# Be honest here #2: Do you find solo piano music difficult to appreciate?



## Guest

I heard the DVD: Horowitz in Moscow recently and i found the sonata by Scarlatti, uninspiring and lacking in structure. The same for Mozart's sonata which honestly was boring [All of his sonatas and to be frank i have not heard a single Mozart work which really was appealing to me. I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable]

I have a set of Chopin works performed by Arthur Rubinstein. I began with the prelude, then explored the miscellaneous works, leading to the polonaise [Exclusion: Heroic polonaise is exceptionally epic!] and finally his sonatas. The sonatas were a little too complex for me to understand and i won't be wrong to assume Chopin is an acquired taste which requires mental concentration and an actual attempt. This is a sharp contrast to Beethoven' symphonies which are considered the starting point for any classical listener and you grow to like them subconsciously and consciously.

What i am trying to say if you haven't realized already is that the solo piano repertoire seems quite hard to both understand and enjoy.

Do you find yourself in a similar situation? Is there a way i can penetrate into the genre?


----------



## KenOC

Suggest you start with the Beethoven piano sonatas, since you like Beethoven anyway. There's lots of great stuff in the solo piano repertoire, but little better than this.


----------



## Ravndal




----------



## Selby

Solo piano work, especially the piano sonata, is my favorite sub-genre of music after the string quartet. For me it tends to be large orchestrations that make my attention drift. I am the same way with popular music genres; the bigger they get the less I care. By big I mean 'over the top' or 'grandiose,' not 'popular' or 'successful.' Think Def Leopard vs. Bonnie 'Prince' Billy.


----------



## Sonata

Not hard to appreciate at all, I personally love solo piano music


----------



## Ukko

Chopin's piano pieces are easy to 'appreciate'; maybe _too_ easy (understanding of ulterior motive is unnecessary). That should suggest to you that you haven't yet 'penetrated to the heart of the matter'. Or even the epidermis; you have a long and hopefully pleasant journey waiting.


----------



## Kieran

I love solo piano, from Bach to Mozart, from Beethoven and Schubert to Rachmaninov. Chopin might be the doyen for me, in some respects. I think the intimacy of the performance, allied with its outward virtuosity, makes it irresistable to me.

Regarding Mozart, listen again. Then listen again. And again. And eventually, you won't have to be told to listen...


----------



## moody

So...another serial thread poster !!!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I admit solo piano music does become a little monotonous and tiring, when I try to digest too much of it at once. I have to take it in small doses. However, I can listen to works for piano and orchestra or piano and strings for hours.


----------



## Ravndal

I almost only listen to solo piano..


----------



## hreichgott

karajan said:


> I heard the DVD: Horowitz in Moscow recently and i found the sonata by Scarlatti, uninspiring and lacking in structure. The same for Mozart's sonata which honestly was boring


I listen to the CD recording of that performance somewhat regularly. I don't think he was quite warmed up until after the Scarlatti. (it's first, right?) Scarlatti has plenty of structure but the pianist has to bring it out with purpose, as with any contrapuntal music (Bach etc.) As for the Mozart, I find Mozart the opposite of boring. Horowitz plays it a bit more Chopin-y than I like, but that's a personal opinion.



karajan said:


> [Exclusion: Heroic polonaise is exceptionally epic!]


So this kind of explains your reaction to the Mozart sonata as "boring" -- Chopin's Polonaise heroique is, I find, one of the most over-the-top and cheesy pieces of Chopin. I still like it but not nearly as much as I like his other piano works. But if you like over-the-top drama, you might try a different composer for piano, maybe Liszt or Rachmaninoff or stormier pieces by Brahms. A couple of Chopin's ballades and scherzi might fit into that category too.



karajan said:


> This is a sharp contrast to Beethoven' symphonies which are considered the starting point for any classical listener and *you grow to like them* subconsciously and consciously.


"you grow to like them" might be the clue for you then.... if it took several listens to really get into the Beethoven symphonies, and you began discovering new things to appreciate in them over time (as most of us do), then probably the same is true for any one piece of piano music. The Chopin sonatas have some similarities in structure to Beethoven symphonies on a smaller scale; they will probably open up to you more over repeated listens.


----------



## moody

Please remember that Horowitz was 82 years old in Moscow.


----------



## Mahlerian

Your poll options are mixed-up. Your "No" is "Yes" and your "Yes" is "No"!

Anyway, my answer is No to the question, and Yes in the poll. I love solo piano music of all periods.


----------



## aleazk

Solo piano is traditionally, and legitimately, one of the most important sub genres of classical music, if not the most important. Almost every major composer has some masterpieces for the instrument. The piano is a very appropriate instrument for the classical composer, since its possibilities in terms of register, timbre, character (it can sound very percussive, but also very soft and "aqueous"; 



 check this for a full ride), counterpoint and dynamical range make the piano the perfect "laboratory" for the composer's musical ideas, and all that available for a single player!.
Look for recommendations, pay attention to all the details I mentioned and you will see why the piano has the status it has in classical music.


----------



## PetrB

I cannot account for that one particular Scarlatti / Horowitz rendering, but since Horowitz did, for me, about the _sine qua non_ of Scarlatti renditions on a piano, your questions in this line are beginning to irk me more than a little, honestly.

To *'tell the truth'* I'm beginning to form the notion of one with the attention span of a six week old puppy 

Scarlatti sonata, 'Formless' indeed! Just because a piece is not in a form with which you are terribly, or at all, familiar does not merit its being called 'formless.' Those Scarlatti sonatas are 'sonatas' -- one trouble being is that some heavy handed German musicologist, and the public in general, all seem to think the ONLY real 'sonata form' is as used by Beethoven, and that those are somehow the ultimate, Ideal, and only acceptable shape of the form, _which is a complete load of hooey!_ (Then, of course, to be inconsistent much of the general public 'bail' on Luigi's two-movement sonatas, and those no longer clear cut 'traditional' or even some of the more extended forms of the middle ones, and have no truck with the 'weirdly shaped' final few of the 32.)
Some of the traditions you are listening to just don't match your listening habit(s). 
_Tradition is tradition: habits are habits: habit has nothing to do with tradition._

*If* Luigi is one of your main home boys, try the Diabelli Variations, lasting near one hour long.
Test your attention span: see what you find.

















That said… and to be non-tactfully truthful,* "As a listener, I don't do solo instrumental literature that well."* 
I really cannot make it through a professional concert-length piano recital (ca. 1 hour, 20 min.) without beginning to twitch a little, no matter that the instrument affords the widest range of any other single acoustic instrument, nor how much incredible tone color the executant can manage (that too is a huge range of itself), because I begin to crave at least one other timbre. _(Heavy Irony -- I am first a pianist, second a composer who has made a near fifty minute long suite for solo midi piano: go figure, though the suite is titled in a way which clearly indicates two parts, since I expect a listener of that piano suite to want / need to break it into halves, with an intermission.)_

I have not 'had the problem' when it is music by Schumann, Beethoven, Mozart, Messiaen, Debussy, Chopin, and a few others, where the music has me so attentive that I forget to 'want' another instrument, and that includes the long sets of variations, a full presentation of the complete etudes (Chopin, Debussy), etc. Those composers have never 'failed' me that way.









But the same wanting happens when I listen to the Bach solo 'Cello suites, another single instrument with an exceptionally wide range. After solo piano or solo 'cello, the downward spiral of my lack of tolerance over length of duration accelerates rapidly:. solo flute, bassoon, for more than a few minutes, regardless of how brilliant the music is… I have to steel myself and dwell on the music more than that irksome single timbre, with or without all its glorious colors, including extended techniques.

