Dissappointed by repertoire

[jacobspauly]

I wanted to ask you guys about how you feel about hearing the same pieces being performed by professional musicians. This last month I saw Jon Nakamatsu and watched the Cliburn and Kissin documentary DVD's at home. Many performers seem to keep rehashing the same repertoire over and over again and become famous for doing it slightly faster, slightly more expressive, or whatever. I heard more Chopin and versions of the Rach 3 than thought possible.

I love listening to them of coarse and always love listening to chopin and Liszt played superbly, but it seems like there is a TOP 40 mentality going around that bothers me. I think a great performer should not only make their career based off of playing the same pieces slightly better or different than the previous greats, but by having the capacity to explore new interpretations of more unfamiliar music.

I understand that the industry promotes this because it is what sells, but like I said, how is that art if you're playing the hits to sell records and pack halls. That's what Brightman and the likes do. Of coarse I know that these people need to put food on their table like I do, and if you've ever seen a piece like "Bolero" performed you would be amazed at the reaction from the audience, like the orchestra just performed Mahler while standing on their heads and patting their stomach.

Anyway, just some thoughts after the last few performances I've watched.

Paul

[cziffra]

This is why Gould so thoroughly despised of the concert platform, and why he sought to play each work entirely different to anyone else before him.  In fact, he believed that if the performer did not present something unique about a particular piece, there would be no merit in him learning it. 

Kevin Bazzana said, in his article "Gould and the Culture of Fluctuating Stasis"
Gould felt, moreover, that the fact of recording made a creative aesthetic imperative for a modern performer of the classical canon. Because so many conventional performances of canonical works are now permanently preserved, performers of such works have the option, even the duty, to be creative. He believed that basic statements about the canonical repertoire had already been made, and repeatedly made the point that one had no reason to record a familiar work again unless one had a significant and distinctive new interpretation of it to offer.

 It is tempting to concede his point: there are, and always will be, scores of conventional readings of Beethoven's Fifth in the record shops, not to mention the concert halls; it is difficult not to despair when confronted with yet one more performance of a familiar piece that simply reminds us how the music 'goes'.

Gould here tapped into a curious fact of his historical situation. It is indeed ironic that it is in post-war musical life, in the era of recording, that fidelity to the work is such a prevailing principle. If ever a Romantic era was needed it is now, when recording has released performers from the necessity of perpetuating conventional interpretations. One could have defended the need for such interpretations a hundred years ago, when one would hear a particular piece of music infrequently, and only in concert, yet a hundred years ago highly individual interpretation was much more common. Recording should really liberate rather than inhibit musical interpretation, and if it generally does not, even today, it is because we still have not fully grasped the implications of recording on musical life. But Gould did, and his mission as a kind of one-man Romantic era was the result.


Interesting, hey?

[Nordlys]

I definitely agree with this topic.

I am always amazed with how the most successfull soloists seem content to play the "top40" repertoir. These performers ought to have every possibility to choose interesting repertoir. Are they not more creative? But maybe it is like you say the industri deciding.

I believe this conservative mentality is one reason the audience attendance is so low now. I tried to raise a debate in another thread about this:
https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5669.0.html

Now it seems to me that it is the less famous pianists who are more creative in the repertoir, and play more unknown and modern music. They have to find a niche for themselves in order to be noticed. These concerts I often enjoy more.

I also don't think concerts with modern/unknown music appeal less to people of today than the classical "hits". People today want something extraordinary. But the concerts need PR, and composer and performer has to communicate with the audience.

Of course we still want to hear Liszt and Chopin, but not all the time.

[Daevren]

"In fact, he believed that if the performer did not present something unique about a particular piece, there would be no merit in him learning it."

I agree with Gould here. To me it seems pointless. Pointless to record a work if someone else already recorded it.

[xvimbi]

To me it seems pointless. Pointless to record a work if someone else already recorded it.

$$$

[Daevren]

Yes, thats what I said, pointless.

