I’ve been trying to learn the piano recently, and I’ve found a few composers I really enjoy listening to and playing. I thought I’d highlight one and see if anyone else has favorites. If someone wants to talk about composers outside of the piano too that certainly won’t ruffle my feathers, but I’ll start there.
Franz Liszt
His pieces are far above my skill set, but I can’t help but to try and learn them: I love his music! Liszt is often considered the first virtuoso/showman pianist. He went to a performance of Paganini (playing the violin) and decided to do for the piano what he had done for his instrument. He was known as an incredible pianist and there are many legends about his range and strength (such as being able to break the piano strings by playing the keys so hard).
His pieces are often dismissed by some as “vulgar” or simply too obsessed with their own brilliance. Clearly some if not all are written to highlight his amazing skills at the keyboard but I for one simply love to listen to them (and try to play as best I can ). Certainly I am not alone, and it is unlikely that anyone here hasn’t heard at least one or two Liszt pieces whether or not they liked them.
Some of his more virtuoso pieces include the Grand Galop Chromatique and Gnomenreigen, which seemed to be designed simply to illustrate that Liszt could play the piano at blazing speeds. For these two, and other pieces of a similar nature I highly recommend listening to Cziffra’s recordings of them. His unmatched raw power at the piano make these performances memorable and powerful. Even if all you do is marvel that a person’s hand can move that quickly, you’ll be impressed!
La Campanella is one of his more famous pieces; incredibly difficult but really quite beautiful. It was based on the Paganini piece of the same name, and uses one melodic passage through-out in different unbelievably difficult routines on the keyboard (I should know, I’m trying to learn it)! There are hundreds of recordings of this piece, my personal favorite is Yundi Li’s, but Kissin is often considered the master of the piece.
If you prefer slower music, or something that based more on emotionality than virtuousity than I still have some recommendations! The second piece I ever tried to learn was such a one; the achingly beautiful Consolation No. 3. For this I have not heard a performance to compare with Vladimir Horowitz’s Carnegie Hall recording. Though more technically complicated, Un Sospiro is a delight, and moving both emotionally as well as to watch as its exhibition is crossing hands while playing. For this, Marc-André Hamelin I find to be a marvelous performer.
For longer pieces, and ones that are often turned into full orchestral works, we might journey into the Hungarian Rhapsodys. My favorite, and I think the best known is No. 2. Here we find a lot of energy, and wide range of moods and tones. I like Hamelin’s performance of this as well but Adam Gyorgy’s recording is also very good. Horowitz and Lang Lang (though I hate to admit it, as the latter’s theatrics get in the way of musicality in my opinion) both also have great recordings. The one issue I take with those is the Horowitz cadenza which seems to be the one played by all pianists now a days and I don’t much care for it.
Speaking of theatrical works, Liszt has made several transcription of full orchestral pieces, all of which seem to keep every note of the original music in the score! My absolute favorite is his version of Wagner’s Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde. It is simply breathtakingly beautiful (though much of the credit for this has to go to Wagner rather than Liszt that’s beside the point!) Lazar Berman is the only one worth listening to from my perspective on this piece, he has an absolutely glorious recording of the piece.
Undoubtedly Liszt’s most famous piece is Liebestraum No. 3, which can be heard at just about any large piano recital. It’s kind of an advanced version of Beethoven’s Fur Elise in that once you reach a certain level your piano teacher will give you this one! It’s a great piece all the same with all the standard Liszt trademarks (his cadenzas and runs and the rest of his bag of tricks). And if only because the man needs to be included in the list of greats, I recommend Arthur Rubinstein for this, hard to go wrong with Rubinstein!
Well that’s not all of Liszt of course, or even close, but there’s my little summary of some of his pieces, hope you enjoy if you do search out some of those recordings, I know I do! I’d love to hear from others, who they like and some of their recommendations.
Hobbes Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
My dad always transcribed things for piano that he liked, too. I love some of his Bach pieces, like there are 3 or 4 parts from the Bm Mass that sound great on piano. Also some of the cantatas.