I'm happiest with instruments, then, in combination, two, preferably at least three, or more.

I've provided you with a quasi-reasonable 'rationale,' or 'tic' -- not a good excuse -- for your lack of being able to listen to solo piano for long. BUT, you have also declared a flaking out during the slow movements of some pieces, orchestral, with 'all the colors.'

It is possible you are yet another fan who happens to be a much more casual listener, and you prefer to 'cherry pick' the movements you like most. That is not criminal, though some might find it 'offensive,' lol.

Also possible: the more casual listener has not yet developed a more concentrated listening habit for music past a lesser duration. (Yes, listening to music, involves conditioned habit, western classical and much of Jazz, a lot of conditioned habit if you get really 'involved.')

That is not to say you get less in the way of pleasure or its emotional import, but that western classical (and Jazz) commands of the listener an aggressive intellectual attentiveness in order to make sense of the whole, which is otherwise a whole lotta notes without much 'meaning.'

If you are slipping into the music like you might slip into a hot tub of water, or even a hot tub with jet circulation, then that is your "difficulty with the music" - _you are being far too passive a listener_. The only remedy for that is to sit up, listen more attentively, and not take the attitude of 'just letting it wash over you.'

There is nothing at all wrong with using music and 'letting it wash over you,' but it seems between the lines of your questions you are thinking there might be more to it than you've found, and that is the best remedy I can think of to offer, aggressive ears connected to a very actively listening mind -- _even if you are not so immediately entertained or pleasured by what you are hearing._

Non-passive entertainment _means you are pretty much half of what is doing the work._ If that is even slightly surprising to you, there is your obstacle.

P.s. if you are of the 'big splash' kind of taste, i.e. "O Fortuna' but not the rest of the work, that is rather like not seeing past the makeup on a beautiful and intelligent woman, you haven't even gotten to the skin, as Hilltroll's analogy has it, let alone 'inside' to the heart and soul. Usually, that is a matter of 'youth' of one sort (you could be 47 and 'new' to classical, ergo in that regard, 'young.' And youth takes care of or sheds -- or accepts -- its problems as it grows.)


----------



## ptr

PetrB said:


> To *'tell the truth'* I'm beginning to form the notion of one with the attention span of a six week old puppy...


I was thinking the same, but did not dear to write it in fear of retaliation from the powers that is... 

Horowitz Scarlatti on piano are bettered by few, I can only think of one that peers him, Mikhail Pletnev (IMHO), but as Mr Moody says, Horowitz was 82 at the Moscow concerts but still more vital than most of us will ever be!

BTW, neither I do not find piano music especially difficult!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

*You are correct*



moody said:


> So...another serial thread poster !!!


Yes . I have quite a bit of curiosity surrounding classical music which i have started listening attentively for only a few months and to cure me of the curiosity this website is a treasure trove of answers.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> ....
> 
> It is possible you are yet another fan who happens to be a much more casual listener, and you prefer to 'cherry pick' the movements you like most. That is not criminal, though some might find it 'offensive,' lol.
> 
> Also possible: the more casual listener has not yet developed a more concentrated listening habit for music past a lesser duration. (Yes, listening to music, involves conditioned habit, western classical and much of Jazz, a lot of conditioned habit if you get really 'involved.')
> 
> That is not to say you get less in the way of pleasure or its emotional import, but that western classical (and Jazz) commands of the listener an aggressive intellectual attentiveness in order to make sense of the whole, which is otherwise a whole lotta notes without much 'meaning.'
> 
> If you are slipping into the music like you might slip into a hot tub of water, or even a hot tub with jet circulation, then that is your "difficulty with the music" - _you are being far too passive a listener_. The only remedy for that is to sit up, listen more attentively, and not take the attitude of 'just letting it wash over you.'
> 
> There is nothing at all wrong with using music and 'letting it wash over you,' but it seems between the lines of your questions you are thinking there might be more to it than you've found, and that is the best remedy I can think of to offer, aggressive ears connected to a very actively listening mind -- _even if you are not so immediately entertained or pleasured by what you are hearing._
> 
> Non-passive entertainment _means you are pretty much half of what is doing the work._ If that is even slightly surprising to you, there is your obstacle.
> 
> P.s. if you are of the 'big splash' kind of taste, i.e. "O Fortuna' but not the rest of the work, that is rather like not seeing past the makeup on a beautiful and intelligent woman, you haven't even gotten to the skin, as Hilltroll's analogy has it, let alone 'inside' to the heart and soul. Usually, that is a matter of 'youth' of one sort (you could be 47 and 'new' to classical, ergo in that regard, 'young.' And youth takes care of or sheds -- or accepts -- its problems as it grows.)


Good sir, do not mock me by calling me a casual listener. Not to sound like a brat but i have enjoy works which a casual listener would not enjoy. So i am especially sure that i am no casual listener.


----------



## PetrB

Drat, duped a response yet again...


----------



## PetrB

karajan said:


> Good sir, do not mock me by calling me a casual listener. Not to sound like a brat but i have enjoy works which a casual listener would not enjoy. So i am especially sure that i am no casual listener.


There are all types of listeners, 'using' music for their own purposes. Some 'just don't care for' solo violin, with orchestra, piano accompaniment, etc. Just don't care for the upper soprano range and that particular timbre.

However, making out rather like you like to 'skip the slower bits' or movements of pieces, Don't care for full sonatas, find Scarlatti 'formless,' etc. does more than imply that you are somewhat of an inattentive listener, or that, as you've said, 'newer' to listening to classical.

Your questions do make it appear that your listening habits, shall we say, if not 'casual' are not very far developed -- to be fair, you are newer to listening to this repertoire in a manner which many on TC have developed further, simply because they have had that much more time doing so than you. The way you have put your questions, at least, makes that plain.

"Less attentive" than the more practiced ear, then, might be the better way to say what I meant. That, too, dear sir, is not pejorative, just an educated guess / observation.

We all had to start where we started from....

P.s. Duped questions are not only a bit selfish (not quite politic) but actually disperse the responses you might gather from just one question... It is really all the same group, and those interested in your post will find it: trust me, please, on that one account.


----------



## tdc

I love solo piano music, more than any other solo instrument actually. I have never found classical piano difficult to enjoy but I don't seem to gravitate towards the instrument quite as much in other styles of music. 

Try some Ravel piano music, some Debussy, some Beethoven Sonatas - not hard stuff to love.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Not in the slightest.

Works for Solo Bassoon on the other hand........


----------



## ptr

MagneticGhost said:


> Works for Solo Bassoon on the other hand........


I love the Bassoon, it is the foundation of groovy music!

/ptr


----------



## Feathers

Solo piano music has such a wide variety of textures and "voices" without having to actually its timbre. I really love it, and even if I find a solo piano piece difficult to appreciate, it is because of the piece (harmony, melody, rhythm, etc) and not the instrument.


----------



## opus55

Take time and effort then you will eventually appreciate the masterpieces in solo piano music.


----------



## Ukko

ptr said:


> I love the Bassoon, it is the foundation of groovy music!
> 
> /ptr


Yeah, when composers got into heightening 'color' in orchestral works with solo riffs, the bassoon should have had more of them.


----------



## Cheyenne

..  Yes, I have significantly more difficulty appreciating solo piano music than other popular genres.. Most solo works, actually. I'm sorry  Debussy, Haydn and Beethoven help though. I'm getting there, I promise!


