Piano Forum

Thanks for the suggestions.

Anytime.  Clearly, I don't distaste the sound of my own voice! 

I already learnt the Moonlight Sonata's scherzo, actually, and I absolutely love it!

Yeah, the Op. 27 no 1 is sort of the, IMHO, better sonata out of that set.  You might be talking about the middle movement from Op 27 no 2, the movement in Db major, probably.  Perhaps not.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, just a small example.  That is, IMHO, the best part of Op. 27/2, in terms of lighthearted charm. 

For a similar piece, also from Beethoven, try the Menuet and Trio from Op. 26:  very light and charming, and it has a few technical and musical challenges to keep you interested.  (You can certainly play it, though).  Incidentally, I believe Op. 26 was one of the few Beethoven sonatas that Chopin himself regularly played in public.

IIRC in the dance/Menuet+Trio, you have to run a lot in the LH in Ab IIRC, also in the RH, as you might find in Bach.  No, the Rondo from the same sonata is not really a dance piece, but it's pretty jaunty, so, certainly have a look at that.  The Rondo is fun to play, but, like I said, it's not really a dance piece, and it's certainly not a waltz.

I know about the Écossaises (that is, I know they exist), even though I haven't played them yet

Oh, well, absolutely do that.  They're easy and not very much effort should be required at all.  Like many of these smaller pieces of Beethoven they sound much bigger than they are on a modern piano, and lie comfortably in the hand.  I think it's all in Eb/Cm, so if you can do thirds and octaves, and sixths in that key, it's no problem.

but I've never played any Debussy at all. I'm curious to see what his music is like.

This one will be interesting, especially with your background in Chopin.  Debussy revered Chopin (he had his faults, Achille Claude, but gustibus disputandum, I could not say) but while with a few exceptions, he didn't really favor the form of, say, the waltz, or conventional forms.  Although, he did indeed make several pieces within convention.

Of course there's "La plus que lente," a waltz, which you can certainly play (I've read through it at the keyboard more than a few times:  it's pretty long IIRC, but you can play it), but for "dance-like" pieces in strange keys and odd metrical schemata, I could only suggest you read through both books of the Préludes, as well as the "Children's Corner" collection.  Most of the préludes would not interest you, as far as dance music, but you might find something there.  Of course, the "Golliwog's Cakewalk" is indeed, like its name suggests, very much a dance, literally.  But there are others.

As for the baroque music, I'm not so sure. The little I've had to deal with has left me traumatised.

Yeah, that seems to be the usual view.

But the comparatively brief Bourée set from the A Major English Suite is so much fun to play and even just listen to.  I believe there are video out-takes from when Glenn Gould was recording this and trying to decide between which parts to splice in and what tempo.

Yeah, there's of course no need to go into music that doesn't speak to you, but that's one of the swingingest dance pieces I try to keep in active memory/repertoire.

And for something completely different, I like Bill Evans's jazz tune "Waltz for Debby":  there are transcriptions out there, but while it's not a complicated tune, it's kind of clever, and, for me, surprisingly difficult to remember the form while improvising.  (There are subtle differences in each of the true form of the tune, and indeed Bill had a more or less pre-composed idea of the tune, in terms of voicing and such:  I don't recall that most people observe the differences while improvising, but one of the two canonical Bill performances, the way he plays and arranges for piano, it really could be performed as a short piece, and reinforce knowledge of harmony).  But, you needn't improvise in order to make use of one of the transcriptions.  That's a silly idea, and not what you're looking for, but I had to mention it just for fun.



/////////////////////

Oh, I'm going to be truly perverse and suggest James Booker's "arrangement," I guess one would call it of the Chopin Db "minute" waltz.  Called by the name "Black Minute Waltz."  I know for sure there's a transcription of it under Hal Leonard publication, probably by Josh Paxton, who is a good pianist and a reliable transcriber.  Honestly, I don't think it really needs transcribing once you hear the recording, but it exists in print format.

I have fantasies about doing a similar thing with Chopin's C# minor waltz, from the same opus, but never get around to it, or I can't figure out a good concept, you know.

Oh, and IIRC, the original "Waltz for Debbie" off the album, New Conceptions in Jazz, I think, it was originally just a through-composed, short little piece.  I don't recall who transcribed that particular version, but it's out there.

Yeah, I mean, the tune is in all the fakebooks, but the voice-leading, at least in the original conception, is pretty particular.  In theory it's just a Tin Pan Alley kind of tune, but that's not the way Bill conceived of it, in my small understanding.

Anyway, as you know, Brahms himself was initially just a beer-hall cornshucking dance music guy, so to follow his example, I would only suggest you learn it all! 

Like Levon Helm mentioned in the documentary movie The Band "if it dances, and if it swings," and so forth.

Yeah, you should be playing all this stuff, even if it's not your favorite.  That's why it's "work" at the keyboard and not "play" at the keyboard, although there's plenty of room for the latter as well.

//////////////

And, let me give you a small compliment, mramateur:  a lot of old crusts complain about newer posters turning out to be shills or spammers or just plain moron kids.

But it seems you actually give a sh*t, so, I'm glad to be confirmed that there is still a place to talk shop without hesitation.