What Did They Play?

: The Changing Repertoire of the Piano Recital from the

Beginnings to 1980
Author(s): John Gould
Source: The Musical Times , Winter, 2005, Vol. 146, No. 1893 (Winter, 2005), pp. 61-76
Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.

Stable URL: [Link]

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Musical Times

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 JOHN GOULD

What did they play?: the cha

the piano recital from the be

THE STORY OF THE EMERGENCE of the piano recital from the almost
circus-like environment of early 19th-century musical entertainments

and its transformation into one of the most serious and uniquely
personal types of musical experience is well known.' What has been less ex-
plored is the structure and content of the recital. What have the recitalists
played; what types of solo piano works; how many and which composers; in
what sort of overall structure? What changes in such features have there been
over time?

This article addresses such questions by analysing a small sample

nearly 15,000 recital repertoires compiled by George Kehler in his
piano in concert, published in i982.2 For each entry Kehler records
of the performer, the date and venue, and the repertoire played. E
arranged under the names of the pianists in alphabetical order, and
pianist in chronological order of the recitals. They are sequenti
bered from I to 14,708, though there are in fact slightly more
number since in a few cases a series of two or more recitals (such
hoven sonata cycle) has been grouped together under one entry nu
The sample analysed here comprises only 280 of Kehler's co
rather less than two per cent of the total. The findings are presente
chronological periods, from the beginning to 186o, and then in fou
each of 30 years from 1861-90 to 1951-80. For the first period, whe
are fewer, 40 recitals were chosen, and for each of the other four p
The sample was chosen by taking for each period a number of pianis
to be, for the most part, amongst the leading performers of their
I. A short but useful
the first two periods, where entries are fewer, this criterion had to
summary is that of William
what
Weber in Stanley Sadie, ed.: relaxed. For those pianists with an appreciable number of ent
The new Grove dictionary
Kehler, who constitute the majority, there has been further i
of music and musicians
(Macmillan, 2001), sub. verb. sampling. For example, in the extreme case of Hans von Billow, of
'Recital'. programmes Kehler had been able to locate as many as 177, every te
2. George Kehler: The piano in chronological order was studied. The pianists and the numbe
in concert, 2 vols (Scarecrow
recitals used are listed, period by period, in fig.i.
Press, 1982). Readers of this
article will readily understand Exception might be taken to the method of sampling; it cannot be
my deep indebtedness toto have produced a random sample of Kehler's nearly I5,ooo pro
Kehler's valuable collection,
which I here gratefully This hardly seems to matter, however, since Kehler's entries are th
acknowledge. not a random sample of the recitals actually played; they depen

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 61

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
62 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recital from the beginnings to 1980

to G860 (40o)

Liszt 12 Moscheles 2 Jaell 12

Clara Schumann 8 Anton Rubinstein I Pleyel 8

Beethoven 3 Evers I Halle 3
Chopin 3 Kalkbrenner i Brassin 3
Thalberg 3 Leschetizky i Liibeck 3

86 -9 o (Go)
Billow i8 Joseffy 3 Busoni i8

Anton Rubinstein 9 Tausig 3 Rosenthal 9

Wolfsohn 5 Essipoff 2 Paderewski 5
D'Albert 4 Halle 2 Wieniawski 4
Clara Schumann 4 Griinfeld 2 Auerbach 4
Rummel 3 3

891-19Z20 (Go)

Carrefio Io Hofmann 6 Gieseking Io

Godowsky 7 Bloomfield Zeisler 5 Griinfeld 7

Paderewski 7 Cortot 4 Rachmaninov 7

Gabrilovitch 7 Galston 3 Artur Rubinstein 7

19 21-5o (6o)

Horowitz Io Arrau 7 Godowsky Io

Schnabel Io Gieseking 5 Bloomfield Zeisler Io

Rachmaninov Io Kempff 4 Geza Anda Io

Artur Rubinstein 8 Cherkassky 2 8

1z5 -8o (Go)