----------



## Kieran

If it was solo violin or guitar, I could understand it, but the piano is an instrument that becomes almost orchestral in its scope. Its range is immense and expressive, too...


----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> If it was solo violin or guitar, I could understand it, but the piano is an instrument that becomes almost orchestral in its scope. Its range is immense and expressive, too...


I'm pretty sure I have stated the case before here, but... the piano is a percussive, if not a percussion instrument. Getting one's mind adjusted to it's... well, built-in pizzicato is not usually managed at first or second hearing.


----------



## clavichorder

Solo piano music is my life. Or a big part of it.


----------



## worov

Mozart sonatas ? Difficult to appreciate ? You're kidding, right ?

Try this :


----------



## Ravndal

I listen to 90% piano music, and i think it's difficult to appreciate Mozart sonatas. And i know plenty of people who feels the same, so nothing new there.


----------



## Ukko

Ravndal said:


> I listen to 90% piano music, and i think it's difficult to appreciate Mozart sonatas. And i know plenty of people who feels the same, so nothing new there.


Unless I am in a 'rare mood', most of Mozart's piano sonatas stir little interest. K.457 works, and another 'high number' one I can't place at this time... and that Rondo, K.505?


----------



## StevenOBrien

karajan said:


> I heard the DVD: Horowitz in Moscow recently and i found the sonata by Scarlatti, uninspiring and lacking in structure. The same for Mozart's sonata which honestly was boring [All of his sonatas and to be frank i have not heard a single Mozart work which really was appealing to me. I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable]
> 
> I have a set of Chopin works performed by Arthur Rubinstein. I began with the prelude, then explored the miscellaneous works, leading to the polonaise [Exclusion: Heroic polonaise is exceptionally epic!] and finally his sonatas. The sonatas were a little too complex for me to understand and i won't be wrong to assume Chopin is an acquired taste which requires mental concentration and an actual attempt. This is a sharp contrast to Beethoven' symphonies which are considered the starting point for any classical listener and you grow to like them subconsciously and consciously.
> 
> What i am trying to say if you haven't realized already is that the solo piano repertoire seems quite hard to both understand and enjoy.
> 
> Do you find yourself in a similar situation? Is there a way i can penetrate into the genre?


Try different performers. I felt the same way about a lot of these pieces when I first heard them played by Horowitz (in old age, at least) and Rubinstein, and I initially thought that I hated the pieces, when I later found out that it was just the performances I disliked. Try Glenn Gould for the Mozart sonatas, it might shed new light on them for you. For Chopin, I'd recommend Pollini, Argerich, Pogorelich, Zimerman and Richter.



> I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable


But you like Beethoven's symphonies? They're not really all that different in that regard. Which Mozart symphonies have you tried?


----------



## DeepR

No, I love solo piano and find almost all other forms of classical music more difficult to appreciate.


----------



## Xaltotun

Solo piano music is hard for me to appreciate, too few notes! And too little variation in timbre. Still, if I'm ever going to learn to appreciate solo instrument music, I think it's going to be piano - you can, after all, play 20 simultaneous tones with it, and the variation in timbre is much better than with some other instruments. I do like Rachmaninov's Etudes & Scriabin's Sonatas & other stuff too, but not as much as I like other forms of CM.


----------



## starthrower

Well the yes and no in the poll are attached to the wrong responses, so no, I don't find it difficult for the most part. I enjoy it. I love solo classical piano music from Bach, Beethoven, Ravel, Debussy, Prokofiev, Messiaen. Scriabin and Schoenberg are more of a challenge, but I listen to it all the same.


----------



## Ravndal

Hilltroll72 said:


> Unless I am in a 'rare mood', most of Mozart's piano sonatas stir little interest. K.457 works, and another 'high number' one I can't place at this time... and that Rondo, K.505?


Oh yeah i don't know. The only sonata by Mozart i have enjoyed so far is probably no 8. I'll probably have a revelation some time in the future.


----------



## Vaneyes

What Sonata said, in bold. *Not hard to appreciate at all, I personally love solo piano music. *


----------



## Yoshi

Solo piano music is actually my favourite sub-genre.


----------



## Lisztian

Perhaps my favourite sub-genre.


----------



## Ukko

Lisztian said:


> Perhaps my favourite sub-genre.


OK, what is this 'sub-genre' bit? classical music for solo piano is a sub-genre of what genre?


----------



## mensch

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, what is this 'sub-genre' bit? classical music for solo piano is a sub-genre of what genre?


Chamber music, I think.

As for the piano, it's my favourite instrument, so I don't find solo piano music difficult to appreciate.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

worov said:


> Mozart sonatas ? Difficult to appreciate ? You're kidding, right ?
> 
> Try this :


My name might be kidding but your've got to be kidding......................!!!!! oooocccchhhhh


----------



## Lisztian

Xaltotun said:


> Solo piano music is hard for me to appreciate, too few notes! And too little variation in timbre. Still, if I'm ever going to learn to appreciate solo instrument music, I think it's going to be piano - you can, after all, play 20 simultaneous tones with it, and the variation in timbre is much better than with some other instruments. I do like Rachmaninov's Etudes & Scriabin's Sonatas & other stuff too, but not as much as I like other forms of CM.


Try this wondrous piece.











This piece is summed up well by a member of the forum 'pianostreet,' who said: "It is a huge drama; it is favorably operatic; it is an orchestra and a chamber orchestra to which no orchestra and chamber orchestra could do justice; the colors are so many and so varied - and such a range...a powerful, large sonority and an intimate lamenting song, with such darkness and such light, and such beauty and such terror...and one of the most breathtaking and powerful conclusions in all of music, anticipating Wagner and Mahler."


----------



## moody

mensch said:


> Chamber music, I think.
> 
> As for the piano, it's my favourite instrument, so I don't find solo piano music difficult to appreciate.


Chamber music ? Not really !


----------



## mensch

moody said:


> Chamber music ? Not really !


You're right, Wikipedia explicitly states that solo instruments are excluded.

So it seems I must join Hilltroll72 in asking "music for solo piano is a sub-genre of what?"


----------



## moody

mensch said:


> You're right, Wikipedia explicitly states that solo instruments are excluded.
> 
> So it seems I must join Hilltroll72 in asking "music for solo piano is a sub-genre of what?"


Never read anything that he sends in---but of course it's a genre all on its own surely.


----------



## Lisztian

I just meant it as solo piano music being a sub-genre of the genre that is classical music.

Better way of saying it: solo piano music is my favourite kind of music.


----------



## worov

Being a pianist, I must say piano music is my favorite. 

However I do like many instruments. My second favorite is probably the organ.


----------



## Novelette

Honestly, solo piano music constitutes such a large part of my listening and playing repertoire that until I was 20, I never even considered the possibility that a person fond of classical music could dislike solo piano music.

So no, I do not find it difficult at all to listen to. In fact, it is possibly my favorite sub-genre or whatever we have agreed to call it.


----------



## hello

The question and the answers don't match.
"Is solo piano music difficult for you to appreciate?"
-"Yes, i enjoy it."
The "Yes" implies that it is difficult for you to appreciate, but you enjoy it, which I doubt is what you (OP) meant.


----------



## Chrythes

I enjoy it, but it doesn't take long before it gets tiring and then I must have a break or listen to music with different instruments.


----------



## Ukko

Chrythes said:


> I enjoy it, but it doesn't take long before it gets tiring and then I must have a break or listen to music with different instruments.


Thanks, _Chrythes_, that's a response that could be worth examining. My own 'first guess' is that your brain is getting in the way (that's vague enough to conceal my essential ignorance, ain't it?)

