# solo piano - of all eras



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

i thought i would make this as my first post.

i currently believe scriabin to be the greatest of all, with his etudes and sonatas being among my favorites. close behind is ravel - gaspard de la nuit. and just about any chopin.

what for you guys?

(I figured this would fit better in this forum as I would like to focus on the composers that made piano music one of their mainstays)

I have never been so fond of Liszt and Rachmaninov. Those two in particular have seemed dry and somewhat empty to me. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all have works which I consider to be incredible, though I've never developed much of an emotional attachment to these works. Shostakovich's preludes are fascinating though somewhat draining and cold.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Hola! Y adonde vamos?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

For me it's Scriabin (sonatas 5-10) and Debussy (L'isle Joyeuse and the Preludes). I also like Ravel's Jeux d’eau but I haven't heard anything else from him. So it seems that I'm into somekind of impressionistic piano music that rejects traditional major-minor tonality. Bartok's "Ostinato" from Mikrokosmos is lovely too.
What etudes of Scriabin do you consider remarkable? Haven't heard much of them...


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

i've been getting into the entire collection of them. alexander paley plays them. it's quite remarkable.

this is my favorite at the moment





you must hear gaspard de la nuit. probably my favorite piece of all time... though i am a beginner.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Try Alkan on for size. He might be right up your alley. He was a work horse of a composer, and no one has even heard a third of his compositions nowadays (and that's saying something, because I've studied about 160-190 pieces of his).


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Because of the 32 piano sonatas alone, Beethoven is the reigning king of piano in my collection. Schubert's sonatas are also quite awesome, so for solo piano I guess I like the classic period post-Mozart. 

I can't say I favor the virtuoso noodlers of the Romantic period very much. A lot of that stuff gets in the way of my enjoyment of the mood and structure of a piece, so I tend to skip over their solo piano works and go straight from the classic period to impressionist and modern via Debussy.


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

My favourite composers for piano (so far) are:

Mozart - beneath the higly organised and balanced structure of his music lies a unique undertstated beauty in the hands of the right artist.

Beethoven - The fourth piano concerto is perhaps my favourite piano concerto of them all. And could live without his piano sonatas?

Rachmaninoff - There is much more, in my opinion, to his music than empty virtuosity. There is an certain intensity in his music, most particularly in the third piano concerto, that I have not heard from any other composer.

Debussy - The suite bergamasque alone, despite containing one of the most hackneyed pieces in all music (but I still like Clair de Lune), makes him one of my favourite composers.

Honourable mentions go to Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Liszt, Grieg and Mussorgsky.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Weston said:


> Because of the 32 piano sonatas alone, Beethoven is the reigning king of piano in my collection.


Ditto. His piano sonatas are surely his single greatest achievement.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I have to concur that Beethovens sonatas are probably my consistently favourite solo piano pieces but some other pieces I really like are Schumann's Carnaval and Symphonic Etudes, Grieg's Lyric Pieces, Satie's Gnossiennes and Gymnopedies, Brahms 3 Sonatas and Franck's Prelude Choral et Fugue

I'll have to give Scriabin another listen because first time round I couldn't really get into him.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Mozart's 20 and 21st concertos are amazing. His Concerto for 2 pianos is really great.

Beethoven's Pathetique Grave movement is one of my favorites. The Kreutzer though more of a violin composition is even better. The 5th is amazing

Brahms was also a great piano composer.

Chopin's Nocturnes and his Fantasy Impromptu are among my favorites.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> For me it's Scriabin (sonatas 5-10) and Debussy (L'isle Joyeuse and the Preludes). I also like Ravel's Jeux d'eau but I haven't heard anything else from him. So it seems that I'm into somekind of impressionistic piano music that rejects traditional major-minor tonality. Bartok's "Ostinato" from Mikrokosmos is lovely too.
> What etudes of Scriabin do you consider remarkable? Haven't heard much of them...


You would definitely want to try opus 42 no 5, all of opus 2 (especially number one) and 12, and of course you will want to study his piano concerto, all of his sonatas (try opus 53 no 5 for starters), and Prometheus is a great piece for the piano also. And his poemes are amazing (especially the Poem Tragique, Winged Poeme, and his Deux Poemes) But I may just be spitting out names of pieces you already know. All of his preludes are great material, and on top of all of that: he wrote 5 fantastic symphonies (the Prometheus is his 5th).


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> You would definitely want to try opus 42 no 5, all of opus 2 (especially number one) and 12, and of course you will want to study his piano concerto, all of his sonatas (try opus 53 no 5 for starters), and Prometheus is a great piece for the piano also. And his poemes are amazing (especially the Poem Tragique, Winged Poeme, and his Deux Poemes) But I may just be spitting out names of pieces you already know. All of his preludes are great material, and on top of all of that: he wrote 5 fantastic symphonies (the Prometheus is his 5th).


Why you are recommending me a piano sonata that I just mentioned in the post you quoted?  Being a Scriabin fan, I am familiar with his most famous works like Prometheus, though I consider it a symphonic poem and not a symphony. I'm mostly interested in the later, very chromatic and often nearly atonal Scriabin, not so much int the chopinesque early Scriabin. I might check even the more obscure works if they are in that style.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Try his 2 dances opus 73: Guirlandes and Flammes sombres. They were a preparation for the Mysterium. Also, his opus 37 no. 1 prelude is interesting.