Richter 9 Brendel 6 Argerich 9

Pollini 8 Gilels 6 Ashkenazy 8
Geza Anda 7 Kempff 4 Barenboim 7
Arrau 7 Cherkassky 3 Perahia 7

Fig.I: Pianists and numbers of recitals in sample, by period

historical records chance to have survived, and how many of them Kehler has
been able to find. That his near 15,000 grossly understate the number of reci-
tals actually played is surely obvious; I5,000 concerts over a period of even
150 years is an average of less than two per week.
Only a small fraction of the early concerts was devoted to solo piano
music. Even Chopin, in his first public appearance in Vienna in 1829, had to
share the billing with an orchestra, a singer, and a ballet. Nevertheless, these
early entertainments have been sampled by the same technique as the rest,
partly to establish the proportions of what it is convenient to call 'solo' and
'mixed' recitals, and partly to discover what music pianists were able to pre-

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Period Numbers Percent of total

Total Mixed Solo Mixed Solo

to 1860 40 31 9 77-5 22.5

I861-90 60 Io 50 I6.7 83.3

1891-1920 60 2 58 3-3 96.7

1921-50 6o o 6o o Ioo

1951-80 6o o 6o o IoO

Fig.2: Mixed and solo

sent in the limited oppo

analysing the data, howe
been counted.
Fig.2 shows the number
periods, both in absolute
period the mixed form n
third period in 1891 it
period ten of the 6o recit
played in the first decad
some 30 years behind W
making in the mid-19th
Clara Schumann, who o
reasons not entirely clea
ference is the more surp
as early as the mid-I84o
concept, and had been sa
(1891-1920) one of the only two mixed recitals was played in the USA, the
other in Moscow. In Western Europe, at least, it thus seems that the solo
recital had completely triumphed by about 1870.
Less well known, but perhaps as important as the changing balance in the
numbers of mixed and solo recitals, was the fundamental change which
occurred in the first half of the century in the character of the mixed recital.
Gradually the solo piano component rose to much greater prominence; the
popularity of the virtuoso pianists of the I830s and I84os enabled them to

dictate the overall structure of the event to a much greater deg

number of performers other than the solo pianist was gradually reduced, and

they came to be described in programmes and advertisements as 'assi

artists', with the soloist as 'Concertgeber(in)', to emphasise who was the
leading attraction. Clara Schumann was described as 'Concertgeberin' in a
concert in Brunswick as early as 1835, when she was only 15 years old. More-

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 63

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
64 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recital from the beginnings to 1980

over, the recitalists relied less on the tricks and showmanship of th

musical extravaganzas, with pianists playing their own fantasias and
improvisations featuring eye- and ear-catching effects, in favour of more
solid and demanding fare.
Ignaz Moscheles demonstrated as early as the i83os that the mixed format
could accommodate the 'historical' recital which he pioneered. In 1837 in
London's Hanover Square Rooms he dominated a mixed concert in which,
along with some brief vocal interludes, he played virtually a complete solo
recital: three Bach preludes and fugues; a Weber sonata; two Beethoven
sonatas (opp.31 no.2 and 8ia); some of his own studies; and some Scarlatti
(on harpsichord). The mixed form had proved capable of being adapted to
serious musical purposes even before Liszt, in 1839, first dispensed entirely
with 'assistant artists' and grandiloquently announced 'Le concert, c'est
moi'.3

