that the Arabesque is prohibited by the Eastman School of Music? Also, is Ballade 1 a good choice for the substantial romantic piece? I have just started working on it.. Is it overplayed?

[alistaircrane4]

what schools in America are you applying to. Yes the ballade is overplayed but rarely played well. So the critiques are harsh.

[j_menz]

Is it too faint a hope that someone might actually be breathing?

Check our Rodion Shchedrin, Carl Vine, Faizil Say, Stephen Hough, our own Alistair, David Tredici, and countless others......

Now, 'scuse me while I go dust the museum that is "contemporary" piano repertoire. Maybe a very heavy duster? Or, heaven help us, one of these apparently newfangled electric suction thingies?

[alistaircrane4]

Is it too faint a hope that someone might actually be breathing?

Check our Rodion Shchedrin, Carl Vine, Faizil Say, Stephen Hough, our own Alistair, David Tredici, and countless others......

Now, 'scuse me while I go dust the museum that is "contemporary" piano repertoire. Maybe a very heavy duster? Or, heaven help us, one of these apparently newfangled electric suction thingies?

By contemporary colleges normally mean from the twentieth century so there are not as many great composers and works worth playing.

[j_menz]

By contemporary colleges normally mean from the twentieth century so there are not as many great composers and works worth playing.

Go wash you mouth out. Then open your mind and ears.

You're proof my duster needs extra oomph.  

Some of us think music still lives. And if your YT channel is anything to go by, so do you.

[cbreemer]

It's a bit silly to suggest great 20th century music ends with the likes of Debussy, Rachmaninov and Prokofiev. In addition to the already mentioned composers we have still among us Liebermann, Corigliano, Hamelin, Kapustin, Stevenson to name just a few.

[visitor]

+1 @ Jmenz.  +1 @ cbreemer.

 @acrane.  Shame on you!  Some of the most bomb rad music ever written, and volumes if incredie great works came to us after 1899....

[visitor]

+1 @ Jmenz.  +1 @ cbreemer.

 @acrane.  Shame on you!  Some of the most bomb diggy music ever written, and volumes if incredie great works came to us after 1899....

At op
How about Korngold Op.3? On their own they are yummy little morsels of incredible beauty and ingenuity, but take all 7 in one meal , and it should count as more than just merely substantial
Ie

Ie summary from a feature Schott did on these and Korny
 Erich Korngold's outstanding gifts and masterly craftsmanship as composer are on full display in Fairy Tale Pictures op. 3, a work composed by the child prodigy when he was only 14. The work is a fine example of Korngold's unique ability to evoke images vividly in the imagination of an audience. Throughout the seven movements, Korngold captures in music both stories from traditional fairy tales such as "The Princess and the Pea" and "Rübezahl" as well as scenes of his own making such as "The Fairy King's Ball".

[anfieldstuff]

By contemporary, they mean Debussy, Scriabin, Prokofiev.. Can you please Advice pieces?

And I'm applying to NEC, Peabody, Eastman and Bienen.

[visitor]

By contemporary, they mean Debussy, Scriabin, Prokofiev.. Can you please Advice pieces?

And I'm applying to NEC, Peabody, Eastman and Bienen.

like a 20th century sonata? Those are about as substantial as they come .  Or do you need something smaller in scale? How much playing time are you dedicating to the segment?

Btw 3rd movement is awesomest

[anfieldstuff]

Maybe 5-6 mins

[visitor]

Maybe 5-6 mins

so there are apparently vastly different notions of substantial. 

[visitor]

so there are apparently vastly different notions of substantial.  

Have a look at Szymakowski op 34. Or of the excerpts would seem to fit, de damn impressive and likely not also played by any other applicants ?

A little shorter

[visitor]

Kodalay meditation on a motive of Debussy

[mjames]

By contemporary colleges normally mean from the twentieth century so there are not as many great composers and works worth playing.

So *** narrow-minded...jesus dude.

[visitor]

Enescu op. 10 excerpt from suite 2. Pavanne

[alistaircrane4]

Go wash you mouth out. Then open your mind and ears.

You're proof my duster needs extra oomph.  

Some of us think music still lives. And if your YT channel is anything to go by, so do you.