As for the obscure pieces, here we go: Feuillet d'album, Op. 58, Mazurka Op. 25 No. 2, Nocturne Op. 5 No. 2, Poeme Op. 69 No. 1, Poeme Op. 71 No. 1, and Masques Op. 63 No. 1.

But that's all I can think of at the moment.


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

i believe him to do chopin quite well and in his own style. it's not just mere chopin-like piano music. it is earthy and natural - while being spiritual in a way. hard to describe. if i had to compare scriabins etudes to chopins it would be a bizarre and difficult fight. they're both magnificent in their own ways, with chopins being the more obvious choice.

if i had to draw an analogy

chopin's etudes are like a really smart, wealthy, proper uncle who is in love with a beautiful woman and nothing else matters and it's bittersweet

scriabin's etudes are like a stoned uncle who is also in love with a beautiful woman and nothing else matters, but he's quite a bit more down to earth and plus he has crazy spiritual mind adventures every now and again


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

I'll cast my vote for Beethoven's sonatas as well.


----------



## ScriabinMahler (Sep 27, 2009)

Scriabin for me, his piano music is outstanding, from the op 1 Waltz to the late preludes. There is so much to love in his 3 distinct periods, if anyone is a Scriabin fan then i suggest trying to get Sofronitsky's recordings for the authentic russian playing. Sudbin and Melnikov are very good as the new russians, must also mention Kissin's recording of the third sonata and a set of early preludes. Hamelin playing the poeme tragique is absolutely stunning as is Melnikov in the Fantasy op28 (one of the great piano works)

Stanchinsky is a very interesting composer being influenced by Scriabin his piano works are mix of Scriabin, Bach and prokofiev, Stanchinsky's canon-prelude in E mixolydian is very hypnotic and beautifully virtuosic, anyone who is a fan of Scriabin should give Stanchinsky a listen.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

ScriabinMahler said:


> Scriabin for me, his piano music is outstanding, from the op 1 Waltz to the late preludes. There is so much to love in his 3 distinct periods, if anyone is a Scriabin fan then i suggest trying to get Sofronitsky's recordings for the authentic russian playing. Sudbin and Melnikov are very good as the new russians, must also mention Kissin's recording of the third sonata and a set of early preludes. Hamelin playing the poeme tragique is absolutely stunning as is Melnikov in the Fantasy op28 (one of the great piano works)
> 
> Stanchinsky is a very interesting composer being influenced by Scriabin his piano works are mix of Scriabin, Bach and prokofiev, Stanchinsky's canon-prelude in E mixolydian is very hypnotic and beautifully virtuosic, anyone who is a fan of Scriabin should give Stanchinsky a listen.


Have you ever heard Valeri Kastelsky play Scriabin before? He was vice president of the Scriabin Foundation at one point. He died not so long ago, but he left behind some incredible recordings of Scriabin. He plays the definitive performance (in my opinion) of Vers La Flamme.


----------



## ScriabinMahler (Sep 27, 2009)

Yes i have, but i only have a recording of him playing the op56, 57, 58, 61 and 73 pieces. Its on a CD with Sofronitsky. 

Vers La Flamme is a truely outstanding work, so im always keen to look out for any other recordings of it, of all the recordings i have of it Sofronitsky is my fave. But i shall look out for Katelsky.

Seems like we both worship at the shrine of Scriabin


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

ScriabinMahler said:


> Yes i have, but i only have a recording of him playing the op56, 57, 58, 61 and 73 pieces. Its on a CD with Sofronitsky.
> 
> Vers La Flamme is a truely outstanding work, so im always keen to look out for any other recordings of it, of all the recordings i have of it Sofronitsky is my fave. But i shall look out for Katelsky.
> 
> Seems like we both worship at the shrine of Scriabin


As far as I'm concerned, he was the rebirth of good music in the middle of the driest, most monotonous era of Romantic music. There's quite a bit you can get out of his music.

I especially love his opus 53 no 5 sonata.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm somewhat fascinated with the obsession for Scriabin that I find among some of the musically aware. Not that I dislike his work in any way, but rather I almost see him as overrated and underrated (with the general public) at the same time. 

If we are stipulating specifically piano I find that Beethoven is almost the obvious master, followed by Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, and certainly Debussy. Schubert and Haydn are no slouches either. If we expand the parameters to include keyboard music in the broader sense then J.S. Bach is the unrivaled giant, and Scarlatti will need to be thrown into the mix.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As far as I'm concerned, he was the rebirth of good music in the middle of the driest, most monotonous era of Romantic music. There's quite a bit you can get out of his music.

Yeah... Mahler, Brahms, Richard Strauss, Puccini, Debussy, etc... none of these produced any good music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As far as I'm concerned, he was the rebirth of good music in the middle of the driest, most monotonous era of Romantic music. There's quite a bit you can get out of his music.
> 
> Yeah... Mahler, Brahms, Richard Strauss, Puccini, Debussy, etc... none of these produced any good music.


I understand entirely where you are coming from. Every decade has had it's great people in music. I meant that that period in general was a terrible one for music (in my opinion), and Scriabin broke us free. He started the incredibly diverse (especially when it comes to quality) Avante Garde genre. I think he did something massive for music.

And are you kidding me? Prometheus is one of the most fantastic symphonies ever written, and it's even rather short in comparison to others. Scriabin wrote tons of great etudes and preludes that walked a broad avenue of different musical languages. He was to the Poeme what Chopin was to the Nocturne.