These changes were due primarily to the efforts

the pianists themselves, though they also required i
on the part of audiences (which tended to lag behi
promoters and managers of the concerts told in th
feared that box office takings would suffer if conc
to the sound of a solo piano, and to serious compos
attentive listening than the familiar meretricious,
ism they favoured.
There was, admittedly, a degree of justification fo
in his very informative book From Paris to Peoria,4
American musical taste through the successive t
pianists, from Leopold von Meyer in 1845-47 to Ha
In the first tour Meyer's own Fantasia on the Star
3. Liszt made this claim in a
letter to a friend written in scriptions of opera numbers, and improvisations were the most appreciated
June 1839 following a series type of fare, and the success of his tour was enhanced by Meyer's behaviour
of solo performances in
on stage, which was that of a showman and at times even of a clown. By the
Italy, which, however, were
played in relatively informal end of Billow's tour 30 years later, however, audiences could take demanding
circumstances. The birth
classical programmes played by an austere artist who had successfully
of the solo recital is more
commonly ascribed to a resisted the pleas of his manager to sweeten his programmes with bravura
public concert by Liszt in works. By then, music lovers and press critics were discussing Biilow's pro-
London the following year,
wess as an interpreter of particular composers and even of particular works.
which also saw the first use
of the designation 'recital' The tension between artistic integrity and the demands of the box office
(or more correctly, at first,
is of course a familiar theme. It was poignantly illustrated by Clara Schu-
'recitals'). See Alan Walker:
Fran{ Liszt (Faber & Faber, mann's experiences during her first tour in Paris in 1832, at the age of 12. She
1983), vol.i, The virtuoso was dismayed by what Pamela Pettler, who has researched her early career,
years, pp.355-57.
calls the 'gaudy culture' of music recitals in the Paris of the 183os, 'with
4. R. Allen Lott: From Paris
to Peoria (Oxford University
concerts featuring six, eight and ten pianos played four hands, bizarre
Press, 2003). combinations of unusual instruments, and even comedy acts'. Urged by her

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 father and the concert promoters Clara at first tried to fit into this
playing 'the latest trinkets from Paris or Vienna'. But such was t
of character of this remarkable young woman that by 1840 she wa
on programmes based on Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann and M
Pettler has to concede, however, that such recitals 'were not always
great enthusiasm'.5

There was of course another factor influencing the transform

early piano recital, namely, the changes taking place simultaneou
forms of public music-making, especially orchestral concert
had been 'dumbed down' in the early i9th century to provide p
tainments rather than serious musical experiences. Even in so mu
as Leipzig the Gewandhaus programmes had included liberal dos
listening works by contemporary composers quite forgotten to
Beethoven symphony was programmed, it was not unknown fo
ing vocal items to be sandwiched between the second and third
the concert managers presumably believing that the audience co
expected to remain attentive throughout a long work without s

MATTERS changed quickly when Mendelssohn took up the reins of the

concerts in 1835, bringing his scholarship and high artistic standard
to bear.6 The quality of performance was greatly improved, concer
programming was refashioned to present great works of composers bo
living and dead, and programmes were cast into some sort of logical select
ion and order: an overture, a concerto, a symphony, with perhaps a brack
of lighter pieces inserted somewhere. Mendelssohn's influence spread well
beyond Leipzig through his work as a conductor throughout Europe. Clara
Schumann was encouraged to pursue her own bent by her friend Mendels-
sohn, ten years older than she, and adopted a similar structure for her pian
recitals. Moscheles, a former teacher of Mendelssohn, and who in 1848 was
appointed Professor of Piano in the Leipzig Conservatory which his pu
had founded, was already performing along similar lines.
Varied influences, then, were all working in the same direction, and by t
middle of the century public music-making had been substantially re
oriented. The era of the virtuosi and their flamboyant and meretricious sty
of musical entertainment was virtually over. But the virtuosi should be cr
5. Pamela S. Pettier: dited with helping to enhance the appeal of the solo piano and for est
'Clara Schumann's recitals,
I832-50', in zgth Century
lishing the financial and artistic viability of the solo recital. What music d
Music IV/I (Summer 1980), the new type of recital offer the public?
pp.70-76.
In recording for each period details of the 60o recital programmes (40 for
6. Harold C. Schonberg: The the period to I860) no note was taken of the number of items by each
glorious ones: classical music's

legendaryperformers
composer in a given recital, if only because of the difficulty of defining
(Times
Books, 1985), p.48. 'item'. Instead, merely the name of each composer one or more of whose

