Choose Your Repertoire!

For the first article ­­I want talk about repertoire and repertoire choice. It is my opinion that picking the right pieces, whatever that means for any individual pianist, is second only to playing well in maximizing a pianist’s chances to do well in a competition. In the following sections, I will lay out points that might guide a pianist towards a successful program. Though it may seem very procedural or methodical, many of these choices are done subconsciously, intuitively, or emotionally. A well-designed program not only showcases a pianist well, but allows them to perform to their potential.

Something to be remembered by

Before I get into the actual parameters we consider in choosing pieces, I want to explain why I feel so strongly about good programming.

The overt goal in a piano competition is to receive the highest score from the panel of jury. We can argue about the “best” or “most-interesting” pianist, but the only way to win is to score more points or get more votes (in whatever system) than anyone else. One of my former teachers would say, when asked by a student why they didn’t win, “because you didn’t get as many points.” Though this response is slightly facetious and heartless, the sooner we accept that fact, the sooner we can look at competitions rationally.

Couple this with my personal experience on juries that one generally remembers their most and least favorite players – the middle of the pack generally fades into a blur, especially when there are a lot of competitors. While it would be ideal if every judge could remember every performance (taking notes does help to a degree), that is just not a realistic expectation.

These two facts mean that as a competitor you want to be remembered, ideally positively, by the jury members, and hopefully they will be more likely to give you a higher score. This sounds simple, but it is worth saying. Now, that is not to say I agree with doing something for a shock-and-awe effect, or doing something crazy because you think it will grab a jury member’s attention. However, if it is coming from a musically genuine place, and happens to be memorable and unique, then I think that is both a good strategy and a very fulfilling experience for the performer and audience members.

As you watch and listen to the competition, try to be conscious of who you think will move on to the next round (not just who you like) and see if there is a correlation between that and who you remember the most (again, not necessarily someone you like). You will notice how many different ways there are to be remembered by, whether it is a physical movement, the way someone walks onto stage, the way they play their legato, or anything else.

This is all to set up the idea that a competitor’s choice of repertoire can become a point by which the competitor is remembered. This happens even before the competitor walks on stage. Perusing through the programs, I already have in my mind a few pianists that I would like to hear just based on how they programmed their recital, or a specific piece they will play. I’ve had people come up to me, years after the competition, and say, “I still remember your _____ from the 2013 competition!” Not only is that a strategy for doing well in a competition, it is a satisfying feeling anytime, knowing you are remembered!

“My piece”

When trying to decide what pieces to play in a recital or competition, most of us have a list of must-have pieces that we turn to. I’ll break these must-have pieces into three categories:

1.  Pieces we feel attached to

Most of us have pieces that we feel strongly about, especially in our interpretation. We might program these pieces to make an interpretive statement. Or maybe we just really enjoy playing these pieces on stage. Or, perhaps, we like starting a program with a certain piece, because we know it well, and it helps us get into the zone.

2.  Pieces we’ve gotten positive feedback on

Most pianists have had people tell them certain pieces were “their piece.” There are pieces or composers that I immediately associate with a colleague. And, since most pianists are not competition virgins, they already have in their head an idea of what works for them in a competition setting and what doesn’t. As we do more and more competitions, we add to and prune from that list.

3.  Pieces that we’ve always wanted to play but never got a chance to.

This is probably the riskiest, since it implies that the piece is relatively new, or that the competitor hasn’t performed it very often in competition setting. However, that is a risk that is sometimes necessary to create a program that works. Choosing to take this option requires that the competitor is confident that they are able to deliver a convincing performance of the relatively fresh piece.

I would argue that for most of us pianists, these must-haves form the cores that we build the rest of the program around. We take these pieces, and work outwards to form cohesive and interesting programs. This construction seems to be the most organic, especially in a situation where we are given (mostly) free reign in our repertoire choice. In the case of a compulsory piece, that piece also becomes one of the cores to build around.

A monolithic structure, or strength in numbers?

Sometimes you’ll see competitors who program five or six pieces in a span of thirty minutes (giving about 5 or 6 minutes for each piece), or those who program just one long piece for that same duration. On one hand, you don’t want to put all your eggs in one basket and stake whether you get past the round on just one piece. Maybe that one piece doesn’t show enough of you as a pianist, or is very challenging to pull off effectively. On the other hand, you don’t want to spread yourself too thin, either. Going from piece to piece might prevent you from establishing a “groove” and keep you from getting into a good performance zone. To a judge or an audience member, you might seem indecisive or unsure of what you want to showcase as a pianist.