His music was just so manic, engrossing, dense, sentimental, mysterious, and thoughtful. Anyone can say whatever they want, but those who aware of what his music is, would agree that he was something very big in music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Every decade has had it's great people in music. I meant that that period in general was a terrible one for music (in my opinion), and Scriabin broke us free. He started the incredibly diverse (especially when it comes to quality) Avante Garde genre. I think he did something massive for music.

Every era has its share of good, bad, and ugly. At the same time, not every era has these in the same ratio. The Renaissance produced a wealth of brilliant artists unmatched by any era save only that of perhaps early Modernism. The Rococo, on the other hand, offered a virtually wasteland of cotton-candy fantasies. I music I would be hard pressed to think of a more productive era than that of the late 19th-early 20th century. Wagner, it seems to me, is to music what Picasso was to painting. Following in his wake was an array of composers of the greatest diversity and merit that are virtually unrivaled in the whole of music history: Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Vaughan-Williams, Bax, Mussorgsky, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Satie, Rimsky-Korsakov, Faure, Rachmaninoff, Massenet, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Chausson, Hahn, etc...

I agree that the innovations of the early 2oth century Avant-Garde garde led to great opening up of possibilities in music hitherto unimagined. The same occurred in the visual arts where Modernism opened up art to the possibilities of Expressionistic distortions, abstraction, the appreciation of the whole of non-European art, "primitive" art, art drawing from popular culture (film, photography, etc...). None of this undermined the value of earlier art, and it should come as no surprise that earlier artistic styles rooted in visual realism (Impressionism, etc...) are still among the favorite styles of art. The same might be said of the influence of Modernism and the Avant Garde upon music. Yes, it opened music up to the expressive possibilities of dissonance, atonalism, explosive rhythms, to influences drawn from folk music, non-European sources, "primitive" and medieval elements, etc... but none of this undermines the achievements and the artistic worth of the great composers of the Romantic and Post-Romantic age. Nor does it necessarily assure us that the Modernists and those who follow in their wake can even equal the greatest of the Romantics. There are any number of Modernists, Minimalists, and Contemporary composers whom I admire... but I would hesitate to place any of them on par with Mahler... or Strauss... let alone Brahms and Wagner.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Vaughan-Williams, Bax, Mussorgsky, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Satie, Rimsky-Korsakov, Faure, Rachmaninoff, Massenet, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Chausson, Hahn, etc...


All great in your opinion, but in my opinion they used a lot of the same musical language, and it's pretty damned monotonous trying to listen only to them. It seems like a pretty dry period to me.

Really, now? You think Wagner was a Picasso of music? What makes Wagner, Brahms, Mahler, or Strauss any better than Scriabin? They all serve different purposes. I simply meant that Scriabin is in no way underrated, he did just as much for music as the other giants of music, wrote music that was just as wonderful, and he pioneered a few different composition forms that were yet to become popular. He painted the picture of the future of music, and was one of the first to really look into mysticism. What possible reason could there be to discredit him? Not all music has to sound like Rachmanninoff, Mahler, Wagner, Strauss, Tchaikovsky. There is no big me little you act in music, just different ideas that have their own merit. I think we both know the saying, "To each his own."

I would never use any one name to make any other seem inferior. Scriabin was just as great as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Chopin, Handel, Haydn, Debussy, Liszt, Tchaikosky, etc.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

All great in your opinion, but in my opinion they used a lot of the same musical language, and it's pretty damned monotonous trying to listen only to them. It seems like a pretty dry period to me.

One can say this of all artistic styles... and it is equally valid... or not. All atonalism sounds alike. All Baroque music sounds alike. All medieval music sounds alike. I've heard all of these criticisms. They are true in that any given musical style maintains common elements... but as you delve into the individual artists and the individual works you find a great wealth of differences... variety.

Really, now? You think Wagner was a Picasso of music? What makes Wagner, Brahms, Mahler, or Strauss any better than Scriabin?

While I quite like Scriabin, he is seriously a rather minor figure in comparison the Wagner. He has something of a rabid cult following, but a quick perusal of any encyclopedia entries upon the two composers quickly leads to a recognition of which composer has the greater status. Wagner's innovations are legion: the rich orchestration, the use of the leitmotif, the development of the opera in a symphonic manner as an unbroken musical drama rather than a series of arias, choruses, and duets connected by the recitative, the rich use of chromaticism, the innovation of the Gesamtkunstwerk (a synthesis of the dramatic, poetic, musical and visual... which Scriabin himself would attempt to build upon). Like Picasso, Wagner was a figure so towering that his achievements could not be ignored. He was to have a profound influence upon an endless array of composers including Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Puccini, Hugo Wolf, Massanet, Delius, Zemlinski, Szymanowski, Debussy, Schoenberg. Some composers such as Debussy and Schoenberg would eventually seek to break away from Wagner, but even they, it may be argued, were impacted by him with regard to their development of tonal ideas. Wagner's impact carried over into the other arts as well. Nietzsche was originally part of his inner circle. Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Auden, Marcel Proust, Thomas Mann, and many more idolized Wagner and drew inspiration from his music and writings... even wrote about him in their literary works.

They all serve different purposes. I simply meant that Scriabin is in no way underrated, *he did just as much for music as the other giants of music*, wrote music that was just as wonderful, and he pioneered a few different composition forms that were yet to become popular. 