I have that weariness problem with solo lute music (which I love). I'm 'in it' for twenty minutes or a half hour or so, and then the pleasure goes away.


----------



## Yardrax

I enjoy the piano sonata's of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms and the piano renditions of Bach's WTC and Goldberg variations. I don't really see the difficulty in appreciation, formally a sonata for solo instrument and a symphony are the same, only the scale has changed, along with a decrease in the possibility of masking poor composition with dazzling orchestration. I do find it difficult to appreciate people who are exclusively fans of solo piano music, however


----------



## Sonata

I will say, that I was a fan of "New Age" style piano music before I started seriously listening to classical. New Age piano music is very highly melodic and has something of a more repetitive structure. So it did take me some time to appreciate classical solo piano music beyond, say Chopin nocturnes or things of that nature. But now I have no problem with it.


----------



## Guest

Thank you all for all your replies. Yes i just understood my mistake. My bad. Please consider the option independent of the question.


----------



## Turangalîla

I think a better question for me would be _Do you appreciate any music that is* not *written for solo piano?_


----------



## worov

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I think a better question for me would be _Do you appreciate any music that is* not *written for solo piano?_


Plenty of it. Orchestral stuff, chamber music, vocal stuff, organ music, guitar music.


----------



## maestro57

To me, there's just something about focusing your attention on ONE person rather than a whole group. Less is more. (And, I'm partial because I'm a pianist.)


----------



## Ukko

maestro57 said:


> To me, there's just something about focusing your attention on ONE person rather than a whole group. Less is more. (And, I'm partial because I'm a pianist.)


Interesting implication. I find it beneficial to ignore the musician(s); helps keep my 'focus' on the music. So... it doesn't matter how many musicians there are.


----------



## Chrythes

Hilltroll72 said:


> Thanks, _Chrythes_, that's a response that could be worth examining. My own 'first guess' is that your brain is getting in the way (that's vague enough to conceal my essential ignorance, ain't it?)
> 
> I have that weariness problem with solo lute music (which I love). I'm 'in it' for twenty minutes or a half hour or so, and then the pleasure goes away.


It seems I tend to lose my attention when listening to any solo instrument after some time (about 30 minutes or so). Maybe it has something to do with timbre? Maybe after a while the notes start to wear a similar form. Or maybe it's a mere deficit of attention.


----------



## Ukko

Chrythes said:


> It seems I tend to lose my attention when listening to any solo instrument after some time (about 30 minutes or so). Maybe it has something to do with timbre? Maybe after a while the notes start to wear a similar form. Or maybe it's a mere deficit of attention.


Hey, 'wear a similar form' may be _it_. Maybe it's a shift of attention from the details to bigger - and less distinguishable - attributes of the music. Of course, if you find yourself thinking about what your damfool brother-in-law did yesterday, that's another thing.


----------



## kv466

*I heard the DVD: Horowitz in Moscow recently and i found the sonata by Scarlatti, uninspiring and lacking in structure. The same for Mozart's sonata which honestly was boring [All of his sonatas and to be frank i have not heard a single Mozart work which really was appealing to me. I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable*]

Well, there's your problem...listening to Horrorwitz!


----------



## chrisco97

Being a pianist, I love solo piano music. Especially Beethoven's piano sonatas.


----------



## badRomance

Hilltroll72 said:


> Chopin's piano pieces are easy to 'appreciate'; maybe _too_ easy (understanding of ulterior motive is unnecessary). That should suggest to you that you haven't yet 'penetrated to the heart of the matter'. Or even the epidermis; you have a long and hopefully pleasant journey waiting.


I enjoy much piano works but I never could enjoy Chopin. Difficult to explain but some of his melodies really make my stomach turn.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I'm somewhere between the two answers. I enjoy some it (Ravel, Scriabin, Debussy, Mompou, Villa-Lobos, Szymanowski) but I seldom listen to it and I really don't care much about it to be honest. I'm more into orchestral and chamber music.


----------



## elgar's ghost

As with other categories, I like to listen to a wide range of solo piano repertory as it allows me to appreciate the evolution of not only the genre itself but also an overview of particular composers within the genre if their piano output runs the whole course of their careers. 

Granted, there are some compositions I find hard work and with one or two composers I get a feeling of 'So-and-So is as So-and-So does', but on the whole I get much pleasure and insight from solo piano works and it's without doubt my favourite category after orchestral and chamber music.


----------



## Guest

*The importance and far exceeding power of orchestral music*



Neo Romanza said:


> I'm somewhere between the two answers. I enjoy some it (Ravel, Scriabin, Debussy, Mompou, Villa-Lobos, Szymanowski) but I seldom listen to it and I really don't care much about it to be honest. I'm more into orchestral and chamber music.


You sir are my new best friend! I could not agree with you more. /thumbs up


----------



## Marisol

karajan said:


> I heard the DVD: Horowitz in Moscow recently and i found the sonata by Scarlatti, uninspiring and lacking in structure. The same for Mozart's sonata which honestly was boring [All of his sonatas and to be frank i have not heard a single Mozart work which really was appealing to me. I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable]


Personally I am not trilled about the performance of that particular recording. I heard Horowitz live during that period with the same works and quality was similar. But let's face it he was not in his twenties anymore. Apart from the music the Russian visit had a lot of meaning for many people including Horowitz himself.

I much prefer Scarlatti on the harpsichord.

I do not agree with your comment about emphasis on strings, I love strings and strings are very important, and besides I think Mozart uses copper quite effectively in his symphonies.

With respect to "boring" have you listened to Mozart's keyboard sonatas on the fortepiano?

Mozart's keyboard sonatas were not intended for the piano. Also Mozart favored the fortepiano over the harpsichord for his keyboard sonatas.

I would argue that the sound of the piano is very masculine (for lack of a better term) for his keyboard sonatas, the fortepiano is much more suitable in my opinion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I quite love a great deal of the music composed for solo keyboard (piano or otherwise) as well as music composed for other solo instruments (violin, cello, lute, etc...). This in no way undermines an equal admiration for orchestral music, vocal music, concertos, chamber music, etc...

As for the notion of the "exceeding power of orchestral music" I would ask just how this "power" is defined? Are we speaking of just a wall of sound? If so then surely most rock bands are more "powerful"... and certainly this solo keyboard instrument never bows before the orchestra:


----------



## Guest

WHAT IS THAT? That thing is humungous and yes orchestra can incorporate many more sounds and emotion at the same time and also be LOUD


----------



## ptr

karajan said:


> WHAT IS THAT? That thing is humungous and yes orchestra can incorporate many more sounds and emotion at the same time and also be LOUD


You Sir have clearly never heard a Cathedral organ blowing all the winds to kingdom come in a Widor Symphony! 

/ptr


----------



## moody

karajan said:


> You sir are my new best friend! I could not agree with you more. /thumbs up


Well at least you found one !
And she isn't a sir.


----------



## Ravndal

karajan said:


> WHAT IS THAT? That thing is humungous and yes orchestra can incorporate many more sounds and emotion at the same time and also be LOUD


More emotions at the same time? lol

Piano can also be very loud.

Don't try to make up excuses for not liking piano music. Someday you will like it.


----------



## Pianoxtreme

The piano is one of the most versatile solo instruments in existence. You can have 6-voice polyphony as in Bach's musical offering, it can be terrifyingly percussive as in Totentanz, it can have waves of sweeping color as in Debussy, it can have soaring melodies as in Chopin and Rachmaninoff, it can have that light, playful touch that Mozart gives it, and there is also a certain element of virtuosity and personal interpretation that you get with the piano that you don't have in an orchestra.