Neither is better than the other, but I think there is a balance to it – a happy medium that is obviously dependent on what the pieces are. If you are playing multiple pieces by the same composer that work well together, the resulting group might act as a multi-movement work. The same could happen to pieces from different composers if they are connected thematically or tonally. Conversely, a single long work could have many sections or movements, allowing you to present a complete pianistic and musical picture.

The final consideration is if there are non-elimination rounds. For example, because there was no cut between the first two rounds in the 2013 Cliburn, I found it worth the risk to play the Beethoven Hammerklavier sonata as the sole work in the second round, balancing out a more diverse program I played in the first round.

Balance of Styles

The previous section talked mainly about the duration and “magnitude” of pieces. This section focuses on styles and distribution of piece from different periods throughout the rounds. Again, as with many things in life, an appropriate balance is key. When you become seasoned and a well-known pianist, you might be known for playing a specific style of piece or composer, such as Uchida for Mozart, Schiff for Bach, or Rubinstein for Chopin. In a competition, while we don’t necessarily need to cover the entire gamut of musical history, we do need to show breadth, flexibility, and proficiency.

When considering the variety in styles, a competitor also has to consider that most of the large concerti allowed in major competitions are early-romantic to early-20^th century. If you have a desire to program anything baroque to early-classical (excepting Mozart), it will have to be a solo piece in the earlier rounds. Similarly, the chamber music selections generally span a short time period.

Expectation is another factor: a competitor who only plays a certain style of piece will have an inherent disadvantage, not because it doesn’t show enough variety, but because the audience then thinks, “Ooh, this guy must be really confident in his interpretation of ______!” Then, you must meet and exceed that! Of course, if a specific style is something you believe is your forte, then perhaps it is worth the risk.

Putting it in Context

Do you start with the baroque piece, because that’s just how you’ve always done it, or do you open with a thorny modern work, and segue almost attacca into a calm romantic work for contrast? The order of pieces matters quite a bit. It can be used effectively to capture the audience’s attention, and provide a good dramatic arch to the program. A good cadence of different lengths of pieces can also help a program flow more, and actually make it easier to perform, both mentally and physically.

You also have to consider fatigue throughout the competition. You might be able to play through both Gaspard and Petrouchka in one sitting at home, but for many of us, programming both pieces in one round in a competition setting, especially one later in the competition, is a recipe for disaster. In the later rounds, you’re going to be also working on the Mozart concerto as you’re preparing your semi-final solo music. Are you going to have the time and mental concentration to bring back the pieces?

 Playing it Safe

The final topic is on the effectiveness of a piece. There are certain pieces that are just easier to do well or win competitions with, given a general level of playing. Though people might not like to hear it, it’s just more effective to play something like Tchaikovsky First Concerto over Brahms First Concerto in a competition setting. If I were given a choice between the two, and to guess what piece would win without knowing the pianists or jury members, I would choose Tchaikovsky every time. I haven’t done this research before, but if you take a survey of the pieces that have won major competitions, I’m assuming you won’t find much variation. We know them: Tchaikovsky, Prokofievs, and Rachmaninoffs. Maybe some Beethovens. We also know the solo pieces, and you will definitely hear many of them this year: Barber Sonata, Liszt Sonata, Petrouchka, Gaspard, etc.

We like to think that we would be able to do well with any piece, but that’s just not the reality of it. It’s a combination of difficulty, overt showiness of the piano part, and ease of ensemble work and musical interpretation. Sure, it is possible with something like the Brahms, but most people would agree that certain pieces require a higher level of musical sophistication and finesse to play well, and unless you possess those skills, it really might be safer to play something from the tried-and-true list.

That doesn’t mean I’m not super excited when I see someone win a competition with a piece not from that list.

Coda

I hope this has given you some insight into how programs can be built, whether you are a piano fan trying to understand why a competitor might pick the pieces he did, or a pianist trying to get ideas for your next recital or competition program. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of parameters, and many things might be obvious, but as with most knowledge, having things explicitly laid out might give way to clearer thinking and even to more creative approaches.

Stay tuned for the next article, where we’ll be going over the commissioned piece by Hamelin!