Stravinsky usually sounds good on the piano too. My dad would transcribe those as well but I believe Stravinsky composed on the piano mostly, and I remember reading about him playing things like Rite of Spring on the piano. I'm not sure if those scores are in publication or not. Stravinsky is awesome.
The Liszt pieces you describe sound good. I'll have to check them out.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I've always liked Chopin, but maybe my taste is a little sappy. Though I'm a fan of Debussy too, and that's somehow a bit spicier. Oh, and I love love love Bach's Well-Tempered Klavier.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I've never played a Stravinsky piece on the piano, but I do love listening to his compositions. I'll have to look for some sheet music.
Liszt is awesome. Hard, but awesome. I'm trying (as in, I'm learning the first page) of one of the Hungarian Rhapsodies right now. I'm not sure I have time to learn the whole thing at the stage of life I'm in now, though.
I know it's cliche, but I love Chopin. I unwind after a long day to Chopin. It's such emotional music that it helps me deal with my demons too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My brother's a professional pianist; Liszt is one of his favorites.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I adore Rachmaninoff. I can't listen to Piano Concerto No. 2 in C Minor - mvt. 2 without shuttering.
10:33 is the most beautiful idea put to music that I have ever heard. Somebody sneezes three times during it in this video and it's literally a tragedy for me.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
You want to hear someone at least the equal of Liszt in terms of virtuosity you have to listen to Art Tatum. Not Classical, obviously, but universally regarded as one of the greatest piano virtuosos ever. Sergei Rachmaninoff is credited as saying "he has better technique than any other living pianist, and maybe the greatest ever."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Franz Liszt
His pieces are far above my skill set, but I can’t help but to try and learn them: I love his music! Liszt is often considered the first virtuoso/showman pianist. He went to a performance of Paganini (playing the violin) and decided to do for the piano what he had done for his instrument. He was known as an incredible pianist and there are many legends about his range and strength (such as being able to break the piano strings by playing the keys so hard).
His pieces are often dismissed by some as “vulgar” or simply too obsessed with their own brilliance. Clearly some if not all are written to highlight his amazing skills at the keyboard but I for one simply love to listen to them (and try to play as best I can [Smile] ). Certainly I am not alone, and it is unlikely that anyone here hasn’t heard at least one or two Liszt pieces whether or not they liked them.
I think the issue with Liszt has always been one of "you had to be there." If you think about Europe, and especially Paris at that time, the local musical culture was obsessed with virtuosity for its own sake. It's actually rather similar to today's youtube driven guitar fetish, although the whole guitar virtuosity obsession has been going on for decades.
You never really know what you're getting with Liszt, because it's fairly certain that his written works were only corollaries to his actual live performances. He wrote down cadenzas and improvisatory material, but what he probably actually played must have been somewhat different, and possibly a lot different. His improvisatory skills show in the semi-disorganized quality of his written music too, and that's why he gets passed over for more formally refined composers like Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms and Chopin. When you play one of their pieces, you're generally more sure that you're playing it the way it is meant to sound. He's famous now partially for the fact that he wrote down SO MUCH music. A lot of what makes composers and performers last in the public imagination is a combination of accessibility and novelty. He is both.
The story about Paganini? It is one of those time-honored little things that people say about artists: "Beethoven's father was a drunk who forced him to practice endlessly," "Emily Dickenson was jilted by a lover," etc. It's probably true enough, but also applicable to thousands of performers who are now not generally known. Paganini gave thousands of concerts, and so it was fashionable to invoke his name in order to lend a sense of status to one's self. They are also often compared because they were both very thin, and had reportedly similar styles of performance.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I LOVE Liszt. I also really like Prokofiev, when it comes to piano music. And Debussy. And Chopin. And... some others. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Liszt is reputed to have been a fantastic showman. He would compose big cross-overs (right and left hands crossing) just so he could be big and grand in doing it. He also is credited with starting the practice of the pianist sitting sideways to the audience.