Music can still live but it does not mean it is good. That goes for my works as well. Music can never return to the way it once was. The days when there was only one kind of music. The most amazing kind made by the most amazing composers. We will never have that again. To quote Glenn Gould "music in the occidental sense is dead"
My tastes are very very strict so this is all my opinion. After Schoenberg and Bartok came on the scene it was finished. The good composers that were left such as Szymanowski, Dohyani, Martinu, etc were not as well scene. To make it worse you get people like Stockhausen and Ligeti whos compositions sound like a child on the piano. The only composer who mastered atonal music and could make it sound stunningly beautiful was Scriabin. But this is all my opinion. Even with all I am saying I still don't like many compositions of the 20th century. I only like a very small area. I dislike Bach and Mozart. And I only like the Romantic period but I still know plenty about the other periods.

[cbreemer]

What BS was GG talking here ? Music in the Western sense dead ?
It may be true that we haven't seen another Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, but there are still plenty of great composers.

[j_menz]

Music can never return to the way it once was. The days when there was only one kind of music. The most amazing kind made by the most amazing composers. We will never have that again. .

If you're going to OD on nostalgia, at least be nostalgic for a past that existed. 

[chopincat]

Music can still live but it does not mean it is good.

It's one thing to say that you don't enjoy listening to 20th century classical music. That's an opinion that you're perfectly entitled to. But to say that there was no good classical music in the 20th century is to disqualify such a wealth of amazing work. Maybe you don't personally prefer these works to romantic period works, but you can't deny that they were extremely influential and important. To call all of it "bad" is just very close-minded.

When really prestigious schools talk about "substantial contemporary works," they're usually not talking about impressionism, which is kind of a separate category. And they're definitely not talking about the Arabesque or La Fille. (For the record I love both of those pieces, but they're just not going to help you out in an important audition).

[mjames]

People like you live in delusions. The reason you think like this is because history weeded out most musicians and only left the very few that many of us strongly admire. I assure you, there were plenty of shitty music writing back in the 19th century. I am positive that after history (once again) weeds out a variety of music, people 50 years from now will look back and say "those were the days of real music blah blah". People say sh*t like this in EVERY single era, generation etc. Chopin, Brahms, hated or thought less of their contemporary composers. Point is, music is not dead. It is very much alive, and genius still exists. The only problem here is you and your conservatism. There's nothing wrong with living the way you do, but don't talk as if your conservative beliefs are facts.

[thalbergmad]

How in the name of all that is holy can Debussy ever be mentioned in the same sentence as contemporary?

[diomedes]

There's nothing wrong with living the way you do, but don't talk as if your conservative beliefs are facts.

I agree. People often use opinions as grounds of antagonistic behavior. Settle down sirs, life is too short. If you want to sit around and listen to Mozart while sipping wine in your little room forever, that's beautiful. I'll be sitting in mine listening to Louis Couperin and company played on harpsichords while sipping next level Belgian ale. But you don't see me insulting contemporary music. Jeebus.

[mjames]

How in the name of all that is holy can Debussy ever be mentioned in the same sentence as contemporary?

There is definitely something wrong with the world of classical music when countless of musicians consider people who were born two centuries ago as contemporary composers.

[alistaircrane4]

There is definitely something wrong with the world of classical music when countless of musicians consider people who were born two centuries ago as contemporary composers.

When he says contemporary he means from the twentieth century. The poster named Debussy and Rachmaninoff as proof he meant twentieth century.

[quantum]

Music can never return to the way it once was.

Sorry mate, that is incorrect.  History has proven this time and again.  Music composition is like fashion, trends come and go in cycles. 

[alistaircrane4]

Sorry mate, that is incorrect.  History has proven this time and again.  Music composition is like fashion, trends come and go in cycles. 



[/quote
Trends may come and go but it will not be the same. Because it is not new. We may have a new Beethoven or Mozart but because they were first it takes away from the new. The first doers are always the highest regarded. Look at Bach he had incredible counter point but others came after him with even more amazing counter point but because Bach was primarily the first we do not acknowledge the later achievers as we do Bach.

[quantum]

The first doers are always the highest regarded.

I'd like to see that claim supported by evidence.

Look at Bach he had incredible counter point but others came after him with even more amazing counter point but because Bach was primarily the first we do not acknowledge the later achievers as we do Bach.

So you claim Bach was the first to employ counterpoint, or as you say "amazing counter point" 

hmmmm....

[alistaircrane4]

I'd like to see that claim supported by evidence.


So you claim Bach was the first to employ counterpoint, or as you say "amazing counter point" 

hmmmm....