----------



## Ravndal

Pianoxtreme said:


> The piano is one of the most versatile solo instruments in existence. You can have 6-voice polyphony as in Bach's musical offering, it can be terrifyingly percussive as in Totentanz, it can have waves of sweeping color as in Debussy, it can have soaring melodies as in Chopin and Rachmaninoff, it can have that light, playful touch that Mozart gives it, and there is also a certain element of virtuosity and personal interpretation that you get with the piano that you don't have in an orchestra.


Well said, my friend


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

WHAT IS THAT? That thing is humungous and yes orchestra can incorporate many more sounds and emotion at the same time and also be LOUD

Yes... the more instruments at one's disposal the more variety of sounds are available... but variety isn't the sole measure of art. Artists elect to employ black and white or a limited color palette quite often. Poets accept the limitation of strict poetic structures. This does not inherently lead to something "less". Rather it forces the artist to work within the established limitations... and to uncover the breadth and depth that can exist within such confines. There are some marvelous complex dishes that I truly love... but they do not inherently surpass a perfectly prepared cut of prime rib, a New York Strip, or a "simple" Veal Schnitzel.


----------



## Ondine

I enjoy very much solo piano music. Of my favourite oeuvres are Jarret's Sun Bear Concerts.


----------



## DavidA

The piano is actually an incredible invention. It is of course a machine with hammers. But in the hands of a great pianist it can produce the most incredible sounds. When we think of the huge range of music that has been written for the solo piano we can only be thankful for its invention and development.


----------



## Guest

Ravndal said:


> More emotions at the same time? lol
> 
> Piano can also be very loud.
> 
> Don't try to make up excuses for not liking piano music. Someday you will like it.


I don't need to make excuses for not liking piano music. If i don't like it then i don't. It's like Mozart all over again.


----------



## Guest

Not at all--it's actually my preferred instrument.


----------



## moody

karajan said:


> I don't need to make excuses for not liking piano music. If i don't like it then i don't. It's like Mozart all over again.


You've noticed that then ??


----------



## lilmoz

i only piano, so i love play & i appreciate a lot!!Not when is too much difficult for me but when normally difficult!


----------



## DavidA

karajan said:


> I don't need to make excuses for not liking piano music. If i don't like it then i don't. It's like Mozart all over again.


Why ask us then if you have made up your mind?


----------



## Geo Dude

karajan said:


> ...and to be frank i have not heard a single Mozart work which really was appealing to me. I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable]


Mozart is likely not at fault there. Odds are that it seems like there is an extra emphasis on the string section because you're listening to older recordings that use a string section three + times the size he wrote for. This creates an emphasis on strings that was not present in his writing. Try Jacobs' or Minkowski's recordings, or if modern instruments are a requirement Mackerras' recordings and you'll get a very different picture of Mozart's symphonies.



> I have a set of Chopin works performed by Arthur Rubinstein. I began with the prelude, then explored the miscellaneous works, leading to the polonaise [Exclusion: Heroic polonaise is exceptionally epic!] and finally his sonatas. The sonatas were a little too complex for me to understand and i won't be wrong to assume Chopin is an acquired taste which requires mental concentration and an actual attempt.


Try Chopin's Nocturnes. They tend to be easy to get into. I would suggest Rubenstein or Moravec.



> Do you find yourself in a similar situation? Is there a way i can penetrate into the genre?


I loved solo piano work from early on, but as someone suggested, perhaps you should start with Beethoven since you already like his work.


----------



## Guest

Geo Dude said:


> Mozart is likely not at fault there. Odds are that it seems like there is an extra emphasis on the string section because you're listening to older recordings that use a string section three + times the size he wrote for. This creates an emphasis on strings that was not present in his writing. Try Jacobs' or Minkowski's recordings, or if modern instruments are a requirement Mackerras' recordings and you'll get a very different picture of Mozart's symphonies.
> 
> Try Chopin's Nocturnes. They tend to be easy to get into. I would suggest Rubenstein or Moravec.
> 
> I loved solo piano work from early on, but as someone suggested, perhaps you should start with Beethoven since you already like his work.


Thanks, mate. I will definitely follow your advice. I must say that i enjoy Hammerklavier and Appasionata piano sonatas.

EDIT: I own the Bohm set what do you think of that one?


----------



## Geo Dude

The Bohm set is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. He treats Mozart as a Romantic-era composer and the string section is quite large. Some people love their Mozart that way and some don't. You may very well be one of those who doesn't. (As you can guess, I don't, though I have no problem with those who like that recording.) Like I said, try Mackerras for an alternative; his late Mozart and complete set aren't as cheap as I'd like for you--not available for $2 or $3 in other words--but the prices aren't bad and it will make a great contrast with Bohm because it's also played on modern instruments (and thus will be a more 'fair' comparison than Jacobs or Minkowski), but with a smaller orchestra and different style of interpretation.

If that doesn't work for you, it may be time to set Mozart (and possibly Haydn) aside for later. It was _years_ before I liked Mozart (I'm five years into collecting classical and only really began appreciating his work a year ago) so there's no big hurry.  That said, my recently developed love for Haydn and Mozart has really helped with my Beethoven appreciation since it put him into his proper historical context. 

In any case, it sounds like you're more likely to enjoy works for solo piano with an easy to grasp structure, which is why I recommended the Nocturnes. They have beautiful melodies that are easy to latch onto, but they also withstand repeat listening. And Beethoven's sonatas are..well...Beethoven's sonatas.


----------



## Guest

Geo Dude said:


> The Bohm set is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. He treats Mozart as a Romantic-era composer and the string section is quite large. Some people love their Mozart that way and some don't. You may very well be one of those who doesn't. (As you can guess, I don't, though I have no problem with those who like that recording.) Like I said, try Mackerras for an alternative; his late Mozart and complete set aren't as cheap as I'd like for you--not available for $2 or $3 in other words--but the prices aren't bad and it will make a great contrast with Bohm because it's also played on modern instruments (and thus will be a more 'fair' comparison than Jacobs or Minkowski), but with a smaller orchestra and different style of interpretation.


I can download Hogwood's/Mackerras'/Bohm's/Marriner's set through torrents so price isn't an issue. XD I shall download Mackerras then.



Geo Dude said:


> If that doesn't work for you, it may be time to set Mozart (and possibly Haydn) aside for later. It was _years_ before I liked Mozart (I'm five years into collecting classical and only really began appreciating his work a year ago) so there's no big hurry.  That said, my recently developed love for Haydn and Mozart has really helped with my Beethoven appreciation since it put him into his proper historical context.


I love Haydn. *WAY* better than Mozart. Oh! His London symphonies are all masterpieces!



Geo Dude said:


> In any case, it sounds like you're more likely to enjoy works for solo piano with an easy to grasp structure, which is why I recommended the Nocturnes. They have beautiful melodies that are easy to latch onto, but they also withstand repeat listening. And Beethoven's sonatas are..well...Beethoven's sonatas.


Yes, i heard Beethoven's Sixtheen piano sonata played by Daniel Barenboim [2nd set, probably]. Totally uninspiring and did not like it. Probably leave them for a while. It's hard [for me] to appreciate a piece which doesn't have loudness or bombast within them and his sonatas while exemplary [Or that's what people say] aren't hitting me at all. In a year or two maybe i shall revisit them and if i _still_ can't appreciate them, then i shall perhaps leave the genre and focus on orchestral music which i love SO MUCH!

Thanks for the help, Geo Dude! [Totally a pokemon reference, right?]


