Discussion in 'Repertoire' started by Anonymous, Feb 26, 2009.
I sense a Complete Set in the making
haha, maybe one day. I thought about it, but for now I'd rather work on the best etudes in both sets rather than one complete set. There's no way I could make myself practice 25/2-5 when I could do 10/1-4 instead, etc. And everyone says 10/5 is really easy but I have never liked it much, and it seems really hard to me. Was also happy to discover that Chopin himself didn't like 10/5 much; when he discovered that Clara Schumann was going to play it at a concert, he said she would have been better off playing nothing at all. :lol:
Or, you could try something else than Chopin and Bach for once. You know, broaden your horizons a bit ? There are other composers out there....
Yes, like Granados! 8)
You say that as if I've never tried other composers before. I know there are other composers out there; I just don't like them as much as Bach and Chopin. At least I have good taste.
Monica - I have liked some of the Granados stuff you've posted. But I like it about as much as I like Beethoven.
I'm so glad I haven't
Pssh, at least you recognize that Bach is the best. :wink: You are just more eclectic. I think I have some sort of mental disorder that causes me to be rather non-eclectic. I think if not for Bach and Chopin I would not be much interested in classical music at all, because I find most of it boring. Of course, the same goes for pop music, to an even greater degree.
There are definitely exceptions, things that I like as much as Bach and Chopin...but no one composer's oevure impresses me as much as those two. For example, I like Mussorgsky's Pictures, the Grieg concerto, some Shostakovich P&Fs, etc. But I have to make myself practice these things. Working on Chopin etudes is actually a pleasurable pastime rather than a chore.
My teacher asked me to pair them up (based on the type of technique) and learn a few at one go. So basically I was learning op.10 no.2,5&9, op.25 no.5,10(lento section)&11.
I've stopped chopin temporarily (now till earliest Dec) though to work on Czerny op.299 which my teachers before never enforced but I really don't mind it so much because my technique has started to really improve and I have my other pieces to enjoy.
Interesting. If I was going to make a group based on technique similarity, I'd do 10/2, 10/4, 25/6 and 25/11, or maybe 10/1, 25/11, and 25/12.
Agggh, Czerny again! :lol:
it isn't funny! especially at my level...sigh but I've never worked through Czerny so yeah...
For someone properly prepared by Czerny, Cramer and Clementi (Gradus ad Parnasus), the step to Chopin is very smooth. :wink:
I'd rather prepare myself with Chopin. And Bach. (Which Chopin began to recommend more exclusively in his later years.) Or, in other words, knock off some difficult Chopin pieces and then we will talk. :lol:
I'm curious. What would you use to prepare someone to begin Chopin etudes? Asked another way, whose etudes do you think come prior to Chopin in development?
I wouldn't use any of it. Chopin recommended Cramer and Clementi, but they don't interest me. Fortunately, he also recommended Bach, and it's easy to see why. The finger gymnastics in Bach's fugues are quite similar to that of Chopin's etudes. Aside from that, I don't know that anything could really prepare a person for Chopin's etudes, aside from general skill. But what do I know? I can't play any of them.
Here is what Hans von Bulow wrote in May of 1868 from Munich:
(In abbreviated fashion)
I. a. Aloys Schmitt: Op.16
__b. Stephen Heller: Op.45 [Really better to start with Op.47]
II. a. J.B. Cramer: Studies
__b. St. Heller: Op.46 and 47 [Really better to end with Op.45]
__c. C. Czerny: Daily Studies [Boo!] and School of Legato and Staccato [Yeh!]
III. a. Clementi: Gradus ad Parnassum (as selected by Tausig)
___b. Moscheles: Op.70
___also begin T. Kullak's School of Octaves
IV. a. Henselt: Selected studies from Op. 2 and 5
___b. Haberbier: Etudes-Poesies
___c. Moscheles: Op.95 Characterisic Studies
V. Chopin: Op.10 and 25 and selected few Preludes Op.28
VI. Liszt: Six Paganini Etudes, three Concert Etudes, 12 Transcendental Etudes
VII. a. Rubinstein: Selected Etudes and Preludes
____b. V.C. Alkan: selections from 12 Grand Etudes
I promise you that any one following this path will be thouroughly prepared and ready for Chopin's Etudes.
Edit: [Brackets are mine]
Maybe...but I would also be thoroughly bored. And I'm betting that Chopin etudes could just as easily prepare a pianist for everything listed. (And it's odd that the Chopin etudes are on the list.)
I completely agree with you on this. It seems many pianists today are tackling the Chopin etudes long before they are ready. The issue, of course, is not necessarily even having the basic fingers to get through them but also getting the music out of them, which takes a certain technical freedom, one that's developed by first practicing the easier patterns in Cramer, Clementi, and Czerny. Czerny in particular seems good for learning to practice dynamics into one's playing in the early stages. It was cerrtainly part of my daily bread. I can never understand why people scoff at Czerny. It's such good fun in addition to its pedagogical value.
And the Moscheles are wonderful pieces (I think Moscheles is a very underrated composer), frequently used by Chopin as preparation for this own etudes, which he only let his very best students touch. The figuration for Op. 10, No. 2, I believe was based on one of the Op. 70. Having learned a few of the Moscheles in the past (like Terpsichore from the Grand Studies and the double thirds), I'm actually thinking about learning the rest of opus 70 before turning back to the Chopin etudes (and after I finish the preludes of course -- almost there )
Interesting that Bulow's list has Chopin before Liszt. Personally I would rate the Liszt as significantly easier than some of the Chopin etudes (although they're certainly flashier, and sound more impressive to a general audience).
I hated Czerny as a teenager, but "rediscovered" him some years later. The second time round I found hidden depths, and indeed much beauty. (Probably I didn't appreciate him the first time round because my teacher told me it was going to be boring! I had a negative impression even before I opened the book.) I think the musical value of these studies is greatly underestimated: some of them are very nice exercises in musical form, harmony, phrasing and shaping. And they form a valuable bridge between the (almost) pure finger technique required for baroque and classical playing and the freer approach of the romantics. Not that I'd use them as concert pieces; but I still think they're worth spending some time on.
Me too, with the possible exception of Feux-Follets
Absolutely. It's a great way to practice dynamics and phrasing in easier patterns so that they become natural before the often physically uncomfortable patterns of the Chopin.
I have been playing them since I was a kid, ready be damned. I don't see the point in playing things you hate in order to prepare yourself for things you love.
My exposure to Czerny was, like my exposure to most things, rather unbiased, since I didn't really take lessons until I was 16 - I just played what my mom had around the house. (She's not a teacher, even for her kids.) I took lessons from age 7-8 from primer books, at which point I learned to read music, but even before then I played things by ear. Mom had Czerny books, and I picked through them mostly because my mom had done a family tree type thing in needlepoint, showing the lines of study for her teacher (the one I studied with from age 16-18). She had three lines back to Beethoven, two of which were through Czerny. Anyway, none of Czerny's music ever interested me. I like Clementi better.
Separate names with a comma.