[Sketchee]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Except replace "skin" with "play" and "cat" with "piece".  It'll be a long time before we have every way of playing a piece recorded.  Still there is too much music to just concentrate on variations of the old ones.

Then again, if people can't break even selling their recordings then we may not get many recordings from those people, even if they're really good and playing interesting at playing these underplayed works.  Maybe now with selling music downloads becoming more popular, the overhead cost will be more and more affordable.  I'm talking about the top professionals mentioned in the first post.  I'm sure us lesser mortals could record a few of these pieces, which would be a different story.  My playing of Chopin-Liszt "Zyczenie" sure doesn't sound like Rachmaninov's...

[jacobspauly]

Hey , excellent insight by you guys. Thanks so much for the Gould quote because that is very interesting to think about. I know what you guys mean about how lesser known pianist(any musician) are the ones being progressive and exploring most of the underplayed works. I've been checking out Naxos to hear more of this, but it's still a shame the industry needs to be like this.

Especially for competitions you would think that they would want the performers to have a more unique interpretive ability to explore outside works. Why not even make them perform some of their own too? That would show pure creativity.

So who do you guys listen to when trying to find new and commanding interpretations of lesser known works?

Thanks,
Paul

[m]

Thanks so much for the Gould quote because that is very interesting to think about.

Yes, indeed Glenn Gould was quite an extraordinary personality.
Being such a bright person he indeed could very convincingly justify whatever he wanted to. The fact is, the bottom line of all his justifications was..... performing anxiety.
The bottom line of all his justifications was..... desire to be not like others, to be unique, excentric, The Great Glenn Gould. I have a friend who was fiendly with him. Gould would call him at 3 in the morning asking: "Tomorrow I have a recording. Should I play fast, or slow?" When the friend of mine asked Gould about recording of Chopin Sonata no.3, the answer was: "I wanted to show the world how bad this music is." Enough said for today. 

[anda]

I definitely agree with this topic.

I am always amazed with how the most successfull soloists seem content to play the "top40" repertoir.

name some of the works in this "top40"

anyway, i agree, i also believe some works - though great - are way overplayed. but i think it's mostly the fault of modern composers who - except for the exceptions, of course (i prefer playing modern/contemporary works, on condition that they have a meaning, something to say) - write awfully. all due to the fact that they would sacrifice anything for the sake of originality. so, all things considered, you too would probably prefer a over-overplayed great work to a first-time-probably-last-time-also-played nonsense. i would.

[Nordlys]

name some of the works in this "top40"

--

anyway, i agree, i also believe some works - though great - are way overplayed. but i think it's mostly the fault of modern composers who - except for the exceptions, of course (i prefer playing modern/contemporary works, on condition that they have a meaning, something to say) - write awfully. all due to the fact that they would sacrifice anything for the sake of originality. so, all things considered, you too would probably prefer a over-overplayed great work to a first-time-probably-last-time-also-played nonsense. i would.

I agree.
One problem is that composers of today are often not pianists or even performers. I think that can lead to less understanding of the instrument, and less understanding of the performing situation (but not necessarily so).

[Nordlys]

This is of course wonderful music, and that is why it is performed so much. But there exists more music for the piano than this...

[Fastzuernst]

Ok.
I didn't bring up the term "top 40", it was mentioned by jacobspauly. But here is a list, according to my intuition. If you play anything other than these pieces, you are creative. 

Mozart:
"Turkish" Rondo
Piano concerto no. 21
Piano concerto no. 20

Beethoven:
Emperor concerto
Concerto C-minor
Sonata Appassionata
Sonata Waldstein
Sonata Tempest

Liszt:
Rigoletto paraphrase
Liebestraum

Chopin:
Ballades
Scherzoes
Polonaise A flat major
Revolutionary etude
Etude no. 3 E major
Fantasi-impromptu

Grieg:
Piano concerto

Schumann:
Piano concerto

Tchaikovsky:
Piano concerto

Brahms: Rhapsody In G Minor

Scriabin:
Etude d# minor

Debussy:
La Fille Aux Cheveux De Lin
Arabesque no.1
Clair de lune




I agree.
One problem is that composers of today are often not pianists or even performers. I think that can lead to less understanding of the instrument, and less understanding of the performing situation (but not necessarily so).