The notion that Scriabin did as much as any of the other giants of music for the development of music is more than arguable. He certainly was a favorite of pianists... especially the Russians Vladimir Sofronitsky, Vladimir Horowitz and Sviatoslav Richter. He was also an inspiration for such Russian composers as Stravinsky and Prokofiev... but just how influential is debatable. His immediate or subsequent influence is also open to debate. Even today he is not an everyday name... even among those knowledgeable of music... and there is no consensus as to his importance... whether he was a genius... or just mad.

He painted the picture of the future of music, and was one of the first to really look into mysticism.

Of course I am always wary of the idea of an artist pointing the way to the future. Many of the ideas that Scriabin was working with were also being explored in other ways by composers such as Debussy and Schoenberg. His exploration of mysticism means nothing to music and many of his staunchest supporters admit that these theories were mad... in spite of the msuic.

What possible reason could there be to discredit him? Not all music has to sound like Rachmanninoff, Mahler, Wagner, Strauss, Tchaikovsky. There is no big me little you act in music, just different ideas that have their own merit. I think we both know the saying, "To each his own."

But do you really believe this? All artists are equal? aesthetic relativism is a weak hold-over from the 1960s ("I'm OK, You're OK") and led to the eventual notion that everyone is an artist and every work of art is equally valid as it gives voice to the perceptions of an individual at a given time or place. Such ideas are pure sheep dip. As an artist myself I am more than aware that some artists are better than others and that even within my own oeuvre some art works are more successful than others.

As T.S. Eliot noted we all develop a sort of idealized heirarchy of great artists by which we compare any really new work of art. Certainly each individual new composer offers something new... something never seen before. Still, this does not keep us from comparing his or her achievements with those of the greatest composers of the past (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, etc...) for the very reason that if the work is truly new... it will influence our perceptions of the art of the past just as profoundly as the art of the past influenced them.

I would never use any one name to make any other seem inferior. Scriabin was just as great as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Chopin, Handel, Haydn, Debussy, Liszt, Tchaikosky, etc.

Matisse was a marvelous painter. One of the greatest of the 20th century. He was in no way a rival to Michelangelo, however. This fact in no way negates his worth. Yeats, Keats, T.S. Eliot, Baudelaire... all were marvelous writers... but none could stand up to a direct comparison with Dante or Shakespeare. This does not mean that they were not giants in their own right. The notion that Scriabin is of the same stature as Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, or Bach (Bach???!!!) is as absurd. Everyone has personal preferences, but it helps to recognize that these are not the same as objective fact. The towering figures of art attain their status due to the scale of their achievements, the impact of their innovations upon art and their continued resonance with subsequent artists. I quite prefer Bonnard to Picasso... but I wouldn't think to suggest that they are in any way equal. I quite like Delius... but he is no rival to Stravinsky, Debussy... or perhaps even Scriabin.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> All great in your opinion, but in my opinion they used a lot of the same musical language, and it's pretty damned monotonous trying to listen only to them. It seems like a pretty dry period to me.
> 
> One can say this of all artistic styles... and it is equally valid... or not. All atonalism sounds alike. All Baroque music sounds alike. All medieval music sounds alike. I've heard all of these criticisms. They are true in that any given musical style maintains common elements... but as you delve into the individual artists and the individual works you find a great wealth of differences... variety.
> 
> ...


I would never (and I mean never) connect mass consensus with the notion of objective hierarchy. There is no hierarchy, there are just those that are devoted to theri craft, and swindlers who like to compare themselves to people who put their actual emotions on the line. I get just as much stimulus and connection with Scriabin as Bach o). It is highly immoral (in my opinion) to lord one individual over another. "To each his own."

Alkan, for example, wouldn't win a popularity contest on a cold day in hell even, but he was an incredible composer, had a manic obsession for music and put all of his emotions on the line. He did have a direct effect and painted the future of music, because Debussy worshiped his Esquisses, and they effected his composition very much.

The same with Scriabin. He directly effected the atonal movement, Schoenberg, Feinberg, Roslavets, and was really the beginning of the Avante Garde period. Have we really wiped out such a massive amount of this big me little you prejudice just to say some composer isn't as great as another when both put so much into art? This isn't any 1960's "I'm OK, you're OK" do whatever you bloody well please crap.

It simply a testament to one's penultimate stupidity to say one composer is better than another because of general consensus. Just because something is said, it doesn't mean it's true. That is like saying a few witnesses is enough to execute someone for murder (althought not nearly on the same degree). Word of mouth is some of the weakest information one could hope to rely on, so let's dismiss that entirely. Scriabin came up with an entirely new guideline for music, and was a big step in breaking away from the major/minor scale ideals. I'd say he did quite a bit.


----------



## Bobotox (May 3, 2009)

Anton Rubinstein wrote some amazing solo piano pieces. His sonatas are excellent and his piano concertos are the best I have heard. 

Scriabin also is an interesting composer whom I have listened to a lot lately. He is so mysterious that you have to listen to his works a couple of times to get what he is trying say.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> I understand entirely where you are coming from. Every decade has had it's great people in music. I meant that that period in general was a terrible one for music (in my opinion), and Scriabin broke us free. He started the incredibly diverse (especially when it comes to quality) Avante Garde genre. I think he did something massive for music.
> 
> And are you kidding me? Prometheus is one of the most fantastic symphonies ever written, and it's even rather short in comparison to others. Scriabin wrote tons of great etudes and preludes that walked a broad avenue of different musical languages. He was to the Poeme what Chopin was to the Nocturne.
> 
> His music was just so manic, engrossing, dense, sentimental, mysterious, and thoughtful. Anyone can say whatever they want, but those who aware of what his music is, would agree that he was something very big in music.


