In my studies, people usually say that is important to analyse other works,for example, Beethoven's symphonies, to understand better the music for piano. What do you recommend for:
- Beethoven
- Mozart
- Haydn
- Bach

Don't know what you mean by analyze -- I think maybe you just mean study.

Whichever it is, it's not hard to come up with lots of good answers. For example:

Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn: Pick any symphonies. Or string quartets.
Bach: Pick any Brandenburg Concerto. Or, for that matter, any violin concerto. Or any of the unaccompanied works for violin or cello. Or.....

And from among those, look for pieces that really grab you, things you love.

Give the poor guy a break Mark C ... he's so fresh out of the pot, that he wouldn't know a
Beethoven Symphony from the tune whistled by the garbage collector.

He will need to follow a patient path of getting to know a simple digestible classic and
work his way up the chain ... just as we all had to do.

I was lucky enough to start with the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto which stunned me at the age of 17 ... next was the Beethoven
Emperor PC ... but then I had the kick start of a musical father.

Hello

I think you didn't get the question. I have a graduation in music so I have to know Beethoven works and I studies ruem with good teachers, but never compared them to piano works. That's what I want to do. To understand the music I play with other vision.

People say a lot of stuff they don't mean.

If you have a graduate degree in music, your knowledge is way beyond mine so I am probably stating the obvious: analyse the chord progressions.

Look at the publishing dates of the keyboard music for each of the composers, and find non-keyboard works from that same time period. I find it to be illuminating, knowing what was happening for the composer at that point in time, not just from a musical standpoint but from a personal one. What was happening in history? What was the political climate? What was the weather? You never know what kind of connections you can make by having more knowledge.

I doubt that's anything like what he meant by "analyze"....

For a good starting point to better "understand" the keyboard (piano) music of Mozart, listen to and even study his major operas (Le Nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni, Così fan tutte, Die Zauberflöte, for example). From those, you'll appreciate even more, I would hope, the lyricism that is present in so much of Mozart's music and how much of his music for keyboard "should" (could? might?) be played with phrasing based on vocal technique and vocal production.

Regards,

Maybe the OP is looking for insights into the main characteristics of a composer's music which can be elicited from non-piano works in order to understand better the composer's style and therefore how to approach the piano music. For instance, Mozart was an opera/concerto composer, he thought in terms of dialogue and given this insight, it informs how to approach the solo piano music, to hear/feel these dialogues. Whilst teachers can inform pupils of this, there is no substitute for hearing/experiencing this. (And noting the difference in Haydn's music which is more integrated, less "dramatic")

Listening to the finale of Beethoven's 7th symphony really brings alive the intellectual knowledge of the importance of rhythm in his music.

Some may disagree with the above examples of course.

Actually I don't think anyone could!

But we really don't know exactly what Miguel might be looking for. If he means what I think he does, which is just getting a broader general understanding of these composers than can be gotten from just the piano music, I think the answer would be, just about anything else by these composers, especially the major works -- and I don't think we know why he seems to be asking for a more specific answer.

Miguel: Why are you?

Beethoven: symphonies and string quartets. Mozart - operas. Haydn - string quartets, Bach - choral works.

That's pretty good. Just for consistency, I might make the following change: Mozart - operas and string quartets.

Do you know the Mozart string quartets? I'm talking about the ten great ones he wrote starting with K.387. Fantastic stuff, imo on the level of his operas and piano concertos.

-J

I'm still not sure why anyone thinks they can narrow it down like that at all, in view of the vagueness of what was asked.

I don't think we can narrow it down, at least yet, and if Miguel clarifies what he's asking, I think then we'll realize that truly there isn't any particular reason to do so.

Likely actual answer, I think: any major non-keyboard works, doesn't matter which. Different good things can perhaps be gathered from each of the different types, but not more so or less so in an overall sense.

I've heard some of his string quartets, and they are great!!

I'm also very partial to Beethoven's piano trios, but if we're leaving out anything that involves piano, then I guess that shouldn't make the list.