Where's Rachmaninoff? and there is definately more Lizst! (hungarian rhapsodys!)

Great topic!
In my opinion it is competitions that are encourging overplayed repertoire.

Read Charles Rosin's book "Piano Notes" He has alot to say about this topic!

I agree that most of these pieces are overplayed but that shouldn't stop someone from learning them if they want to. 
As far as Concert pianists performing the same repertoire, it is what the public wants. They have short attentions spans and need to have something recognizable. 
Sure, one could be a maryter for all the other composition that don' t get enough atttention. But unfortunately in the real world, most people don't like surprises.

This reminds me of a performance I once saw of a Lutoslawski string quartet. THis "chance music" was too much for some, as they got up and left. Afterward the organization that had put on the concert recieved several letters in complaint from their doners. (I thought it was a great concert!)

Another time, at the beginning of a concert containing "typical"  tonal works by some well known composers, the conduction decided to show a slide show accompanied by some conteporary style music, before the musicians came on stage.  Several people walked out. And the conductor recieved several letters in complaint. Some of these people were doners,but are no more.

Maybe these people who can't stand change should be putting their money somewhere else.

The moral is, I guess, if you want your music performed, or your concert attended, perform well known works.

Or just continue to push the envelope and maybe the public will follow.

[Bob]

There are tons of recordings of the "top 40" pieces, but it's another thing to hear them live by a world class performer.  In the hall, with the living person and the piece being alive, knowing in the back of your mind that this is a unique "living" piece of music and even your presence in the audience may have affected it.

Although that's more of the reasoning for going to a live performance.

Anything a world-class performer plays will sounds great.  However...

It's good to match a world-class performer with stellar repertoire.  Good to hear it live even if everyone plays it and everyone records it.  You don't get to hear a piece really live all the time -- actually being there and being aware of all the nuances and things a performer breathes into the pieces, sounds and experiences you can't get on a recording and don't get with less performers.

[Tash]

i would like to hear the most unknown pieces out there. actually that was what was good about a concert i went to earlier this year- geoffrey tozer- he played all these obscure pieces i'd never heard before and it was wonderful!

[anda]

one more thing: the "top 40" are all free works - while modern/contemporary...

[jacobspauly]

There are tons of recordings of the "top 40" pieces, but it's another thing to hear them live by a world class performer. 

Absolutely. I really enjoy listening to these pieces too because they are great and when played by a great performer it becomes a great experience. I personnaly would not thoroughly enjoy a concert that was exclusively modern. I went to an all Boulez concert which became quite taxing. I enjoy having a mix, but more importantly, I believe that art has to be unique and there are thousands of great under-interpreted pieces out there that need to be explored.

I think as a performer, the ability to interpret is essentially more important than technique and is not really exposed profoundly by just making slight alterations to the "Rach 3" or whatever else. I agree that some of these pieces are the best ever written, but does that mean that every competition finalist needs to perform La Campanella to win? I guess my question is about how we judge great pianists. You and I might enjoy listening to the Pathetique Sonata all day every day, but I feel that for a pianist to be considered great or win the prestige of a competition, they should be able to explore a unique interpretive world that is not just a rehashing of overplayed material.

Just some more thoughts today. To me the question is between the difference between entertainment and art. No artist, writer, or composer in any medium ever would of become reputable for rehashing old ideas. So are our famous pianists today highly skilled entertainers or unique artists?
Thanks,
Paul

[cziffra]

Yes, indeed Glenn Gould was quite an extraordinary personality.
Being such a bright person he indeed could very convincingly justify whatever he wanted to. The fact is, the bottom line of all his justifications was..... performing anxiety.

