Is chronological order the expectation?

[invisible]

I am planning a solo recital in which I will not be programming the works in chronological order and I want to end with Bach. 

I had thought that chronological order is what is expected.  Is it?

sincerely,
invisible

[thierry13]

No.

[Awakening]

I'd say that Bach is a good starting place.  A chronological order to recitals is very common.  I have a program booklet for performance competitions, and almost every single contestant went in chronlogical order. 

Example of chronological:

Scarlatti
Beethoven
Chopin
Shostakovich

However, not all were this way, and there were exceptions, such as...

Debussy
Scriabin
K. Leighton
Rameau
Haydn

Generally, though, a standard student recital or program starts out with something baroque and generally not too extravagant.  I'm going to be having a senior recital this summer before I go off to college, and I'm planning on having it go something like:

Bach (Invention)
Mozart (Rondo)
Chopin (Prelude)
Debussy (Prelude?)
Chopin (Etude)
Rachmaninoff (Prelude)
Something contemporary - possibly Gerswhin.

[invisible]

Why is it the normal thing to put it in chronological order?  Just tradition, or is there an actual reason beyond the fact that it is in chronological order?

sincerely,
invisible

[Sketchee]

Common maybe, but I wouldn't say normal.

It really depends on your pieces.  You may want a grand finale with bach, starting off with a simple romantic piece and with a a bit of Beethoven and Mozart in the middle.

To answer the title question, chronological order isn't expected although there should be some sense of organization to the program.

[steinwayguy]

Frankly, I'm kind of sick of all these recitals that begin with a bach prelude and fugue or a mozart sonata. This has become, in my eyes, super-standard. Just do what you want. I'm having a recital in which I have a chopin etude between every substantial piece (as if chopin etudes aren't substantial).

[Awakening]

Why is it the normal thing to put it in chronological order?  Just tradition, or is there an actual reason beyond the fact that it is in chronological order?

sincerely,
invisible

I'd say that the actual reason is because of the logic behind it.  You start out with baroque and move chronologically through the periods.  I don't see any reason why it has to be this way, but I think that a lot of the time, it does work the best.  To me, it is kind of like showing the development of the music.  I love romantic and some contemporary the best, and it's as if with each new piece, a layer is being added.  However, I would agree that it does depend greatly on your pieces.  I think it is more important to consider the organization based on contrasting moods, tempos, dynamics, lengths, etc., before considering the obvious chronological sequencing.  I think it actually makes a lot of sense to have a romantic piece as the closer, because they're so emotional and rich.  Of course, the same could be said of baroque or classic, but it is my opinion that romantic music has the potential to be the most stirring.  This being said, I think it makes sense to have something contemporary as the encore, because they are often quirky or more light-hearted when compared to earlier works.   

[galonia]

I would never begin (by choice) with a Bach P&F - I think in a thread about performing on strange pianos, I pointed out that if you start with something that allows you to get a feel for the piano (especially if you don't have a chance to play on it beforehand) - then that makes voicing a contrapuntal piece so much easier later on.

A Bach P&F and pieces like Mozart sonatas require so much control, that I try not to start with them.  I want to give myself time to settle down.

And I pick something flashy to end.

I pay no attention to when the composers lived, just which pieces follow each other nicely, as much as possible.  More "musical" or "aural" logic, rather than chronological.

[Phillip]

I think the reason why so many recital programmes are in chronological order is that by and large the more recent works are, the more they exploit the capabilities of the instrument (as opposed to pianism).  As part of one's training one has to play programmes (for exams and festivals) on pianos that one has never practised on in unknown acoustic situations.  I for one would rather start a recital on an untried piano with a classical or baroque work than a Debussy prelude.

Phillip

[IanT]

Chronological order seems to be programmed into the exam system, List A is usually Baroque, List B is Classical, List C is Romantic, etc.  The exam guidelines typically state that the pieces do not have to be played in chronological order, but I guess most people take the easy route and do it anyway.

I wanted to end my ARCT with Bach (WTC 1 book 1, c# min) - I thought that the wonderfully logical, peaceful close of the fugue would be a great way to end.  My teacher was literally horrified at the suggestion, so I ended up starting with Bach and finishing with 20C.   Ah well...

Ian

[anda]

Frankly, I'm kind of sick of all these recitals that begin with a bach prelude and fugue or a mozart sonata. This has become, in my eyes, super-standard. Just do what you want. I'm having a recital in which I have a chopin etude between every substantial piece (as if chopin etudes aren't substantial).

do what you want, absolutely. but do not re-arrange your program in chaotic order just because it's not "super-standard".

you have two things to keep in mind: yourself and the audience. arrange your program consequently.