There is and always will be good music being produced it's just a matter of it being recognised by the public or forgetten. You could say music in a new style or genre may not be as much to your liking but to say there are specific dry periods is ill informed. For example, at this moment in time it is possible to compose in many different style, Baroque, Romantic, Atonal, Polyphonic etc but as these are not modern or cutting edge they will less likely be remebered in future generations. There were possibly people composing in a similar style to Purcell during the late 19th century but as this style was not fashionable at the time it wouldn't gain mass recognition and be remembered.

With the advent of the internet this should change, but newer styles will always be more popular.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Two recent favorites of mine are British: William Alwyn and Frank Bridge. Some very nice piano music there, especially the low-key pieces. 

Apart from that, I've been listening to Dutilleux' Piano Sonata a lot. Pure magic!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Lukecash... Michelangelo stands by almost universal consensus as one of the greatest... perhaps THE greatest artist ever. In the same manner Shakespeare stands as almost unrivaled among writers. This consensus is not drawn from the mass public. We are not speaking of the opinions of Joe the Plumber whose taste has resulted in reality TV and the stardom of such great talents as Madonna and Dan Brown. What we are talking about is a consensus of an "elite" (for lack of a better term). This is not an "elite" of social/economic status but rather one of elective affinity. It is made up of all who invest the time, effort, and even money into the study, understanding, appreciation, promotion, creation, and preservation of the arts. When Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are presented as the "holy trinity" of classical music these composers were not selected based upon the input of the masses, but rather the opinions of those who have invested the time etc... into music: musicologists, music historians, musicians, composers, etc... Certainly the collective consensus of these "experts" is not the same as a hard objective fact as measured by scientific methods... but it is the closest art can get. One might also note that the nearer the artist is to us in time the less likely we are to find a universal consensus. One need only look at the fact that there are any number of persons knowledgeable in music (or art/literature) who question the merits of Schoenberg (or Pollack/James Joyce). 

I would suggest that there may often be a difference between the collective consensus and our own personal tastes and that this is fine. At the same time we need to recognize this difference between our personal opinions or tastes and the collective consensus. There are certain composers who give me the greatest pleasure... who I feel should be more recognized/appreciated. To argue that they are equal to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, however, achieves nothing as it strikes most as empty hyperbole. To argue that Scriabin is equal to Bach is about as useful as declaring that Schoenberg was a complete fraud. Either argument strikes the audience as a gross exaggeration having little to do with the facts. 

But I won't belabor the point. The thread is about the greatest/favorite composers for piano/keyboard of all ages. Scriabin is no Beethoven... no Bach... but neither is Debussy or even Schumann. This does not stop me from enjoying all of their works. It doesn't even stop me from enjoying an even "lesser" figure such as Philip Glass or Takemitsu.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

What exactly is it that makes one person greater than another? There is no experience more profound than any other, and each has it's implications for us to think. A person is a person no matter what. Both Bach and Scriabin put their emotions on the line, and I see both sets of emotional wavelengths. I don't find either to be inherently better than one another. We like to measure everything on pointless relative scales, try to lord the seemingly great over the mundane. As long as it was actually put out there (not some hypocrisy that tries to subvert itself as great), than just as much can be learned from it.

There is no scale. Art is not such a cold, hateful, limited thing that plays favorites. Scriabin is no Beethoven... no Bach... no Debussy, and no Schumann. Scriabin is Scriabin. How else can I put this?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

at this moment in time it is possible to compose in many different style, Baroque, Romantic, Atonal, Polyphonic etc but as these are not modern or cutting edge they will less likely be remebered in future generations.

The problem with this theory is that it assumes that the future generations will place the same value upon the more experimental or _avant garde_ as we do at present. Artistic styles sometimes build upon the work of the previous generations... and sometimes they will result from a break or even a rejection of the achievements of the previous generation and turn to something further removed. In many ways Modernism was a break with Romanticism. In the visual arts, Neo-Classicism was a clear break from and rejection of the Rococo and a return to the classicism of the High Renaissance, Greece, and Rome. The future generations may place far more value upon the current works written in a Neo-Romantic tradition than they do upon the esoteric experiments of the later Modernists. Or they may turn to even earlier sources of inspiration (look at the connections between medieval music and the work of composers such as Arvo Part) or sources we cannot even imagine.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've been getting into some of the C20th solo piano repertoire, both famous & not so famous. Ones I have enjoyed so far are Ligeti's _Etudes (Books 1 & 2),_ Russian-American Leo Ornstein's piano works, and some by Turkish composer Ahmet Adnan Saygun.

Ligeti's _Etudes_ are probably known quite well by all you knowledgeable people. Ornstein's output encompassed a diverse array of styles, from the Romantic to the Serial. & Saygun used the rhythms & musical language of his native country, coupled with a Bartokian sense of modernism, which is understandable since he knew that composer personally...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Andre said:


> I've been getting into some of the C20th solo piano repertoire, both famous & not so famous. Ones I have enjoyed so far are Ligeti's _Etudes (Books 1 & 2),_ Russian-American Leo Ornstein's piano works, and some by Turkish composer Ahmet Adnan Saygun.
> 
> Ligeti's _Etudes_ are probably known quite well by all you knowledgeable people. Ornstein's output encompassed a diverse array of styles, from the Romantic to the Serial. & Saygun used the rhythms & language of his native country, coupled with a Bartokian sense of modernism, which is understandable since he knew that composer personally...


