Franck, Faure, and Grieg

Up until the late 1800's German composers dominated the musical world. It was around the mid 1800's that composers Cesar Franck (1822-1890), Gabriel Faure (1845-1924), and Edvard Grieg (1842-1907) were actively composing. This was a very interesting time in the compositional world. Many changes were being made as far as what techniques composers were following. Some were fighting to maintain the way of the past, such as Brahms and Schumann, while others, as Liszt, were causing radical changes in composition and the liberties that were acceptbale to take.

Franck was born in Belgium, close to the border of France. An important property to his music was the use of cyclical form. This can be heard in his Prelude Choral and Fugue, when the theme from the prelude returns in the fugue. His music followed a harmonic structure that was similar to Liszt and Wagner's style. His students claim that he would always tell them to modulate, showing how highly he valued modulatory material in his music. Some of this might to attributed to the fact that he was a very skilled organist.

Faure was probably the most famous french composer of his time. He, like Franck, was also an active organist. The most striking quality of his musical style is probably his harmonic language. His music will always move to unexpected places, yet always makes sense afterwards. The genre he is most known for is the art song. This ability to create such effective melodies can be heard in his 6th nocturne. If you were to take out the melody in this nocturne the harmony would not make much sense. This is because of his harmonic complexity and surprising arrivals. He uses the melody to create a work that makes sense to the listener.

Grieg was a norwegian composer. His music is much different from both Franck and Faure. His harmonies seem much simpler. His music encorporates folk tunes and styles. He is a very nationalistic composer and focuses on nature for many of his works. He wrote many smaller works for the piano, especially lyric pieces. He, liek Faure, was very good at writing melodies. Grieg kept them much more simple however. His melodies were often much more repetative, and didn't rely on such obscure harmonic progressions.

Brahms

Just as Liszt got inspiration from other composers, so did Brahms. What they each did with that inspiration differed dramatically however. Liszt looked foward used the influence from past composers to create his own style. Brahms on the otherhand stuck more to tradition. He looked more to history and adapted it more to the style of the time, while keeping it as true to tradition as possible. This can be seen in his third piano sonata. He remains true to the typical form, creating a clear exposition, development, and recap in the first movement. The exposition is also repeated, which was common of classical sonatas. Brahms gave the sonata a cyclical quality so that the five movement work would fit together as an entire piece. There are many similarities in the second and fourth movement. He also uses D flat major as the key of the development of the first movement, the andante movement, the trio, and the second espidoe in the rondo. This helps tie the piece together as a whole, which was something Beethoven especially began to develop in his sonatas. Brahms stayed true to tradition, espcially with the form of the sonata, but he did make changes for the times. First of all the sonata was composed in 5 movements, which was uncommon. Brahms was known for his large chord passages, sometimes even melodic chordal passages. This is, in fact, how he begins the sonata.

The third sonata was composed when Brahms was only 20 years old. So it was very early in his life of composing. At that time he usually composed pieces in forms that were common to the past, such as sonatas and variations. Later on in life, however, he gravitated more toward character pieces. Op. 117 consists of three intermezzi. In these pieces Brahms does not try to create a virtuosic sound that was popular for the time. He remains loyal to the practices of the composers before him like Mendelssohn and Schumann by sticking to a simple form. Where he does vary, however, is in his choice of harmonies and counterpoint. In the large picture Brahms has stuck to the past. It had worked before, so why change it? Instead of changing the musical styles of the past he just adds elements that were being developed at the time. He was able to create the perfect balancing of knowing how much to change to what had already existed. This ability is what has made his music so timeless.

Liszt and his inspiration

Liszt is arguably the most well known performer for the piano. He could create sounds that had never been heard before that time. Aside from performing though, he was one of the greatest composers to have lived. One thing I find particularly interesting about him is where his inspiration for many of his compositions came from. He like many composers before him, created music based on other instruments or art forms rather than imagining only the piano.

One of his most famous genre of pieces is his etudes. La Campanella is very popular, known for its large leaps and other technical difficulties like trills with weaker fingers. This piece was written based off of Paganini’s second violin concerto. In 1831 Liszt saw Paganini perform in concert, and from that point on was inspired to be the “Paganini” for the piano. Thus he modeled pieces, like La Campanella, off of him and his violin playing.