I will always remember Liszt for his tone-poems, like Les Preludes, which was one of the staples for the music score of the old Flash Gorden TV series, which I loved as a child (they played Les Preludes while the space ships spitting sparks circled around and around, coming in for a landing or whatever). Another of his tone-poems was the basis for O Canada. But we Americans shouldn't make too much of this--after all, the melody for The Star Spangled Banner was clearly adapted by Francis Scott Key from the British drinking song, To Anacreon in Heaven.
Rachmaninoff has great emotional impact. I never heard him play his own compositions, though. (Nor Liszt, obviously.) I have heard piano students say they think Rachmaninoff's music is the hardest to play, technically. I think it amusing that almost all his compositions end with a rhythmic signature--you hear "Rach! man-in off!"
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
My biggest problem with Rachmaninoff's music is not that it's technically difficult so much as that my hands are just not big enough.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
A music thread! I love these.
One of the first concerts I attended before I became a music major was my future piano teacher playing all 12 of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes. They're really difficult. It was inspiring.
I'm a fan of Grieg's piano music. He wrote 66 short lyric pieces in addition to his more popular concerto in Am. They're the bees knees.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: There are actually some recordings of Rechmaninov playing his piano concertos on youtube.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: My biggest problem with Rachmaninoff's music is not that it's technically difficult so much as that my hands are just not big enough.
Well, that's a technical difficulty, isn't it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I love Chopin and Rachmaninoff. They are two composers whose music I enjoy playing and listening to equally -- I don't have the hand size problem with Rachmaninoff that Brinestone does. I've got an awesome album of Rachmaninoff playing his own works; my particular favourite (possibly because I play it myself) is his Prelude in C# minor. His control over the piece is simply breathtaking.
On the modern front, I enjoy Alain Lefèvre, although unfortunately my favourite piece of his (by far), Lylatov, doesn't seem to be available online. Here's a different one, played well by an amateur. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We just went to a concert today, and a world famous Irish pianist played. He was great, and we really enjoyed it. I'll post what we heard when I get the program out tomorrow, it's too late now. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
[ February 23, 2009, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Eh. It just kind of sounds like a mess to me. Some things were never meant to be. Tatum is probably another "you had to be there." Maybe what he did was holistically impressive, but to listen to it on a recording, it sounds like somebody trying to play a 7 minute piece in three minutes because the cops are busting the door down.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Here is the site of the man who was the soloist yesterday. He was outstanding, and the orchestra was better than I expected, although a little on the small side. I am spoiled, I guess, as my high school band was nationally recognized, and we have over 100 people just in the Varsity band. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Hah, Orincoro, I admit he's not to everyone's taste, his main criticism being he played too many notes, over decorated, but that is the sort of things people say/said about Liszt too. Can't argue with the man's technique though.
(Thanks for having a look though )
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Cool link with Tatum playing Chopin. I'd heard just about everything he's recorded, but I hadn't heard that one. He's got such a light touch.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I have to put my own two cents in here. Most everyone is referring to post-Classical composers here, but when it comes to composers for piano, I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention Mozart. Granted, his pieces lack the emotional scope of Rachmaninoff and the virtuosity and showmanship of Liszt. And really, I can't listen to Mozart piano sonatas for all that long before dozing off. However, from an analysis standpoint, they are nothing short of brilliant!
When I was taking my undergraduate music analysis courses, we would be assigned excerpts from Mozart to analyze in terms of harmony, form, etc. To me, it was sort of like Sudoku to analyze Mozart's sonatas and 'solve the puzzle', as it were. I suppose it would be more accurate to state that Mozart was the one who solved the puzzle, and I was merely admiring it, but it was still quite a lot of fun, even though it was also homework.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
What, no mention of Scott Joplin or Count Basie?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: I have to put my own two cents in here. Most everyone is referring to post-Classical composers here, but when it comes to composers for piano, I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention Mozart. Granted, his pieces lack the emotional scope of Rachmaninoff and the virtuosity and showmanship of Liszt. And really, I can't listen to Mozart piano sonatas for all that long before dozing off. However, from an analysis standpoint, they are nothing short of brilliant!