Ornstein's a great choice, and so is Ligeti. You're doing just fine in my book.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What exactly is it that makes one person greater than another? There is no experience more profound than any other, and each has it's implications for us to think. A person is a person no matter what.

C'mon! There's hardly an artist in the world who would buy such drivel. Some artists are better than others. Period. Some artists' achievements are more central to the development of art and continue to resonate to a far greater extent than others. Chardin, Odilon Redon, Giorgio Morandi were all pleasant painters. They achieved a body of painting that was quite good... within a narrow range. None of their supporters nor they themselves would ever think to suggest that their achievements are in any way as important as those of Rembrandt, Picasso, or Michelangelo. The poet who wrote one or two memorable sonnets is not equal to Shakespeare or Dante. It has nothing to do with the value of the human being as an individual. It is about the achievements. Certain books, certain works of art, certain works of music, certain ideas, certain inventions are better than others... are more important within the scope of history than others... continue to resonate with a greater impact than others. Period. It has nothing to do with putting one's emotions on the line. That's just Romanticized mush. I'm surprised that for someone who rejects Romanticism in music and embraces the thornier realities of Modernism you still buy into such a schmaltzy, outdated notion about artists and the artistic process.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I only recently heard some of Ornstein's works for piano and cello which certainly seems to warrant further exploration.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> What exactly is it that makes one person greater than another? There is no experience more profound than any other, and each has it's implications for us to think. A person is a person no matter what.
> 
> C'mon! There's hardly an artist in the world who would buy such drivel. Some artists are better than others. Period. Some artists' achievements are more central to the development of art and continue to resonate to a far greater extent than others. Chardin, Odilon Redon, Giorgio Morandi were all pleasant painters. They achieved a body of painting that was quite good... within a narrow range. None of their supporters nor they themselves would ever think to suggest that their achievements are in any way as important as those of Rembrandt, Picasso, or Michelangelo. The poet who wrote one or two memorable sonnets is not equal to Shakespeare or Dante. It has nothing to do with the value of the human being as an individual. It is about the achievements. Certain books, certain works of art, certain works of music, certain ideas, certain inventions are better than others... are more important within the scope of history than others... continue to resonate with a greater impact than others. Period. It has nothing to do with putting one's emotions on the line. That's just Romanticized mush. I'm surprised that for someone who rejects Romanticism in music and embraces the thornier realities of Modernism you still buy into such a schmaltzy, outdated notion about artists and the artistic process.


Once again, you have a differing opinion, and you are lording your's over mine own. I think art has absolutely everything to do with the individual. And my opinion is every bit as valid as yours, seeing as I've had quite a bit of experience with music (and I'm not trying to sound like an elitist in saying that). Just face it that alternative opinions rather than this barbaric relative scale are just as valid from a logical standpoint. You use words like "mush" to categorize my ideas and seemingly discredit them by adding a negative connotation. That is basically the same as a moron calling someone gay for saying something is beautiful.

No offense intended, I think you're a great fella after all.


----------



## ScriabinMahler (Sep 27, 2009)

wow what a debate

I disagree with Luke on one point that the period in which Scriabin was composing was dry and not very interesting. I actually find the period of say 1860 to 1950 the most musically diverse and interesting period in all music. But thats my opinion, 4 of my favourite composers come from this period Scriabin, Mahler, Respighi and Vaughan Williams each equally different.

I would also say i dont like saying one composer is more important than another, as each composer affects people differently, yes ofcourse you can argue the point but its quite a pointless exercise. 

Also i think some people are forgetting Lizst his late piano works are very advanced.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

john cage sonatas and interludes is cool. and 4'33" could be performed by a pianist, thats cool also


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

ScriabinMahler said:


> wow what a debate
> 
> I disagree with Luke on one point that the period in which Scriabin was composing was dry and not very interesting. I actually find the period of say 1860 to 1950 the most musically diverse and interesting period in all music. But thats my opinion, 4 of my favourite composers come from this period Scriabin, Mahler, Respighi and Vaughan Williams each equally different.
> 
> ...


Hey! No ones forgetting Liszt I just played his Grand Concert Solo at a recital a half a month ago. We were just going at it because he thought Scriabin was a composer who gets too much credit from a few fanatical fans and not much from everyone else. Silly talk to me.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Once again, you have a differing opinion, and you are lording your's over mine own. I think art has absolutely everything to do with the individual. And my opinion is every bit as valid as yours, seeing as I've had quite a bit of experience with music (and I'm not trying to sound like an elitist in saying that). Just face it that alternative opinions rather than this barbaric relative scale are just as valid from a logical standpoint. You use words like "mush" to categorize my ideas and seemingly discredit them by adding a negative connotation. That is basically the same as a moron calling someone gay for saying something is beautiful.
> 
> No offense intended, I think you're a great fella after all.


Apparently I finally got something across.

But let's continue on to some other good solo piano works. Medtner's 9th sonata is just wonderful.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Lukecash12 said:


> Apparently I finally got something across.
> 
> But let's continue on to some other good solo piano works. Medtner's 9th sonata is just wonderful.


Don't forget 10, 12, 13. Heck all his sonatas are underrated.  (Except the 5th maybe...)


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Air said:


> Don't forget 10, 12, 13. Heck all his sonatas are underrated.  (Except the 5th maybe...)