Another major genre that Liszt explored was the Hungarian Rhapsody. He wrote 19 of them in total. He modeled them after the verbunkos, which is the gypsy dance containing two parts, a slower part called the lassu, and a faster part called the friss. These two complementary sections can be heard in one of his most famous rhapsodies, number 2, in c sharp minor. The Hungarian Rhapsody is very flashy, which is probably why it was so appealing to Liszt. Like the pieces inspired by Paganini, Liszt took another musical form that he admired and made it possible to emulate on the piano.

Liszt was also largely influenced by song and opera. He is known for his many transcriptions for the piano. Just a couple of his most famous ones are Auf dem wasser zu singen, a song written by Schubert, and Reminiscences of Don Juan, based off of themes from Mozart’s Don Giovanni. In many cases his transcriptions of songs for the piano became more popular than the original work itself. This shows how effective his compositions were, and his talent for taking a song and making it work for the piano. The influence of song and opera on his music can be seen in a more subtle way in otehr compositions, such as the sonata in b minor, that has influences from Faust.

Its ironic that Liszt had such an ability to take music written for other instruments, songs, or even dances, and create a work that was suitable for the piano based off of that, yet the vast majority of his compositions were only for piano. He took sounds that were not intended for the piano and learned how to make them on the instrument anyway. This is why he is regarded as one of the greatest pianists of all time.

Chopin's Second Sonata

Chopin’s second Sonata is the most well known out of the three piano sonatas. This is probably attributed to the famous third movement, or Funeral March. I think the most interesting movement in the sonata is the fourth movement. It directly follows the sorrowful, very melodious funeral march. It is such a quick outburst of notes though that it is hard to figure out how it fits into the sonata. It only lasts about a minute and a half. It is definitely not a lyrical movement, as the previous ones. The movement contains no rests or even a chord until the final bar. The fourth movement is almost as though it is an afterthought to the funeral march. Many people find the sonata hard to interpret because each movement seems so disconnected from one another. I think that is what makes this piece so amazing though. It is like life itself. Sometimes there seems though there is no connection at all. Instead of trying to make piece that is easy to understand, he writes with his feelings and his raw emotions can be heard in the music.

Barcarolle

When I listened to the Barcarolle I had a hard time understanding what Chopin’s intentions were in composing this piece. Then I realized I didn’t really know what a Barcarolle was in the first place. A Barcarolle is a folk song sung by Venetian gondoliers. It is supposed to have a rhythm that portrays a gondolier’s stroke, usually characterized by a 6/8 meter. This image of a Venetian Gondolier is very romantic, which is typical of Chopin. He begins the piece with a typical Chopin style left hand that is a continuous arpeggiated pattern. This is a very effective way of representing the water and the paddeling of the gondolier. The melody begins and has a very swaying melody with dotted rhythms. I think this piece is one of Chopin’s greatest works since it really showcases what he was best at. He can take an image, such as the Barcarolle, and somehow create a piece of music that represents it perfectly.

Chopin's Mazurkas

When you think of a Mazurka written for the piano, you probably immediately think Chopin. He was the one that made the Mazurka so famous. The Mazurkas are very interesting in that they do not seem to be very technically demanding. They are difficult in a much more subtle way. The biggest struggle in the Mazurkas is just figuring out the timing. The Mazurkas are based off of a dance, which has three main forms. They are the mazur, oberek, and kujawiak. It is important to think of them as a dance in order to figure out how to place the notes. The music needs to have a strong sense of pulse, yet remain free like a dancer. The Mazurkas are ideal pieces for pianists to practice when working on their sense of rubato and timing because they are so short and simplistic. The timing can be the focus of the piece. And there are so many (Chopin wrote 60!) that one can get plenty of practice in that skill just by studying these Mazurkas.

Chopin's Preludes

Chopin’s set of 24 Preludes are some of the most well known works for the piano. Yet, they are quite odd in how they were constructed. They were inspired by Bach’s Preludes and Fugues. Usually a prelude is meant to introduce something (like a Fugue in Bach’s case), yet Chopin wrote them each as solo pieces. He also never specifies how they were meant to be performed. Whether they are to be played as a set as one large work, or are each an individual piece with no relation to one another. They have been performed both ways are the topic is up for debate. Personally I think it is worth playing them as a set because Chopin has connected them so that they flow well into the next piece. In some cases he would begin a prelude with the same note, or chord tones, from the previous prelude. The range of emotion that Chopin uses in his preludes is also one of the most striking elements to them. I think that he constructed them in a way that was supposed to lead you from one emotion into another and that you lose this emotional path Chopin has created when you perform them alone.