When I was taking my undergraduate music analysis courses, we would be assigned excerpts from Mozart to analyze in terms of harmony, form, etc. To me, it was sort of like Sudoku to analyze Mozart's sonatas and 'solve the puzzle', as it were. I suppose it would be more accurate to state that Mozart was the one who solved the puzzle, and I was merely admiring it, but it was still quite a lot of fun, even though it was also homework.
I find his operas and clarinet work to be way more interesting than his strictly piano stuff. The problem I find with Mozart is, and I hesitate to say this, "you've heard one thing you've heard them all."
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Count Basie's style was so spare he hardly fits in to the discussion. Now Bud Powell...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BandoCommando, some of Mozart' melodic ideas are truly inspired, but I also recall a comment someone made in a music theory class that they thought Mozart should have been a mathematician. Others have praised J.S. Bach for his "mathematical clarity." But still, there are some truly rich melodic ideas in his music, like the music from his Anna Magdalena Notebook, and Sheep May Safely Graze.
I have to admit, that for me music is mainly melody. I think that any composer who downplays melody is short-changing his listeners, and revealing himself to be uninspired.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hobbes!!!!
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Count Basie's style was so spare he hardly fits in to the discussion. Now Bud Powell...
I think being spare at the right time is preferable to abject frippery.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If you think Bach(J.S.) ever downplayed melody because he was "mathematical" you have no idea what you are talking about. Plus, he didn't write everything in the Anna Magdalena Notebook either. I would suggest you listen to his inventions and his preludes and fuges for examples of "real" Bach keyboard works.
Hobbes, I could see you liking Bach's inventions. They within reach of an beginning student, yet have depths and layers that keep it interesting for advanced students.
I personally am not a big Liszt fan, as far as playing his works go. I couldn't tell you why, but his pieces weren't personally interesting enough to me, to keep practicing them repeatedly until I got good at them. I have somewhat the same reaction to actually playing Chopin too, although it isn't quite as extreme. It isn't that I mind listening to them, it's just practicing and playing them.
I like practicing and playing Brahms and Rachmaninoff much better. (Twinky, I also remember hearing that recording you had of Rachmaninoff playing, and it was totally awesome.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Beethoven's piano sonatas are among my favorite pieces of music. I particularly like Sonatas number 31 and 32.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Beethoven's piano sonatas are among my favorite pieces of music. I particularly like Sonatas number 31 and 32.
I agree Rabbit. For me Beethoven introduced a very pleasant sorrowful dynamic in much of his music. It's interesting by itself, but I feel it makes the joyful transitions all the more distinct.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love listening to Debussey played on the piano. I didn't like it before, but I don't know if my tastes have changed or if I have heard it enough that I grown to love the familiar, but I love, love Debussey on the piano.
It is deceptively difficult. There are not many notes, but the timing has to be perfect.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I have to put my own two cents in here. Most everyone is referring to post-Classical composers here, but when it comes to composers for piano, I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention Mozart. Granted, his pieces lack the emotional scope of Rachmaninoff and the virtuosity and showmanship of Liszt. And really, I can't listen to Mozart piano sonatas for all that long before dozing off. However, from an analysis standpoint, they are nothing short of brilliant!
When I was taking my undergraduate music analysis courses, we would be assigned excerpts from Mozart to analyze in terms of harmony, form, etc. To me, it was sort of like Sudoku to analyze Mozart's sonatas and 'solve the puzzle', as it were. I suppose it would be more accurate to state that Mozart was the one who solved the puzzle, and I was merely admiring it, but it was still quite a lot of fun, even though it was also homework.
I hate to admit this but I've never really gotten Mozart. I understand the genius in it to some extent but for some reason for me it doesn't have the emotional impact of Beethoven or the intellectual appeal of Bach. Beethoven wrenches my heart and Bach excites my mind, Mozart hits somewhere in between but few of his pieces really succeed in grabbing me at either level.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Cashew: Count Basie's style was so spare he hardly fits in to the discussion. Now Bud Powell... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Achilles: "I think being spare at the right time is preferable to abject frippery."
I agree completely, but the discussion started with Liszt and his showy virtuosity, so in THAT discussion Basie doesn't belong.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
But he is a great piano composer, so the comment is applicable to the discussion.