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 65

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
66 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recitalfrom the beginnings to 2980

Fig.3: Composer appearances by period

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Io II I2 13 14

Bach Liszt Total

Bach Total
1to2
Bartok 'Other
Mozart
Copin Brahms
Debusy
Schubert
(Orignal)
Bethovn Schuman

Mendlsoh

(transcipo)

To I86o

Number 7 o o 19 20 5 3 4 I6 o o o 74 37
Percentage 6.3 o o 17.I 18 4-5 2.7 3.6 14.4 o o o 66.7 33-3

z86z-o90

Number 23 9 7 45 40 17 12 33 29 7 0 0 222 87

Percentage 7-4 2.9 2.3 14.6 12.9 5.5 3.9 10.7 9-4 2.3 0 0 71.8 28.2

Z89 --1920

Number 4 11 4 36 55 5 15 35 35 15 5 0 220 114

Percentage 1.2 3.3 1.2 o10.8 16.5 1.5 4.5 10.5 10.5 4.5 I-5 o 65.9 34.I

z92z-50

Number 15 II II 32 37 6 13 23 27 II i6 I 203 I00

Percentage 5 3.6 3.6 10.6 12.2 2 4-3 7.6 8.9 3.6 5-3 0.3 67 33

z952-8o

Number 5 o 13 34 22 4 13 22 IO 9 9 6 147 30
Percentage 2.8 o 7-3 I9-2 I2-4 2.3 7-3 12.4 5.6 51i 5.I 3.4 83.1 16.9

works were played was noted, irrespective of how large, for e

of playing time, the contribution of the work or works was. Thus the units
of counting are what will be termed 'composer appearances', that is, the
number of concerts in each period in which one or more compositions of a
given composer appeared.

Fig.3 presents the total numbers of such composer appearan

period, giving in columns I to 12 the numbers for eleven 'nam
(Bach gets two columns, one for works played in their origina
second for transcriptions). Column 13 totals columns i to 12, a
totals composer appearances for all composers other than tho
columns i to 12. For each period the first line gives the num
ances in actual figures, and the second line transforms these in
of all composer appearances. In all five periods the eleven nam
accounted for well over 60 per cent of the total; but the cont
other composers still varied between over one-third in 1891-19

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
7. The recital devoted to the little over one-sixth in 1951-1980.
works of a single composer
Amongst the named composers, three stand out: Beethoven, Chopin, and
was only one ot a number

of types departing fromLiszt. Between them these three accounted for nearly half (49.5 per cent) of
the familiar 'conservatory
all composer appearances in the first period. As was to be expected their lead
model'. Another notable
exception was the recital fell considerably as more and more new piano music was written. But they
consisting entirely of
still accounted for 36.9. 37.8 and 31.7 per cent successively.
compositions in a particular
1951-1980
genre. Rachmaninov had one saw a sharp reversal of this falling tendency, but only because
recital consisting entirely of of a large jump in the popularity of Beethoven. Chopin and Liszt have never
fantasias (though the word
quite recovered their position in the pre-i86o popularity stakes, thereafter
was interpreted liberally to
include Beethoven's sonatas declining, though not monotonically, to numbers of appearances rather less
opp.27/i and 2), and he
than two-thirds of those of Beethoven in the case of Chopin, and rather less
attained perhaps the neplus

ultra of this type by than one-third in that of Liszt.