----------



## Geo Dude

karajan said:


> I can download Hogwood's/Mackerras'/Bohm's/Marriner's set through torrents so price isn't an issue. XD I shall download Mackerras then.


Give it a try and let me know what you think. 



> I love Haydn. *WAY* better than Mozart. Oh! His London symphonies are all masterpieces!


Good to know! If you're not worried about giving period instruments a try I strongly, _strongly_ recommend Bruno Weil's Sturm und Drang & Paris Symphonies set. If you like bombast I think you'll like the Sturm und Drang (Storm & Stress) era works and Bruno Weil's conducting and the period instruments give those symphonies an extra punch. I don't know if it's available for torrenting, but at $20 shipped off of Amazon's marketplace for a seven disc set the price certainly isn't bad. (If money is really an issue send me a PM and I'll see what I can do.) For that matter, I also recommend his Beethoven. It will be different from what you're used to (smaller string section), but I think it will have a punch to it that you'll like. Speaking of punch, if you can find Immerseel's recording of the Fifth you may like that. (It clocks in at under 30 minutes. Compare that to the recordings you have on hand and you'll get a feel for how intense it is.) Bruggen's account of the violin concerto with Thomas Zehetmair on violin is also a barnstorming, heroic affair that may hit you in the way that you like.

Unrelated to this thread (but hell, we're off topic anyway!), you mentioned in your other one that you had trouble with string quartets. I'd suggest giving a try to the Tákacs Quartet's recording of Beethoven's middle quartets. They're somewhat intense and may provide you an inroad to appreciating string quartets. String quartets took longer for me to appreciate than any other kind of chamber music, so I can understand the trouble you're having, but it may very well be a start.



> Yes, i heard Beethoven's Sixtheen piano sonata played by Daniel Barenboim [2nd set, probably]. Totally uninspiring and did not like it. Probably leave them for a while. It's hard [for me] to appreciate a piece which doesn't have loudness or bombast within them and his sonatas while exemplary [Or that's what people say] aren't hitting me at all. In a year or two maybe i shall revisit them and if i _still_ can't appreciate them, then i shall perhaps leave the genre and focus on orchestral music which i love SO MUCH!


To be fair, Barenboim is sometimes known as a somewhat subdued pianist and this might be the problem you're having. I'd suggest trying those recordings from another pianist and seeing if you have a better response to them. You'll have to ask some others here, I'm a period instrument nut so I haven't listened to Beethoven on a modern piano in a while and I think my (period piano) recommendations may be a bit too far into the realm of 'odd' instruments for your taste. That said, off the top of my head, Gulda and Backhaus are known for having more intense playing styles than Barenboim. Maybe sample (or torrent) some of their Beethoven and see if that fits you better. If not, maybe you're right and you should focus on orchestral music.

Just for the record, Chopin's nocturnes are for the most part introverted pieces, so they may seem a bit boring to you. On the other hand, they're exquisitely beautiful and the melodies are easy to 'catch on' to.



> Thanks for the help, Geo Dude! [Totally a pokemon reference, right?]


I'm a geology nut (geology major that's temporarily out of college, actually) and that's where it comes from, but I don't mind the Pokemon association.


----------



## Marisol

Geo Dude said:


> I'm a period instrument nut so I haven't listened to Beethoven on a modern piano in a while and I think my (period piano) recommendations may be a bit too far into the realm of 'odd' instruments for your taste.


Here is a recording by Ronald Brautigam, a fortepiano specialist, playing the Allegro con brio from the "Waldstein" sonata.






And here is the rondo performed by Melvin Tan (I am not too trilled about the way it was recorded but the performance is great):


----------



## Geo Dude

I'm a big fan of Brautigam's work in Beethoven and Mozart, but I fear that he (and others) may not be as appreciative. On the other hand, a free YouTube video is a great way to find out.


----------



## starry

There's fewer musical lines so it probably has the potential to be easier to appreciate than other genres (if people just get used to the sound of the instrument).


----------



## Ukko

Brautigam's piano is OK, Tan's is not.


----------



## Marisol

Hilltroll72 said:


> Brautigam's piano is OK, Tan's is not.


I think it is the recording, the positioning of the mikes perhaps?


----------



## Novelette

karajan said:


> I don't need to make excuses for not liking piano music. If i don't like it then i don't. It's like Mozart all over again.


You have every right not to like something.

But there's a tremendous difference between simply saying that you don't like something [and bringing forth reasons that that thing does not suit you], and declaring _ex cathedra_ that it is wholesale, and objectively, bad. The former is legitimate and fully respectable, the latter is inflammatory and untenable [as yet, there is no universal metaphysics of aesthetic--no matter what the variously philosophical partisans might tell you].

When a statement is disclaimed as an opinion, people are more likely to respect it. When declared as an objective reality, without the benefit of qualification, controversy will surely follow. On many occasions, I have mentioned that other members' favorite composers don't suit me, and argument has never followed. As a member of this community, I respect the other members enough to reciprocate the courtesy with which I have always been treated. What follows is usually an engaging discussion: one party explaining why they appreciate this music, and another explaining why not. Advice is commonly exchanged, mutual gratitude is usually expressed, and we diplomatically agree to disagree.

Your opinion is just as valuable and legitimate as everyone else's. By engaging politely, one will surely find that this is a forum populated by interesting, intelligent, and pleasant people.

Point in case, I have stated numerous times on this forum that I greatly prefer Haydn over Mozart. Instead of leading to resentment and argumentation, we usually talk about those works of Mozart's that I _do_ like, or we talk about those works of Haydn's that we _both_ [that is, some hypothetical member and I] like.

Of course, Karajan, I'm not directing this all to you specifically, but to anyone reading this. We get so caught up in transacting the business and discussions of this forum, and sometimes it's useful to take a step back and survey the landscape, as it were.

To quote the signature of my friend Sid James:

Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress - Mohandas K. Gandhi

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

When did i declare as reality or objectively bad? Geez... Are people thinking i have declared piano a bad instrumet?


----------



## kv466

Yes, and we're coming to lynch you! :scold:


----------



## Guest

Poll: Is solo piano music difficult for you to appreciate?

No, I enjoy it.


----------



## Marisol

Novelette said:


> But there's a tremendous difference between simply saying that you don't like something [and bringing forth reasons that that thing does not suit you], and declaring _ex cathedra_ that it is wholesale, and objectively, bad. The former is legitimate and fully respectable, the latter is inflammatory and untenable [as yet, there is no universal metaphysics of aesthetic--no matter what the variously philosophical partisans might tell you].


Although the opposite happens even more: people praising composers and pieces to the sky. If your logic makes sense then approving of this is a double standard.


----------



## Novelette

karajan said:


> When did i declare as reality or objectively bad? Geez... Are people thinking i have declared piano a bad instrumet?


Notice that I did disclaim that I did not direct that to you specifically. It was to address the comment about the Mozart thread, in which statements were posited as objective and empirical reality that did not hold muster and were quite disproved using the standards of proof requested by the claimer.

Since all was apropos of the Mozart claim, and since the piano was not even mentioned, it was not even suspected that you declared the piano as a bad instrument. In fact, I recall thinking that you stated explicitly that you did not personally prefer the piano, to which I responded that "You have every right not to like something."


----------



## Novelette

Marisol said:


> Although the opposite happens even more: people praising composers and pieces to the sky. If your logic makes sense then approving of this is a double standard.