No kidding. Learning everything about Medtner is basically the equivalent of taking a composition course.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd just like to mention *Janacek's piano music.* It's hard to describe, but at times sounds very emotionally direct, but never over the top (eg. the _Sonata 1.X.1905 "From the street," On an overgrown path_). At others it can be very poetic (eg. _In the mists_), or quirky & offbeat (_Concertino for piano & chamber orchestra_). Not a huge output in terms of quantity (about 3 cd's worth in all), but what makes up for this is the sheer depth & quality of these compositions. He was decades ahead of his time & had a truly unique voice...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> What exactly is it that makes one person greater than another? There is no experience more profound than any other, and each has it's implications for us to think.


Ok, this is how I look at it. At some basic point there is obviously some music which is not as inventive and composers who show less ability in that basic sense.

But looking beyond that...you can say that many composers have composed very good pieces. And how is one very good piece necessarily better than another very good one? I think the answer is basically that you have to judge a piece on what it trying to accomplish and a successful work is successful work. For example what point is there is trying to argue whether Mozart's clarinet quintet or Brahms' clarinet quintet is better? There isn't any point. However that does not mean Brahms is as great as Mozart as Mozart composed far more music (and therefore more music of quality) and also excelled in every genre (including opera).


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

starry said:


> Ok, this is how I look at it. At some basic point there is obviously some music which is not as inventive and composers who show less ability in that basic sense.
> 
> But looking beyond that...you can say that many composers have composed very good pieces. And how is one very good piece necessarily better than another very good one? I think the answer is basically that you have to judge a piece on what it trying to accomplish and a successful work is successful work. For example what point is there is trying to argue whether Mozart's clarinet quintet or Brahms' clarinet quintet is better? There isn't any point. However that does not mean Brahms is as great as Mozart as Mozart composed far more music (and therefore more music of quality) and also excelled in every genre (including opera).


Art is not an achievement, nor is it any thing that is tangible in the same sense to absolutely everyone. Art is certainly not a furry cat whom everyone agrees has soft, fluffy hair. Art is a _lifestyle_. No one can live more profoundly than any other individual.

You can say I'm just making loose assumptions, and this is just a tiny sliver out of the plethora of opinions one could have on art, but we come to conclusions in mostly the same way in the field of physics, especially when it pertains to astrology. Circumstantial evidence is just as viable as physical evidence.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Art is not an achievement, nor is it any thing that is tangible in the same sense to absolutely everyone. Art is certainly not a furry cat whom everyone agrees has soft, fluffy hair. Art is a _lifestyle_. No one can live more profoundly than any other individual.


But some people can have quite limited taste and refuse to listen or even attempt to understand something they are not familiar with.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

starry said:


> But some people can have quite limited taste and refuse to listen or even attempt to understand something they are not familiar with.


Umm.... Yes, we are constantly aware of that. What does that have to do with anything? That doesn't affect in the least bit what art is made up of, or what it does for people.

And don't we all agree it's a monstrous sin to just make assumptions about everything?


----------



## Patrick Mertens (Nov 13, 2009)

A favourite composer for piano, depends on my mood. I would say it depends of the pianist. This year i heard Hamelin and Berezovsky playing Chopin. The last one was really terrible, Hamelin was great. But for me Chopin is not the greatest. I should say for the solo repertoire Liszt, Scriabin and not to forget the Spanish Albeniz and Granados. Iberia is an absolute masterpiece and Goyescas brings me in a passional mood.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> And don't we all agree it's a monstrous sin to just make assumptions about everything?


Definitely, which is why it is important for people to listen closely to something and to understand the style before making a judgement.



Lukecash12 said:


> Art is not an achievement, nor is it any thing that is tangible in the same sense to absolutely everyone.


Art is an achievement, it is a creation and not just a discovery. It is not something plucked off a branch, great craft is needed along with invention. A work of art is not tangible in exactly the same way to everyone, but it can be tangible in a similar way nevertheless.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Art is not an achievement... Art is a lifestyle.

I'm tempted to say "Romantic drivel".

Art is most certainly an achievement and the idea that art is a lifestyle is something that is embraced by every sophomoric art student or "poet" in a first year creative writing course who imagines that he or she is an artist because 1. He/she dresses in black 2. He/she drinks excessively 3. He/she suffers.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Art is not an achievement... Art is a lifestyle.
> 
> I'm tempted to say "Romantic drivel".
> 
> Art is most certainly an achievement and the idea that art is a lifestyle is something that is embraced by every sophomoric art student or "poet" in a first year creative writing course who imagines that he or she is an artist because 1. He/she dresses in black 2. He/she drinks excessively 3. He/she suffers.


Once again, heavy with unwarranted accusations. Not to mention an ocean of pride. My opinion is just as valid, and well supported. How's about we make assumptions about you now? Do you see music as anything more than a sheet with lines, dots, and scribbles on it?

Insults merely remark the fact that you refuse to look at the possibilities. You categorize and discredit. All of a sudden I'm gothic and overemotional for not seeing art as if it was physics, architecture, or mathematics? Is it really an achievement? Is that all we're supposed to get out of it? Cheap nostalgia and emotional stimulus so we can pat ourselves on top of the head and feel like a smart little man/lady? Are people going to endless arrange this mess of atoms we inhabit until someone can definitively say "My club is bigger than yours"?