I love Debussy as well, kat.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've long been a big fan of Beethoven, Chopin, and Debussy on the piano.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I agree with the comments that for listening pleasure, Mozart has never really hit the spot. For me, it's merely an intellectual appeal when sitting down with pencil and paper and analyzing. It's similar to Schoenberg's music, in that regard, except I don't need a barf bag handy when listening to Mozart... just a pillow and blanket for the inevitable nap.
Ron, who downplayed melody? Bach or Mozart? Frankly, that's an argument I've never heard. Mozart was actually a strong proponent of memorable, short melodies. This was almost a requirement for composers of that era, since it basically defined the idea of theme and/or motif which is often the building block of the overall structure. As for Bach, maybe he intended to downplay melody in favor of Baroque embellishments and intricate chromatic harmony, but it didn't work! Rather it made his melodies stand out that much more, much like an ornate frame helps a beautiful painting.
(Sorry for the lame and somewhat predictable analogy. I'm going to go hide in a corner now, before Orincoro comes to lambast me for the epic failure of my post.) Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, Bando, I agree with it generally.
Bach and Mozart are bookends of a certain musical sensibility. For Bach, the thing people react to as "less attention to melody" is that he strongly adhered to a solid harmonic structure in his works, even when dealing with highly chromatic material. The melodies, for instance of the Chaconne (Partita 2) or the fugue subjects in Art of Fugue, are subsumed within a powerful harmonic structure. It's kind of like drawing a picture on top of a gridwork- the grid is always visible.
Now with Mozart, he was at the opposite end of the homophonic sensibilities of the post-Bach age. His melodies are breaking out of his harmonic structures, and in his later pieces, the harmonic structure is starting to become highly dense and changeable, and much more organic. So while Bach was in some ways a slave to structure, Mozart's structures were slaves to his melodies. He was just good enough that it's hard to tell the difference- they both were that good.
The outward appearance of Mozart's music is the focus on melody, because the harmonic structures in widest use had become so varied. But to the ears of his audiences, the melodies fit into well known modes of organization. Also, Mozart's age was more in tune with stress-release modes of organization, where the piece or movement would be organized according to periods of tension and periods of contrasting lightness. Bach had much less of this sensibility. So while Mozart was dealing with his harmonic structures in much the same way, he was also dealing with the overall changing mood of the piece, which meant that his melodies had to be identifiable in motivic transformation. You see a bit of this in Bach, for instance in the change from minor to major in the Chaconne, but that was, in his time, a bit novel. Other composers like Vivaldi accomplished it another way, by contrasting periods of harmonic structure, but with mostly unshared melodies and different rhythmic motives. Mozart had to deal with movements of a piece that contrasted emotionally, but were commonly identifiable as the same piece of music- not something Bach had to do by necessity.
People can talk about melody all they like, but both Bach and Mozart ultimately demonstrate that melody by itself is nothing special. There is no melody that is, by itself, superior to another. Bach often proved this (as did Mozart and many others over time) by choosing totally arbitrary sets of notes, and constructing pieces and motives around them in a way that made them pleasing. It wasn't until as late as Brahms that the emotional appeal of a particular melody could be successfully based upon the "character" of that melody alone. In his first symphony, he constructed a final theme that was a combination of notes from a Bach Cantata and Beethoven's Ode to Joy. That melody carried so much history inside it, and was so perfectly recognizable as a timeless piece of construction, that it stood virtually on its own. But even then, it was placed in a complex position at the end of a long period of building tension and slight release, which made the arrival of the theme at that point bound to be significant, no matter the actual melody (I had a friend who did his dissertation on this phenomenon in Brahms' music).
Ultimately the melody you choose (if you choose any) is defined by its context, and not transferable or capable of independent evaluation by any listener. The impact of any given melody is a product of its placement within the structure of a work, in the same way that the impact of a piece of dialogue is dependent on its placement within the plot of a film or novel. The theory behind comedic timing, memorability and quotability of speech, and the use of a melody are all the same- the content is one of the least practically important things.