He is known for it mostly. Every time I have ever heard about Bach all I hear about is his counterpoint but as far as what I deem important counterpoint is not a big deal. The most important thing to have in music is melodic genius. Some composers have it others do not and it takes them a long time. Like Liszt his later works show much more melodic genius than just technical genius which when it comes to music is not as important as melodic genius in my opinion. I have been hard pressed to find pianists who have great technique as well as great playing ability. I find in my tastes those with great technique often do not have the most beautiful interpretation i.e Argerich,Pogorelich,Horowitz. I respect them as pianists but I do not prefer them to listen to.

[j_menz]

He is known for it mostly. Every time I have ever heard about Bach all I hear about is his counterpoint

You need to broaden your understanding of him, then.

But from a historical perspective, Bach was very late to the (baroque) counterpoint game. One of the last, not one of the first.

Interestingly, you may be surprised to find most of the great melodists of the romantic era studied Bach closely (for Bach was a very fine melodist) and, even where they did not employ strict counterpoint (and most at least dabbled in it) they wholeheartedly embraced  and developed the underlying polyphony.

[alistaircrane4]

You need to broaden your understanding of him, then.

But from a historical perspective, Bach was very late to the (baroque) counterpoint game. One of the last, not one of the first.

Interestingly, you may be surprised to find most of the great melodists of the romantic era studied Bach closely (for Bach was a very fine melodist) and, even where they did not employ strict counterpoint (and most at least dabbled in it) they wholeheartedly embraced  and developed the underlying polyphony.

Of course they studied him naturally but in comparison to the others Bach melodies are simple and obvious this is all my opinion. That is why I like Chopin so much. His melodies are not so predictable and they fit. And because of his style only he can do it that way. Same with Liszt and Rachmaninoff. They have such amazing styles. I just do not like Baroque. With two exceptions Scarlatti and Corelli.

[mjames]

Of course they studied him naturally but in comparison to the others Bach melodies are simple and obvious this is all my opinion. That is why I like Chopin so much. His melodies are not so predictable and they fit. And because of his style only he can do it that way. Same with Liszt and Rachmaninoff. They have such amazing styles. I just do not like Baroque. With two exceptions Scarlatti and Corelli.

"
You're seriously starting to sound like someone who only listens to "best of classical" cds.

[visitor]

"
You're seriously starting to sound like someone who only listens to "best of classical" cds.

Lol

You need to broaden your understanding of him, then.

But from a historical perspective, Bach was very late to the (baroque) counterpoint game. One of the last, not one of the first.

Interestingly, you may be surprised to find most of the great melodists of the romantic era studied Bach closely (for Bach was a very fine melodist) and, even where they did not employ strict counterpoint (and most at least dabbled in it) they wholeheartedly embraced  and developed the underlying polyphony.

+1
Add to that that it is Handel ( not JS Bach) that I was and still is widely considered the greatest composer of both his time and in some regards of all time ( at least  of all time until the time of Mozart and Beethoven ).  But those dudes' opinions prolly do not matter to acrane

It's not like there are quotes of someone like Luddy VB confirming or affirming this...oh wait
Beethoven once said: "Handel was the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head, and kneel before his tomb." King George III called Handel "the Shakespeare of Music." George Bernard Shaw commented that "Handel is not a mere composer in England: he is an institution.*a sacred one at that ....

[j_menz]

Beethoven once said: "Handel was the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head, and kneel before his tomb."

I was actually unaware of that quote. 

[visitor]

I was actually unaware of that quote. 

well I am only a mere plebeian. I probably read it in a factoid whole on the toilet or under a drink cap
https://www.snapple.com/real-facts/cap-view

 

[alistaircrane4]

"
You're seriously starting to sound like someone who only listens to "best of classical" cds.

I just do not like Bach and Baroque period music. Forgive me for not sharing the same opinion as nearly everyone else in the world. If that makes me sound close minded then there is nothing I can do I suppose.

[ahinton]

By contemporary colleges normally mean from the twentieth century so there are not as many great composers and works worth playing.

Which particular colleges do this? Can you name any? Why would anyone want to audition to attend a college that believes composers long dead, of whom some were born in the 19th century, can be described as "contemporary"?

For a young student, it would be reasonable to assume "contemporary" to denote works written during his/her lifetime or shortly before it, whether or not their composers are still alive; for example, the song My love is in a light attire was composed in 1928, but even though its composer Elliott Carter died only 26 months ago yesterday (having completed his final work barely three months earlier), that song could hardly be described as "contemporary", could it?!