The fact this is the only explanation you are capable of thinking up testifies only to your own inability to think at Gould's level.  Please do not superimpose your own thinking and behaviour onto others.  Not only are you wrong, but you are ignorant.  If you had ever seen any of the videos of Gould you would see that he is not at all averse to performance (he in fact gets quite excited about it, as in Gould: The Alchemist) Maybe you should listen to some of his recording sessions to see how unconcerned he is with his own technical capacity and ability- then you would see that his theorising is not an attempt at justification, his behaviour is a reflection of his theorising.

The bottom line of all his justifications was..... desire to be not like others, to be unique, excentric, The Great Glenn Gould. I have a friend who was fiendly with him. Gould would call him at 3 in the morning asking: "Tomorrow I have a recording. Should I play fast, or slow?" When the friend of mine asked Gould about recording of Chopin Sonata no.3, the answer was: "I wanted to show the world how bad this music is." Enough said for today. 

Friend of a friend, hey?

Well (my friend) what did YOU think of Chopin's Sonata no 3?  It seems that you loved it to pieces and think that everyone else must also love it to pieces.  Are you saying Gould should not be allowed to dislike some music?  What about Ravel, who thought Beethoven was a bad composer- should he be banned from the history books?

Actually, i might have jumped the gun then because i don't understand the point of your second paragraph.  What does the 3 am anecdote have to do with anything?  You have managed to prove that Gould stayed up late.  Well done.  And so Gould didn't like one of Chopin's sonatas...i haven't heard anyone, EVER, talk in flattering terms about that sonata. 

[cziffra]

So who do you guys listen to when trying to find new and commanding interpretations of lesser known works?

Speaking of trying to find lesser known works, there's a wonderful site devoted entirely to that.  I have posted it once before on this site, but here it is again.

https://au.msnusers.com/Cziffrania

[Nina_too]

Several folks that I know have adopted the "sandwich" technique when programming.  Bring 'em in the door with a real chestnut (often an overture or something similar), sandwich a lesser-known work in there, and end with a crowd-pleaser.  That way, people will buy their tickets to hear the overture and the crowd-pleaser and then be "forced" to sit through a new piece, which they may find they actually enjoy.

Another standard is to bring in a big name to play a more obscure work.  Then there are other performers, Marc-Andre Hamelin comes to mind, who are making deliberate attempts to introduce new composers in nearly every program.

Bottom line:  people have to make money in order to continue their artistic endeavours.  I can't blame programmers or performers for taking that into account.

[pianowelsh]

I also agree that the repertoire performed particularly in competitions is woefully small and it seems to be getting smaller! I was at the Leeds in '04 - before you get ideas i'll say I was an observer. The number of Chopin 2/3rd sonatas, Liszt sonatas Brahms Op5 and Prokofiev 6th's I heard was getting beyond a joke. Many other pieces came up again and again. I stress many excellent performances of very strong works but why so many of the same things. Why so many performances of the 'war' sonatas of Prokofiev and so few of Scriabins or the late prokofiev, the other forgotten (it would seem) sonata of Rachmaninov, the sonatas of Shostakovich. OK not all the repertoire of the lesser known piano composers quite holds up to scrutiny at the international level, but even within the mainstream pianists are so conservative. I get a thrill when I see da falla and Eschpay, Medtner, Lyapunov even the smaller pieces by Tchaikovsky appear as they sometimes do. It's not that we don't love th BIG repertory but it's nice to hear people being origional and bringing something new to the platform. Rowena Fergusons Competition in Scotland tried to do this not giving any prescribed repertory but didn't do to well ?! Why can't competitions coax competitors to be more origional and perhaps include a significant work representing their own nationality or even that everyone has to find a piece on a theme such as 'water' or 'wind'. The repertory is there to do it and themed recitals are becoming all the rage these days. - thats my rant over. Good luck to everyone preparing for competitions right now.

[musicsdarkangel]

I'm sick of people playing the "black key" etude on every compilation.