Or one could hope to learn something real, about people that are real.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

Enamoured with big, rich, dark, deep solo piano music, e.g.:
*Beethoven*'s late Sonatas;
*Brahms*' late Stücke;
*Schubert*'s late Sonatas;
*Skryabin*'s Sonata cycle;
*Fauré*'s later Nocturnes;
*Franck*'s piano works;
*Vierne*'s piano works;
*Dukas*' Sonata;
*D'Indy*'s Sonata.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm a pianist.. my favorite solo piano music would be just about everything from Chopin, Schubert and Beethoven, some Liszt (certain rhapsodies/etudes are better than others), and Ravel. Having played so much Mozart/Bach in my youth I am quite sick of them (and it's not really concert music anyway). I have also never been a big fan of Schumann, Mendelssohn or Scriabin. I like Rachmaninov and Brahms but I prefer their shorter 'romantic pieces' to their sonatas.


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

When I was a piano student in college I observed that except for possibly the human voice, pianists had the largest repertoire of any solo instrument available--and we all played the SAME DAMNED STUFF! 

I switched my Major to vocal accompanying and found out that there was an incredible wealth of untapped and very expressive--and difficult--piano music, only it was as a partnership, not a solo repertoire. 

When I started re-examing the solo piano repertoire, I found myself much more attracted to the 'unexplored' (this was in the late 'fifties, early 'sixties, when certain of my Professors were extolling the fact that the "Three B's" should be Bach, BARTOK and Beethoven, rather than the usual). I immediately gave up on Mozart and Chopin--no 'solidity' in their approach--got scared to death of Beethoven--not that I didn't like him, I LOVED him, but I really felt afraid of tackling all of that incredible profundity--settled in on Brahms, Rachmaninov, Schumann, bypassed Scriabine completely, and landed on Debussy, Ravel, and to my absolute wonderment, the piano music of contemporary Spanish composers such as Falla, Albeniz, Rodrigo and Halffter. After that, it was full ahead on the Post-Romantics--Strauss (he wrote way too little, but it's good), Korngold (WOW!), and then on to people like Copland and Ginastera (double WOW!). Then a nice, long side-trip to Szymanowski and Liapunov, then some Poulenc for the fun of it--the guy can really write a TUNE!--then back to Brahms and Rachmaninov--just enjoying bouncing all around. 

But as basically an accompanist--and if anyone tells you that we're 'less' than pianists, that particular person has air in their head for brains--give me the accompaniments to solo songs by Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Wolf, Strauss, Rachmaninov, Barber, Mahler, Korngold, Copland and Rorem--just to name a few--and I'm not only in my element, but something close to what we used to call Nirvana back in the 'sixties, LOL!

Tom


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'm somewhat fascinated with the obsession for Scriabin that I find among some of the musically aware. Not that I dislike his work in any way, but rather I almost see him as overrated and underrated (with the general public) at the same time.
> 
> If we are stipulating specifically piano I find that Beethoven is almost the obvious master, followed by Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, and certainly Debussy. Schubert and Haydn are no slouches either. If we expand the parameters to include keyboard music in the broader sense then J.S. Bach is the unrivaled giant, and Scarlatti will need to be thrown into the mix.


Yes 

I get the feeling from readin your posts that our tastes are pretty similar.
Although I would possibly rate Scriabin's keyboard works higher than you do, and possibly Haydn a little lower.

I wouldn't discount Mozart's piano music, even the solo stuff contains quality pieces, such as the minor key sonatas, the fantasias and the gigue in G. Rachmaninov is not to be discounted, nor is Faure.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2016)

Bumped, rather than me start a new thread on "solo piano."

Listening to Scelsi and wondering who else I might particularly enjoy. Current favourites would be Liszt, Chopin, Debussy, Ravel and Scriabin...

(PS don't blame me for it being in the wrong sub-forum!)


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I find it really creepy to read my posts from 2009. Not really because of the content, but the fact that they are from 2009....


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> I find it really creepy to read my posts from 2009. Not really because of the content, but the fact that they are from 2009....


I know! You seemed quite normal then. (But you do like Scriabin. Or did)


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

dogen said:


> You seemed quite normal then.


As opposed to...?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> I find it really creepy to read my posts from 2009. Not really because of the content, but the fact that they are from 2009....


Wait a minute...what was your name back then? Gangsta Tweety Bird?

Edit: Oh, Dim7--missed you on pg. 1.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> What etudes of Scriabin do you consider remarkable? Haven't heard much of them...


All of them are worth listening to, but my favorites are: 2/1 (horowitz), 8/4 (sofronitsky), 8/5 (richter), 8/11, 8/12, 42/4, 42/5, 65/3 (all horowitz) and 42/5 is my favorite of all piano etudes I've ever heard by any composer and I'm a sucker for etudes.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

dogen said:


> Bumped, rather than me start a new thread on "solo piano."
> 
> Listening to Scelsi and wondering who else I might particularly enjoy. Current favourites would be Liszt, Chopin, Debussy, Ravel and Scriabin...
> 
> (PS don't blame me for it being in the wrong sub-forum!)


You might enjoy obscure composer Catoire


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2016)

DeepR said:


> You might enjoy obscure composer Catoire


I'll check it. Thanks.

Just youtubing Dutilleux piano sonata (Cathy Krier). Love it.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

dogen said:


> Bumped, rather than me start a new thread on "solo piano."
> 
> Listening to Scelsi and wondering who else I might particularly enjoy. Current favourites would be Liszt, Chopin, Debussy, Ravel and Scriabin...
> 
> (PS don't blame me for it being in the wrong sub-forum!)


Messiaen. Olivier Messiaen.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> Messiaen. Olivier Messiaen.


Thanks! Yes, I already have piano works by him. Good stuff!


----------