I LOVE Bach's choral works!!!!!!!!!!!!! Off topic, I also really like Mendelssohn's choral works. Warum Toben die Heiden is pretty awesome.

Hi Miguel!
I've been asking myself the same question and then suddenly out of nowhere the answer came: I got a phone call and a teacher asked me to fill in as an accompanist for conducting classes at my Academy. I started working there and playing 2-piano transcriptions of symphonies by Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn etc. Having worked with conductors and getting to know the symphonies and overtures more intimately helps and offers an insight into the respective composers' piano works. I think you don't really know the piece just by listening to it with the scores especially extensive works written for a whole orchestra! It's a fantastic experience and I recommend it to everyone. Take care.

Mark, it does matter. For Mozart I would HIGHLY encourage anyone to get listening to his operas. His string quarters are great but of you want to get more insight on how to play his piano works, he wrote in such an operatic fashion. His 2 piano sonata is like an opera in itself. Beethoven on the other hand is much more orchestral in his writing, and I mean of course it's vocal as well (like much piano music), but hugely orchestral. Bach and choral works are incredible for playing his keyboard works because you really get what he was going after and how to achieve a truly cantabile sound appropriate for the style.

I thought this was common knowledge.

If it is, I disagree.
(I think you're really stretching it by saying it's "common knowledge," because it's far from being even clearly so.)

Something in this instance which I think argues against thinking we need to be so specific (or should be) is that it seems Miguel is starting from 'square 1' on this (since otherwise it would seem he wouldn't need to be asking such a question). If that's so, IMO it's really splitting hairs to think he could get a better start with (for example) Mozart's operas rather than his symphonies; either would take him way ahead of where he is, and I think the main thing by far that would make one thing be better than another is how much he likes the pieces, because that will affect how much he gets himself into them. (Often overlooked!) As for Bach....the choral works rather than (say) the Brandenburg concerti? Maybe, but even there, for what this situation seems to be, I'd still say it's splitting hairs.

Another thing is, suppose someone waits on doing any of this until they think they know what are the perfect best pieces to check out? Which BTW seems to be what's going on.
That's another reason that I think the best message is that it's not such an elaborate decision; just find pieces that you really like, and do it.

BTW I love the Mozart 2-piano sonata too.

I think it's a perfect start if you are at square 1 too. It's never too early to start listening to this stuff. In fact, I'd do it before I even touch the Mozart sonatas.

I'm only saying I thought it was common knowledge because I've heard it preached by SO many teachers, including my own, and when I explored these works I found it to be extremely true.

I SO want to play that Mozart again!

If you ever come to NY and you're looking for someone to do the "2" part....

Haha awesome. I can't remember which part I played... I think it was 1! So you can do 2!

I assumed you did 1. You're a "1" kind of person.

Yes, I did 2 -- because I was deferring to a female.
(Also because I wasn't as good.)

Not that 1 is much harder than 2, if at all, but y'know....1 is 1 and 2 is 2.

Hahaha what does that mean, I'm a 1 person?

Yeah the parts are pretty equal! What a damn difficult piece though.

PS we can switch parts on repeats

I turned pages at a concert where they did that. I was impressed.

Hello everyone

Thanks for your help. It was really helpful.
To clarify my purpose: for example, you have a Mozart sonata and you have a phrase. What I should do with it? Should I think in a lyric /Voice or should be more instrumental type?

You Helped me a lot.

Which sonata? Which phrase? It all depends on the context.

+1

I absolutely, positively agree with you about Mozart's operas when you say later in the thread that you can't begin listening to them too soon. With Bach, I agree that the choral works are important, but I strongly suggest that one learn all he can about dance in the baroque era, because nearly everything Bach penned touches the dance in one way or another.

Even GB variation 25?

-J

You do see the italics, yes? But I could make a case for 25 as well.

