Why's the standard repertoire SO small?

[cuberdrift]

In the recent years I've developed a keen interest in exploring uncommon repertoire.

The likes of Alkan, Dohler, Thalberg, Clementi, Czerny, Moszkowski, and others I have begun to listen to intently and incorporate into my practice, as well as some lesser-known works by popular composers.

I have noticed, as some other enthusiasts have already, that the standard repertoire typically featured in concerts by today's star pianists (like Lang Lang, Argerich, Zimmerman, etc.) is ALWAYS the same: Chopin ballades, Liszt Sonata, Beethoven Sonatas, Scarlatti, some Bach, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Schumann Concerto, Chopin, Ravel, Chopin, Chopin, Chopin, Chopin, and Chopin, and then Chopin again.

I'm currently taking up a Musicology degree and though I've just started, this is surely a topic worth exploring.

In your knowledge, what are the factors that drive the standard concert repertoire among pianists to be so limited to these classics which are already familiar with most concert-goers?

Some theories I guess:

-> The focus on competitions that today's classical music scene necessitates that the pieces played must be something which already has a standard basis for being critiqued, and because the competition scene has a not-insignificant impact on who gets featured in concerts and recording contracts, the music that eventually gets featured in the latter will of course be that which the competition winners have mastered.

-> Competitions again will require the performers to select a small set of repertoire which they know in and out and which they will be willing to play over and over again, lessening the breadth of music heard in concert.

-> Because classical music is aging, less and less of it is familiar, and therefore, only those of supreme quality are remembered; those who fall short just a little bit of this standard, are quickly forgotten.

-> Related to the latter point, recording companies and concert producers will aim to feature music that is already familiar to the audience; because today's audience is comparatively divorced from classical music culture compared to the past, these companies choose to be conservative in which music they put out because they don't want to risk loss of ticket sales.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on this, and do you agree or disagree with the points I've raised?

Also, have there been accessible and reputable studies done on this phenomenon, even if just on social media/Youtube? How can we expand the canon, should we do so, and is it possible?

[dizzyfingers]

It's a familiar observation, there have been discussions about it on here, and on other piano discussion sites. 

One potential cause you didn't mention is the education system - the private teachers and the university / conservatory teachers - they are the ones who are choosing (or highly influencing) what pieces the student will study.  It's in these formative years that the patterns are set - to accept that status quo of programming or to be innovative and push convention aside.  I recommend you investigate what the factors are in piano education.

Your list of lesser known composers (Alkan, Dohler, Thalberg, Clementi, Czerny, Moszkowski) are all 19th century composers.  Why did you omit lesser played early 20th century composers?

Another question to consider is why professional pianists don't engage with living composers more.  I recently attended a recital where the pianist played works by composers living within 100 sq miles of this urban center.  The music was very interesting, engaging, and some of it I would love to hear again.

There's a post on here about "unknown composers": 
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=71648.0

[kosulin]

Small???
It will take most of us a lifetime to play all of Bach for example.
If you want to understand what small means, look at classical guitar repertoire.

[brogers70]

If you want to understand what small means, look at classical guitar repertoire.

That's why I switched from classical guitar to piano.

[thorn]

The vast majority of things we consider "traditional" today reached their familiar form in the 19th century. I'm not a music historian so can't give a bibliography or anything, but if you're looking at this as a musicology project I highly recommend you look at 19th century institutions- the composers that thrived in them, the performers, conductors, critics and teachers, what 17th/18th century composers did they idolise, who were their patrons, what did they contribute to the evolution of the recital, the competition, music pedagogy?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

At this point I only play standard rep for money lol

[essence]

1. The standard repetoire composers are genius. The others are merely very very good.
2. If you play non-standard repetoire, you can get away with many more wrong notes.
3. It varies, but some compositions by genius composers are not so good.

[dizzyfingers]

At this point I only play standard rep for money lol

Perhaps standard rep makes money, perhaps innovative rep makes more money.  Here's an article about a young pianist who gives a lot of thought to her non-standard programs.  She seems to be doing very well...

https://www.pianostreet.com/blog/articles/combining-and-exploring-pianistic-worlds-13169/?mid=499010

I would attend one of her recitals in a second.

[lelle]

For big concerts, the reasons are monetary. It's easier to sell tickets and fill seats if it's repertoire many people are interested in. And unfortunately, things have to be financially viable to be able to continue.

[cuberdrift]

I also believe that one very good reason why this thing should be considered is that part of the appeal of the canon centers around the "mythos" of each genius - for example, Chopin is this sobby poet (same with Schubert); Mozart is extremely elegant and simple despite the devilish demands that that requires for the performer; Rachmaninoff had this huge sound, as big as him as his hands, as Russian as his heritage, etc.

Every composer has a "hype" about him. I can only think of Alkan who achieved this albeit for a limited time.