offering
a Buffalo audience in 1919 a The prominence of Beethoven, especially in the most recent period,
programme consisting solely
of 20 e'tudes by Chopin (8),
would be even more marked if account were taken of the fact that he was
Schumann (2), Scriabin (2), featured in more single-composer recitals than anyone else (12 out of 28
Liszt (2), Rubinstein (i), and
in all five periods combined; six out of ten in 1951-1980). Other single-
five of his own.
composer recitals featured Chopin (9), Schubert and Schumann (2 each), and
8. Halle bettered his own
achievement 20 years later Weber, Liszt, and Rachmaninov (i each).7
with an eight-recitals series
The dominance of Beethoven did not, however, mean that all his output
covering all 32 Beethoven
sonatas and the whole of was equally popular. Some ten or 12 sonatas were far more frequently played
the Well tempered clavier, than the rest: opp.27/2, 30/2, 53, 57, 8ia and 90, and the last five. Probably
proceeding at the rate of four
half of the 32 were never played at all in any of the programmes under ana-
sonatas and six preludes and

fugues per recital. In bothlysis, except, of course, for the 32-sonata cycle which several pianists offered,
of the series mentioned Halle
following the lead of Charles Hallk, who first presented such a cycle in 1860.8
played the sonatas in order
of opus number, which of Of the variations three sets stood out: the 'Eroica' op.35; the 32 in C minor;
course is not quite the and
samethe 'Diabelli'.
thing as order of composition.

This was the usual practice In

in the case of Chopin, the whole solo piano oeuvre was well represented.
The
the 19th century. In the 20th two great sonatas in Bl minor and B minor were both frequently played,
century recitalists more
as were other longer works: the ballades, scherzi, and the F minor Fantaisie
often distributed seven major
sonatas (opp.53 and 57 andop.49. Shorter works were sometimes played as a complete opus number,
the last five) one at a time
such as 12 Etudes [Link], but perhaps more often in 'brackets' of two or more
between the recitals, grouping
the other 25 around them pieces in the same genre.
in threes and fours so as to Liszt's B minor Sonata was also often played, but many of his 'composer
achieve variety of style and

key signatures within each

appearances' consisted of a rather eclectic choice of works of differing
recital, and make them of lengths and musical value. It was some time after Liszt himself ended his
more nearly equal length.
virtuoso period in the late I840s before the public began to lose its appetite
Schnabel adopted this
arrangement in a notable for the works characteristic of that period: the fantasias on operatic themes,
cycle in Carnegie Hall in
the transcriptions, and the like. And of course there are always recitalists -
1936. But Kempff, in a series
played in 1970, preferred to in our third period Leopold Godowsky stands out in this category - who like
revert to the older arrange- their programmes to include plenty of works of transcendental technical
ment. The pros and cons of
the two solutions are fairly
difficulty, and for them Liszt was and remains a rich and obvious source of
obvious. material.

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 67

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
68 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recital from the beginnings to z980

Schubert had long lagged behind Chopin and Liszt. The considerable
increase of his popularity in the final period is usually attributed to the
championship of Schnabel, who featured the sonatas in his recitals of the
interwar years. Indeed, it has even been claimed that in the later i9th and
early 2oth centuries Schubert's sonatas were actually unknown. This claim
in part relies (unreliably!) on the testimony of Rachmaninov, who famously
confessed in an interview in 1928 that not only did he not play Schubert's
sonatas, he did not even know that they existed.9 Given his status as one of
the greatest pianists of the day, this seems impressive. But Rachmaninov had
come to his career as a concert soloist only late in life, and he never had time
to develop a really extensive repertoire of solo works, let alone of concerti.
Schubert's sonatas, admittedly, were not as often played in the i9th
century as they deserved; but they cannot be said to have been unknown.
Clara Schumann played the Bl major in Vienna as early as 1866; Biilow
played the A major (D.959) and the A minor (D.845) both in America and in
Europe; Carl Wolff also played one of the A minor sonatas (which one is not
known) in an all-Schubert recital in 1877. The series of Monday Popular
Concerts staged in London's St James' Hall from 1862 to 1890 regularly
featured Schubert sonatas, of which the G, late A and Bl majors were the
most popular. The last was played seven times between 1863 and i882.'o But
it is true that Schubert was more often represented in the i9th century by
shorter works such as the Moments musicaux and the impromptus; the only
long work frequently played was the Wanderer Fantasia.