[ February 25, 2009, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I love Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Brahms, Dvorak, Smetana, and Liszt for your more classic styles.
Thelonious Monk, Dave Brubeck, and Sun Ra are my favorite jazz piano composers. I know it's obvious, but Blue Rondo a la Turk by Brubeck is quite an amazing piece. (And it ain't that easy to play either. )
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I heard a sublime piece of piano music this afternoon on my local classical station. It was by Felix Mendelssohn and it was one of his "songs without words."
I just looked it up on the station's playlist:
Felix Mendelssohn Song Without Words, Op. 30 #6 in F-sharp Minor "Venetian Gondola Song"
[ February 27, 2009, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Oh, yes. His Venetian gondola songs are wonderful. I've played two and loved them both.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bando, I never said that Bach or Mozart downplayed melody. I merely observed that some people call them mathematical. Some modern composers downplay melody in favor of rhythm. There is very little melody in rap. Personally, I do not even consider rap to be music.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Cashew, I listened to some Art Tatum playing classical and I'm afraid I just can't get into it. He's obviously technically very advanced but it just sounds to me like someone is hitting the "fast-forward" button on a recording of the piece: it losses it's musicality. At least to me.
AK, I'd love to hear Rite of Spring on the piano!
Chopin is clearly a genius, and in my family he's the predominate favorite as far as piano composers go. When it comes to opera I stick with the family love of Wagner, but I've just never gotten into any Chopin piece for some reason. I like it, and I like listening to it, but it doesn't do much for me beyond good background music. I really don't know why.
Brinestone, which Hungarian Rhapsody? I've decided that if I could pick any piece to be able to play instantly (without all that hard work of learning it! ) it would be Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. All the pieces I play are above my skill level, but that one's far enough away that outside of playing the first page (an easy introduction) and the right hand on the last, I really just can't even pretend to learn it. What an amazing piece though!
Rachmaninoff and Schubert are me two new ones. I spent a little time trying to pick up some of op 23. no 5 and op 3, no 2. I didn't get super far, just a few pages per, but he writes great pieces. I agree about his 2nd concerto, it's always been well acknowledged as one of the great piano concertos ever written and I'm with the masses on that. Incidentally when it comes to Rachmaninoff it's been pointed out that there's some recordings of the composer himself playing his pieces, which is great. I've discovered, however, that I prefer (ironic isn't it?) Gilels' interpretations, at least when it comes to the preludes. I just found a great one he does of op. 23, no 2.
I've been trying to learn Schubert's Impromptu No. 4 recently (I love Brendel's Schubert performances in general): great piece. It's a lot of fun to play, my fingers get addicted to it. Schubert didn't write as much for the piano, but the whole Impromptu collection (no 1-4) is fantastic; I'd love to be able to play no 3. If I finish 4 that may be next on my list.
Raia, I haven't heard any Prokofiev piano pieces to be honest with you, only full symphony works and the like. Can you recommend any?
I've never been a giant Mozart booster. I like some of the operas but I agree with the general criticism of lack of emotion. Perfect melodically but that just doesn't get it done for me. I guess I'm just more into the stormy expressionistic "modern" ( ) stuff.
I don't know many good Bach pieces, I'm open to suggestions there too!
Beethoven: I don't think the man ever wrote a piece of music that wasn't perfect. When I started trying to learn to play again it was Moonlight Sonata that I began with. Not the world's most complex piece but that doesn't hamper it's ability to inspire. I've also learned his Pathetique No. 2 which is quite beautiful (though again, technically unchallenging unless your as bad as I am!). There's a lot of good music to be had there. In a strange cross-over, I've spent some time working on Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's 7th symphony, second movement. It's awe inspiring, or at least I think so.
I've learned (most of) Clair de Lune, and that's my only experimentation into Debussy. For some reason most of the other things I've heard by him just don't strike me, but I do love Clair de Lune.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
If someone wants to talk about composers outside of the piano too that certainly won’t ruffle my feathers, but I’ll start there.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). Certainly I am not alone, and it is unlikely that anyone here hasn’t heard at least one or two Liszt pieces whether or not they liked them.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)