Best,

Alistair

[goldentone]

It's not like there are quotes of someone like Luddy VB confirming or affirming this...oh wait
Beethoven once said: "Handel was the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head, and kneel before his tomb." King George III called Handel "the Shakespeare of Music." George Bernard Shaw commented that "Handel is not a mere composer in England: he is an institution.*a sacred one at that ....

Visitor, you are on the money.  I will buttress along with you that Beethoven venerated Handel, "the father of us all" as he also admitted as a piano shop.  But what did King George III know about Shakespeare?  He even got his name wrong.

[alistaircrane4]

Which particular colleges do this? Can you name any? Why would anyone want to audition to attend a college that believes composers long dead, of whom some were born in the 19th century, can be described as "contemporary"?

For a young student, it would be reasonable to assume "contemporary" to denote works written during his/her lifetime or shortly before it, whether or not their composers are still alive; for example, the song My love is in a light attire was composed in 1928, but even though its composer Elliott Carter died only 26 months ago yesterday (having completed his final work barely three months earlier), that song could hardly be described as "contemporary", could it?!

Best,

Alistair

For one college I know for a fact that has this standard is SUNY Purchase, which actually has nice conservatory but what bothered me and deterred me from applying was the mandated 20th century work. A pianist should never have to play something they do not wish to play.

[visitor]

Visitor, you are on the money.  I will buttress along with you that Beethoven venerated Handel, "the father of us all" as he also admitted as a piano shop.  But what did King George III know about Shakespeare?  He even got his name wrong.

Thanks for that !
Here is a photo of Chaplain behind the scene AND A potato

[j_menz]

as a potatoe

Dan Quale would be so proud. 

[thorn]

I love how when one doesn't like a piece of music/a composer they immediately question the composer's ability to compose.

I also love how when one does like a piece of music/a composer they will give you a dozen instances where a credible figure has also praised that music.

Considering some composers have hundreds of years of credible praise, compared to the tens or less others have had, of course all the old composers are going to be fantastic compared to living ones

[visitor]

Dan Quale would be so proud. 

we aim to please!! ha ha

[ahinton]

For one college I know for a fact that has this standard is SUNY Purchase, which actually has nice conservatory but what bothered me and deterred me from applying was the mandated 20th century work. A pianist should never have to play something they do not wish to play.

As I indicated, I would be more concerned that a music conservatoire worth of the name expect to categorise pieces that might date back as far as the beginning of the last century as "contemporary"; whatever kind of message does that send out to would-be audition candidates? Apart from any other consideration, one might wonder ho much longer they'd be prepared to do this; might they still purport to regard the piano music of Scriabin and Debussy as "contemporary" in half a century or more's time?

As to your last sentence, a pianist (or other instrumentalist) might often be asked to play something that doesn't espiecally appeal but, at audition stage, the point is to demonstrate that the player concerned has a decent grasp of music of several periods; if you happened not to like - or like playing - Bach, Beethoven or Chopin, what would you do if requested to do so at an audition? Give up and not bother?

Best,

Alistair

[alistaircrane4]

As I indicated, I would be more concerned that a music conservatoire worth of the name expect to categorise pieces that might date back as far as the beginning of the last century as "contemporary"; whatever kind of message does that send out to would-be audition candidates? Apart from any other consideration, one might wonder ho much longer they'd be prepared to do this; might they still purport to regard the piano music of Scriabin and Debussy as "contemporary" in half a century or more's time?

As to your last sentence, a pisnit (or other instrumentalist) may often be asked to play something that doesn't espiecally appeal but, at audition stage, the point is to demonstrate that the player concerned has a decent grasp of music of several period; if you happened not to like - or like playing - Bach, Beethoven or Chopin, what would you do if requested to do so at an audition? Give up and not bother?

Best,

Alistair

They do not refer to it as contemporary only as Twentieth century. The original poster used the term "Contemporary" . I do not agree we this as it is not a matter of opinion it is a simply a matter of chronology. I do not like required repertoire for anything auditions especially. It is a waste to learn a piece only to play it once. And as for competitions it is even more dreadful because your chance of winning goes down when you have to play rep you do not like. So in my case required Bach or Mozart works and commissioned works.

[quantum]

[...] but what bothered me and deterred me from applying was the mandated 20th century work. A pianist should never have to play something they do not wish to play.

You should be looking into course descriptions then.  There may be a surprise awaiting, that requires a student taking a course to learn mandated works, or works from a particular time period.  

[visitor]

[visitor]