PERHAPS as surprising as the relative neglect of Schubert is the

persistent popularity of Schumann. Although Schumann

had his champions his compositions seem not to have been
regarded in the mid-i9th century, especially by his fellow comp
is said never to have played anything of Schumann; Wagner di
Liszt did turn to his works late in life, and apologised for negle
earlier decades, but still felt his music unsuitable for public re
Clara, for all her efforts on behalf of Robert's music, acknowle
9. Jeremy Siepman: The piano
public found his longer works (which Schumann himself n
(Carlton Books, 1996), p.si5.
concert) difficult to understand. She introduced them cautious
10. Dorothy de Val & Cyril
Ehrlich: 'Repertory and
first only extracts rather than the complete work. She did no
canon', in David Rowland, major Fantasy until 1866, nor the first sonata until 1884, and sh
ed.: The Cambridge companion
to have played the Abegg variations at all." Yet in the last f
to the piano (Cambridge
University Press, 1998), Schumann hovered around ten per cent of all composer appear
pp.120, 131-32.
ing third in 1861-1890, third equal (with Liszt) in 1891-1920, and second
i1. Nancy B. Reich: Clara equal (with Chopin) after Beethoven in 1951-1980.
Schumann: the artist and the
One explanation is suggested when we consider the structure of the piano
woman (Cornell University
Press, 1985), pp.268-71. recital in terms other than merely the composers represented. Since the

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 i87os, at the latest, there was a conscious attempt to achieve in recital pro-
grammes a balance of solidity and variety, involving amongst other things a
mix of what might be termed major and minor works. These terms, ob-
viously, are vague; but the intention is to differentiate between compositions
of sufficient artistic weight to stand on their own in a programme and those
better suited to be coupled with other similar works in a 'bracket'.
An appropriate model on which a consensus seems to have emerged en-
visaged five or six composers in all; a variety of styles, with perhaps a
roughly chronological order of presentation to provide a sense of coherence;

and a judicious balance of major and minor works. Possibly no great pian
did more to popularise this model than Hans von Billow in his mature y
A typical Billow recital of the I870s might start with a substantial Bach
work - of the 5i Billow repertoires assembled by Kehler for the year 1873, no
fewer than 16 started with the Chromatic fantasia and fugue; then, either
immediately before, or immediately after, or before and after the inter-
mission one or sometimes two major works; sometimes, especially if there
was only one truly major work, a piece of intermediate stature, something
like Mendelssohn's Variations serieuses; and two or three brackets of minor
works by Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, or Mendelssohn.
Return now to the question of Schumann's popularity. The eleven named
composers in fig.3 differ in the extent to which their works fall into the major
or minor categories. It is yet one more measure of Beethoven's greatness that
his numerical preponderance in fig.3 rests entirely on his role as a composer
of major works. (A bracket of minor Beethoven works is perhaps barely con-
ceivable.) At the other extreme Mendelssohn, with the exception of his
Variations serieuses (a major minor work, or a minor major work?), finds his
way into Kehler's repertoires almost entirely as a composer of short pieces
easily capable of being assembled into attractive brackets. His period of rela-
tive popularity in the decades immediately following his death rested on this
aspect of his output; the popularity has not subsequently stayed the course.
Schumann, on the other hand, wrote copiously in both major and minor
categories, and was useful for this reason to those planning programmes.
Admittedly, several of the major works are really only collections of minor
pieces, with little or no musical thread binding them together. (There may be
other types of thread, literary or biographical.) The longer works most fre-
quently played were those least damaged by this criticism: the C major
Fantasy, the Etudes symphoniques, Carnaval. Faschingsschwank aus Wien, an
amiable and easy-listening longer work, was also popular. These compo-
sitions often enough did duty as a major work. But Schumann's minor works
were also often played in brackets. Kehler's collection shows that his large
number of composer appearances arose, in part, from this ability to fill both
major and minor slots.