What's beautiful is that so many many other artists had their own cult followings before their legacies were buried in the dust over the ages. Thalberg was this aristocrat who turned the piano into an opera, Moszkowski the staunch conservative who prized immediate appeal over graveness, for Baroque you have Scarlatti (already semi-popular) and then Soler who are these Latin counterparts to the stoic and austere J.S. Bach, etc.

A case must therefore be made that if an unknown writer were to be popularized, his work is not simply derivative of a more established artist, just not as good (the problem I have with, say, Wolff's Allegro de concert which is like Chopin's first sonata in quality), but a unique individual with unique insights that have been sadly neglected by the brutish selectiveness of concert people.

But perhaps I'm an idealist, and the reasons are often much more mundane and difficult to topple than we realize.

[thorn]

Another element to this is national pride. You can get away with being a B list composer if your country considers you part of their tradition/heritage- I'd place all pre-war British composers in this category. It's not difficult to hear that stuff in concert halls here, I'd be curious to know if they're programmed so much outside the UK.

I should also note that I don't mean any disrespect to those composers. Making it to B list level still makes you a superlative composer, like earning a silver medal at the Olympics still makes you a global champion of that sport. And even A list composers write B list works sometimes- Liszt was a big one for this.

[yqxpiano]

And even A list composers write B list works sometimes- Liszt was a big one for this.

Pun intended ?

[cuberdrift]

Another element to this is national pride. You can get away with being a B list composer if your country considers you part of their tradition/heritage- I'd place all pre-war British composers in this category. It's not difficult to hear that stuff in concert halls here, I'd be curious to know if they're programmed so much outside the UK.

I should also note that I don't mean any disrespect to those composers. Making it to B list level still makes you a superlative composer, like earning a silver medal at the Olympics still makes you a global champion of that sport. And even A list composers write B list works sometimes- Liszt was a big one for this.

True - and I also feel that part of what determines where one is an "A list" or "B list" composer is, surprise surprise, national pride in the first place - I suppose several have, consciously or not, tried to ask themselves why the big three in classical music are all German.

[thorn]

An elephant in the room here is empire. The pre-Romantic German/Austrian composers were in the Holy Roman Empire- Vienna was a significant power centre of this empire so we have the First Viennese School. The rise of Paris as a musical centre was connected to Napoleon's empire, though it was gone by the time of Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz etc. everyone was still obsessed with sneaking La Marseillaise into music. Then you have the rise of the Russian empire around the same time. Had the golden age of classical music been in the 16th century we'd be talking more about Spain and Portugal.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

An elephant in the room here is empire. The pre-Romantic German/Austrian composers were in the Holy Roman Empire- Vienna was a significant power centre of this empire so we have the First Viennese School. The rise of Paris as a musical centre was connected to Napoleon's empire, though it was gone by the time of Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz etc. everyone was still obsessed with sneaking La Marseillaise into music. Then you have the rise of the Russian empire around the same time. Had the golden age of classical music been in the 16th century we'd be talking more about Spain and Portugal.

This

[lelle]

I also believe that one very good reason why this thing should be considered is that part of the appeal of the canon centers around the "mythos" of each genius - for example, Chopin is this sobby poet (same with Schubert); Mozart is extremely elegant and simple despite the devilish demands that that requires for the performer; Rachmaninoff had this huge sound, as big as him as his hands, as Russian as his heritage, etc.

Every composer has a "hype" about him. I can only think of Alkan who achieved this albeit for a limited time.

What's beautiful is that so many many other artists had their own cult followings before their legacies were buried in the dust over the ages. Thalberg was this aristocrat who turned the piano into an opera, Moszkowski the staunch conservative who prized immediate appeal over graveness, for Baroque you have Scarlatti (already semi-popular) and then Soler who are these Latin counterparts to the stoic and austere J.S. Bach, etc.

A case must therefore be made that if an unknown writer were to be popularized, his work is not simply derivative of a more established artist, just not as good (the problem I have with, say, Wolff's Allegro de concert which is like Chopin's first sonata in quality), but a unique individual with unique insights that have been sadly neglected by the brutish selectiveness of concert people.

But perhaps I'm an idealist, and the reasons are often much more mundane and difficult to topple than we realize.

I honestly think that the consensus of the overall public is pretty on the money. The composers who have survived the best and are the most popular are so simply because their music had something extra that the less popular ones simply don't have. Yes they, often use very similar formulas, but they add something extra to it, had some indefinable talent to make something that's more appealing to more people than others.

One thing I have done for fun multiple times is leafing through a bunch of old tomes of music that were published in the late 1800's / early 1900's, featuring popular waltzes and what not by now completely forgotten composers. And to be frank, the majority of it simply isn't that remarkable compared to the masterpieces that are still popular.

Similarly, a lot of popular music from the 50's and 60's is now forgotten, the bands that are now remembered simply had something extra "je ne sais quoi".