This baroque dance business never ceases to mystify me. Who the heck was doing all that dancing?? Take the cello suites or the partitas. Who on earth would "swing" -or whatever baroque move equivalent- to the bourrees, gigues or courantes. or waltz to the sarabandes?? I mean I have read the standard texts about the "origins" of these so-called dances but it just seems so strange that someone like Bach, a composer to the glory of God, would be so obsessed with composing dances right and left. It is not like he was a dancemaster to a glamorous court. Even when employed by Princes and Counts, it was in modest courts and in the seventeenth century in dreary puritanical Germany. And he did spend a lot of his life as a Cantor or music director in churches etc.. So what's up with all the dance business? Do we know if any of his Suites were ever used as real dance pieces (they must have had a weird sense of rythm, our Baroque ancestors. How did they choreograph the various voices??) I used to get "the look" from my teachers right around here. And perhaps there is a major gap in my reading about the subject. But though I am exaggerating a bit, I really don't get the "dance" bit beyond standard music history pronouncements. There, my ignorance is now documented to internet posterity.

Dance formed the basis of much of the music, providing different rhythms and tempi, as well as, therefore, different moods. Same applies to Chopin: the waltzes and the mazurkas, both 3/4, but differently accented.
No-one suggests dancing to Chopin (do they?), but the same principle applies.

No mystery to it. Composers build on what is already there. Geniuses like Bach transcend the original material, but the bases remain, like the difference between the running Italian Corrente and the swaying French Courante.

Both my wife and I play baroque music professionally, none of us knows any dances, we're to busy practising and playing the music.

That said.

I do belive it's of utmost importance that musicians learn to dance, or rather; shake their booty.
Any old way, any style.

And to the OP question; read about the period of the composer, what was going on at the time, both on a personal level (biographies, letters, etc), compositionally (theory, structure, etc) and socially (politics, movements, etc).

Yes, that is the generic or basic explanation. Nobody suggests dancing to Chopin, but neither do they suggest studying the "original" Viennese waltzes in order to understand Chopin's valses. For Bach, there is a greater emphasis on the need to study the Baroque dances (which? by whom?). It is no secret that studying the tempo and rythm of any piece is relevant to understanding its mood and how to perform it. But it seems to me that there is a greater emphasis on learning about the various "dances" that are supposed to have inspired Bach, though such material is not commonly available. Nor do I see how reading about the origins of the gigue or the bourree actually informs its performance, beyond knowing that the latter is often, but not always, in double time for example. I did look into some of these dances once. Some survive, in name at least, in various parts of Europe. They are all very local/ regional when they exist and quite different across countries. You would not, in your wildest dreams, inform your Bach playing by these dances. The knowledge makes you more learned it seems to me, but is not obviously connected to how we are taught to perform Bach.

I think we are at one with this: I have spent a lifetime playing Bach on piano, organ, harpsichord, clavichord without studying the dance forms on which Bach based so much of his music. But I hope I do feel the different pulse of each type. Certainly my body dances internally if not externally when playing the suites and partitas, with the LH providing the beat. Many of Bach's instrumental works are in trio sonata form, the LH providing the continuo, ie beat or pulse.
Bach, together with his contemporaries, seems to me to express feelings through rhythm in a way that his successors did not until the coming of Beethoven. A view which I suspect will not stand up to academic scrutiny.

I always think it is important to look at the connection between these three composers. There is the obvious connection that Haydn taught Beethoven. But you can get a great look into all their music when looking into these connections deeper. Beethoven takes some of mozart's melodies, and uses the compositional style of Haydn. Esp. in his early works. The more I listen to haydn, the more little quirks I also find in Beethoven. Upon looking in mozart more, I see his influence over everyone. I mean, it is a broad approach, but it can sometimes provide other insights.

I think the dancing insight with Bach is actually pretty good, and now that I think about it, I could make the case with that variation too.

I guess the only works of Bach with no dancing component are some of the choral pieces (e.g. chorales), and some of the very slow fugues (e.g. C# minor Book I, or D# minor Book II). Some of the more religious stuff, I suppose.

-J