This forum is a place to share and celebrate the works and composers that we like. People understand that praise is an implicit declaration of opinion. I refer us all back to the Mozart thread in which claims [for example] that Mozart did not use as much chromaticism as Haydn, claims that were disproved by reference to academic sources, is not an expression of dislike. It is an empirical claim that can be disproved, and will surely be disputed [as indeed they were]. That is the distinction.

It is not a double standard because the one is praise [ipso facto, an expression of celebration and opinion and understood as such], the other is an empirical assertion, which, by way of hypothesis testing, is open to controversy.


----------



## Novelette

Marisol said:


> Although the opposite happens even more: people praising composers and pieces to the sky. If your logic makes sense then approving of this is a double standard.


This forum is a place to share and celebrate the works and composers that we like. People understand that praise is an implicit declaration of opinion. I refer us all back to the Mozart thread in which claims [for example] that Mozart did not use as much chromaticism as Haydn, claims that were disproved by reference to academic sources, is not an expression of dislike. It is an empirical claim that can be disproved, and will surely be disputed [as indeed they were]. That is the distinction.

It is not a double standard because the one is praise [ipso facto, an expression of celebration and opinion and understood as such], the other is an empirical assertion, which, by way of hypothesis testing, is open to controversy.


----------



## Marisol

Novelette said:


> I refer us all back to the Mozart thread in which claims [for example] that Mozart did not use as much chromaticism as Haydn, claims that were *disproved by reference to academic sources....*


Reference to academic sources? 
I must have missed that?

As far as I know there have not been any academic studies comparing the level of chromaticism between Mozart and Haydn.

There is one study here:
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/24822/EMR000018a_perttu.pdf?sequence=1

But this study looks more at the evolution for each composer. 
Haydn's score on average is similar to Mozart.

But it is hard to quantify it anyway. For instance Beethoven actually ranked lowest in this study, does that mean he is less chromatically inclined? I absolutely do not think so, it all depends when and where the composer decides to go 'off the scale' not necessarily only how often.

Nevertheless when comparing Mozart and Haydn on average I notice more chromaticism with Haydn than with Mozart. It must be my ears.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marisol said:


> As far as I know there have not been any academic studies comparing the level of chromaticism between Mozart and Haydn.
> 
> There is one study here:
> https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/24822/EMR000018a_perttu.pdf?sequence=1


Just looking at the methodology, they themselves give the biggest reason not to take the study seriously.

"For the purposes of this study, however, we will simply side-step these more extended ideas and take the New Grove definition at face value. In this study, a note will be operationally considered chromatic if its pitch fails to conform to the prevailing key signature.
This definition has a number of potential pitfalls which must be acknowledged at the outset. For example, it is possible that a passage modulates to a different key without a commensurate change of key signature. Consequently, an accidental may render a note consistent with this prevailing (modulated) key yet be construed as chromatic in light of the key signature. Another difficulty with this operational definition is that it fails to distinguish degrees of chromaticism. For example, a chromatic passing tone might be viewed as less indicative of chromaticism than a structural chromatic tone."

It would automatically, for that reason, rank Mahler as far less chromatic than, say Bruckner, because the former changes key signature far more often to match his modulations.


----------



## Novelette

Marisol said:


> Reference to academic sources?
> I must have missed that?
> 
> As far as I know there have not been any academic studies comparing the level of chromaticism between Mozart and Haydn.
> 
> There is one study here:
> https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/24822/EMR000018a_perttu.pdf?sequence=1
> 
> But this study looks more at the evolution for each composer.
> Haydn's score on average is similar to Mozart.
> 
> But it is hard to quantify it anyway. For instance Beethoven actually ranked lowest in this study, does that mean he is less chromatically inclined? I absolutely do not think so, it all depends when and where the composer decides to go 'off the scale' not necessarily only how often.
> 
> Nevertheless when comparing Mozart and Haydn on average I notice more chromaticism with Haydn than with Mozart. It must be my ears.


See here: http://www.talkclassical.com/25874-honest-here-4-do-10.html#post470341

The book linked is an ostensibly academic review and analysis of music theory. The paragraph beginning just below the two asterisks describes the chromaticisms deployed by Mozart as against those of Haydn.

Author Christopher Hatch is a retired professor from the Department of Music at Columbia University.
Author David W. Bernstein is assistant professor of music at Mills College.


----------



## Marisol

Novelette said:


> SThe paragraph beginning just below the two asterisks describes the chromaticisms deployed by Mozart as against those of Haydn.


So it is claimed in the book Mozart uses more chromaticism than Haydn? 
I must be in dire need of a new pair of glasses.


----------



## Novelette

Keep reading.


----------



## Marisol

Novelette said:


> Keep reading.


Here is a Google search through the whole book you quoted that you claim compares the chromaticism between Haydn and Mozart:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6g...romaticism&pg=PA234#v=onepage&q=haydn&f=false

You still maintain that:

_The paragraph beginning just below the two asterisks describes the chromaticisms deployed by Mozart as against those of Haydn._

is a true statement?


----------



## LiquidCosmic

Well, solo piano works aren't exactly my favorite, but I certainly do appreciate them. I find that the Impressionistic style of Debussy and Ravel really jives with the solo piano. Miroirs was really what got me into solo piano music in the first place. I also find myself coming back to the Shostakovich Preludes and Fugues quite often; they capture a huge range of emotions, and I just happen to find them much more engaging from a composition standpoint.

Admittedly, I find I really have to be in the right mood to enjoy a full-length piano sonata, since they can tend to be dense, and I do get bored listening to only the piano timbre for extended periods of time (however diverse it may be). The Liszt B minor is definitely one of my favorites, though.


----------



## Cosmos

Beethoven, Chopin, (even) Liszt, Scriabin, Medtner, Bach, Alkan, Albeniz, Franck, Granados, I LOVE solo piano music.


----------



## maestro267

No, because I prefer the fuller range of colours available in an orchestral piece.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I love Haydn's solo piano music and also really like Beethoven's, Schubert's, Chopin's and Liszt's.


----------



## Bix

One of my favourite musical mediums, solo piano is just heartwarming (well for me anyway)


----------



## Sid James

karajan said:


> I heard the DVD: Horowitz in Moscow recently and i found the sonata by Scarlatti, uninspiring and lacking in structure. The same for Mozart's sonata which honestly was boring [All of his sonatas and to be frank i have not heard a single Mozart work which really was appealing to me. I find the the emphasis of string section in all of his symphonies quite unbearable]
> 
> I have a set of Chopin works performed by Arthur Rubinstein. I began with the prelude, then explored the miscellaneous works, leading to the polonaise [Exclusion: Heroic polonaise is exceptionally epic!] and finally his sonatas. The sonatas were a little too complex for me to understand and i won't be wrong to assume Chopin is an acquired taste which requires mental concentration and an actual attempt...


I came late to this thread, but will post now anyway.

With Chopin, depending on which sonata you heard, you've got a point. Schumann famously called the second one (with the much hackneyed funeral march movement) to be like four unruly children, saying its four movements lacked unity when put together.

What I've liked most is Chopin played with some nuance, not just dark and gloomy. I have got Horowitz in Moscow but have not heard it yet (on my to listen to pile). But what I liked is the Chopin bits on the EMI cd with Liszt as being the main thing. & also his waltzes, played by Cyprien Katsaris. Both play it in a colourful, not boring way. In terms of the Horowitz on EMI, the remastering on that label of 1930's recordings is (as is often the case with them) awful in terms of sound. But the performance still shines thru vividly. I love it!










As for these questions/thoughts:



> ...
> What i am trying to say if you haven't realized already is that the solo piano repertoire seems quite hard to both understand and enjoy.
> 
> Do you find yourself in a similar situation? Is there a way i can penetrate into the genre?


I don't know what may work for you but I just went with composers who where big fish in the piano genre, so to speak. Chopin might not have worked for you, but others might. During the past, many composers where also pianists (or keyboard players of some sort). These are good to cover first, at least a bit. Here is a list that may be of help on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pianist#Pianist-composers

& to get further info, look around on wikipedia, or this forum's composer guestbooks for example. There are many resources but it may take time. Took me quite a while, but composers like Rachmaninov, Beethoven, Debussy I instantly warmed to, while others have taken more time (and others I might not warm to or not even come to know - that's life).


----------



## Rhombic

I can really appreciate piano solo music, it's just getting used to its colour and its resources, which differ greatly from those of the orchestra.


----------



## Bas

I love solo piano (and solo Harpsichord)! 

Bach's WTC, Goldberg, French Suits, English Suites, Beethoven's Sonatas, his Diabelli Variations, Handel's Sonatas, Mozart Sonatas, Mozart Fantasias, Couperin's Sonatas, and I am a big fan of Scarlatti's sonatas (on harpsichord please). Schubert's sonatas are great - the few I've heard. I have no difficulty at all enjoying solo piano (except for Debussy, but I frankly don't like Debussy in other forms too). I am not a Chopin fan, but can appreciate him in the sense that I can understand that he's a genius, I personally don't particullary anjoy him (I'm more of an older music fan)


----------



## starthrower

I've purchased quite a bit of solo piano music in the past two years. Box sets of Scriabin, Prokofiev, Debussy, Bartok, 10 CDs of Glenn Gould, and some Ravel. Next I'll be picking up some Bax. Right now I'm listening to Glenn Gould Plays Hindemith. In addition to his three sonatas for solo piano, Hindemith also wrote excellent sonatas for two pianos, and piano 4 hands.


----------



## Gilberto

Who could not like a piano? It is a miniature orchestra. 

I like solo violin, oboe, trumpet, guitar or even viol as a solo "voice"; singing as much as it can as a human voice. But full spectrum expression, the keyboard cannot be surpassed.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

SiegendesLicht said:


> I admit solo piano music does become a little monotonous and tiring, when I try to digest too much of it at once. I have to take it in small doses. However, I can listen to works for piano and orchestra or piano and strings for hours.


Since then I have had the experience of listening to 7 hours of Schubert's piano sonatas in one sitting, and that post is just not relevant any more. I could listen to solo piano for days straight, if I only had the time!


----------



## MichaelJamesMN

I've studied piano for nearly 46 years, so I LOVE solo piano! It's my passion.

I definitely have my favorite composers to play, which correlates with my preferences for listening as well.


----------



## dgee

A little bit, I must admit. In particular, as a keen follower of contemporary music I find solo piano music much less interesting than orchetral, ensemble/chamber, vocal or electronic forms - or even other solo instruments


----------



## Lord Lance

I had a dislike for piano music too. Over time however, I grew to like it and now I love it. Granted, I hate most Romantic solo piano compositions, I still love Beethoven's piano output. Piano concert is one of the most exquisite genre of classical music.


----------



## BlackDahlia

I also love solo piano.


----------



## EricABQ

I would guess that solo piano comprises no less than %75 of my listening time.


----------



## Garlic

What a strange thread. I would have thought solo piano music was easier to appreciate than orchestral music. It was for me, anyway.


----------



## MrCello

I have been an orchestral, chamber, and solo cellist my whole life. I must say that I do prefer string sonatas, concertos, and chamber music over solo piano music. This is not to say that I don't enjoy piano music -which I thoroughly do. However, since most people play piano, there is a large repertoire of piano music that is appreciated solely because it's piano music. Similarly as I am inclined to appreciate more cello repertoire.

It's almost an instrument bias.


----------



## Guest

I agree it's a strange thread. The likely majority in favor of solo piano is very predictable. Most people I have ever known who enjoy classical music say they like solo piano music. The results of the poll thus far support this in showing a highly significant majority of 109 who like solo piano music, against 8 who don't. I wouldn't mind betting that the few who don't like solo piano music are probably lacking in experience, and in time will change their mind.


----------



## MrCello

Yeah this is kind of a strange thread, but I kind of understand where he's coming from. I do believe that a lot of piano music is overrated. More so than any other facet of Western art music.


----------



## Guest

MrCello said:


> Yeah this is kind of a strange thread, but I kind of understand where he's coming from. I do believe that a lot of piano music is overrated. More so than any other facet of Western art music.


Maybe so, but nobody is suggesting they have to like all of it, only some it.

There is plenty of very good solo piano repertoire to choose from. In my experience a lot of people acquire their first liking for solo piano music via Beethoven, either because they like his orchestral works and then by progression move into his piano solo works, or because they like his piano works anyway. Some people are first attracted to classical music through Beethoven's piano sonatas.

Moving backwards in time, Mozart and Haydn wrote a good deal of high quality piano. A good deal of J S Bach's keyboard music sounds very good indeed on pianoforte, and in fact I prefer it that way.

More or less co-extensive with Beethoven there's another brilliant area of piano music to investigate in the works by Franz Schubert, much of which is altogether different from Beethoven's style. Many people quickly establish a liking for Schubert's piano style, especially for his late sonatas and impromptus.

Moving on from Schubert, other great composers for piano are Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and later still the likes of Satie, Debussy, Ravel.

All in all, there is a vast amount of different piano material to choose from, and most of that from the various composers I have mentioned is not over-rated.

Therefore it seems very strange that any so-called lover of classical music cannot possibly find something among all this fantastic material that they might enjoy. To rule out all of it as completely lacking in appeal seems very strange, and as I said earlier it most likely has something to do with lack of experience. To tell the truth, if I felt negative about any major branch of classical music that many others enjoy, I'd sit down and force myself to come to terms with it rather than attempt to seek comfort here for my lack of appreciation of it.


----------



## MrCello

I guess the only legitimate explanation would be if one just didn't enjoy the sound of the piano overall. I've never met such a person, but I can see it happening, as I am not a fan of the oboe's sound. But that's a conversation for another thread!


----------



## Copperears

The only thing I can think of, as a pianist who loves the whole repertoire (though I've been away from it for many years), is that the piano is quite filling for the ears.

I contrast it with, say, solo lute music, or acoustic traditional blues, where silence reigns as frequently as sonority. Even the dying decay of a soft piano tone is rich, and thus more demanding of attention. Solo stringed instruments, particularly plucked, the Shanz, say, might be more bearable for this one.

At the other extreme, I warn you now, never listen to a full-length Gamelan concert, it will kill you:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._TqqlQcxglpeyLkIaaAF94Q&bvm=bv.56343320,d.cWc


----------



## Blake

I was into the piano well before I got into any other form of Classical music. It has a warm place in my heart, and I could listen to it solo any day.


----------



## shangoyal

Listen to Chopin, Schubert, Beethoven. If you don't like their piano music, you will never like piano. Nigh impossible IMO.


----------



## Quartetfore

I find that through the years I listen to less and less of this kind of music. Not for any special reason, just I guess a change in personal taste. What I do find is that I enjoy the keyboard music of J. S. Bach more and more. My favorite is the Goldberg Variations.


----------



## Copperears

I find listening to any particular thing to the exclusion of others can produce irritation over time (part of the experiment of John Cage's 4:33).

But yes, try the Schubert Impromptus. If you can't enjoy those, even just one a day, you will never like piano.


----------



## Kommand

Not at all; although it really depends on the musician and personal styles.


----------