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 69

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
70 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recital from the beginnings to z980

Brahms,and more particularly Debussy and Bart6k, naturally

in the programmes. But even allowing for this they have pe
achieved quite the degree of exposure the importance and origina
contributions to piano literature warrant. Perhaps it is simply th
for solo piano are more impressive for their quality and origin
their actual number.

Bach, on the other hand, was more prominent than many seem
The combined total of his appearances in the original and tran
columns put him in fourth place in three of the five periods. He wa
neglected, however, in 1951-80. Maybe the sample of pianists chosen
inadvertently brings this about; the inclusion in it of Rosalyn Tureck and
Glenn Gould would doubtless have altered the figures. It may also be,
though, that the later 2oth century's enthusiasm for authenticity made some
artists nervous about including Bach in piano recitals, and caused them to feel
that it was better left to specialists to tread such hallowed ground.
The composer not so far mentioned, Mozart, appeared relatively rarely in
the solo recital, except in the most recent period. In the earlier periods the
prevailing Romanticism might account for this. But it could also be that some
pianists and their audiences shared the belief, lase majeste to most but at least

12. Richter, despite his arguable to some, that unrivalled as was Mozart's contribution to the piano
enormous repertoire, played concerto his works for solo piano, a few acknowledged masterpieces apart,
little of Mozart's solo piano
are not in fact very interesting."2 In any event in the structural model of the
music. He much preferred
Haydn, complaining that piano recital already discussed even the best of Mozart's sonatas may not
Mozart did not 'stay in
have seemed weighty enough to bear the responsibility of the 'major work'
my head'. (See Bruno
Monsaingeon: Sviatoslav slot around which the rest of the programme was to be built.
Richter: notebooks and What of the 'other' composers? Who were they? In the two periods when
conversations (Princeton
University Press, 2001),
their contribution was at its peak, between 1891 and 1950, about 80 individual
pp.I39, 177, 331-32). composers were involved. Rather than simply name them it may be more
Ashkenazy ascribed the
helpful to classify the sources from which they were mainly recruited by the
lukewarmness of some
Russian pianists towards programme planners. (It will be obvious that some of the names to be
Mozart's sonatas to the
mentioned could well have been included in more than one list.) In what
contrast between the
composer's restraint and follows the numbers in brackets are those of the times the composer named
clarity and Russia's 'chaotic
featured in the recitals of the period.
and emotional national

character' (Jasper Parrott

The first two sources are chronological extensions of the range of com-
with Vladimir Ashkenazy: posers played in earlier periods. At one end there is the pre-Beethoven cate-
Beyond frontiers (Collins,
1984), p.54.) HC Schonberg gory, only Bach and Mozart figuring amongst the named composers. Other
alleges that when Horowitz composers in this category were modestly represented in the recitals of both
studied at Kiev Conservatory of the peak periods, 1891-1920 and 1921-1950. Most of them, of course, did
Mozart sonatas were regarded
there as 'simple minded, not strictly speaking write for the piano. They include Rameau, Lully,
something not worth wasting Corelli, Gluck, Scarlatti, Clementi and Haydn. Of these only Scarlatti ap-
much time on' (Horowit:
peared in more recitals in 1921-50 (4) than in 1891-1920 (2), on his way to
his life and music (Simon &
Schuster, 1992), P.53). becoming an established, if minor, member of the pianistic canon.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 It is perhaps surprising to find Haydn so obscurely placed, with only thre
and one appearances in the two periods respectively. A glance through the
pages of Kehler confirms that this was not a consequence of sample bias;
Haydn was indeed rarely played. The only work played at all often was his
Andante and Variations in F minor, a favourite piece with Anton Rubinstein.
At the other end, the category Contemporary Composers obviously
overlaps with other categories, and the number of such composers listed here
for 1891-1920 may be understated for this reason. Moszkowski (3), Scriabin
(3) and Franck (2) stand out. In the following period this category becomes
more numerous (and Bart6k as well as Debussy now appear amongst the
named composers). Scriabin goes up to five appearances, Ravel to seven, and
they are joined by Stravinsky and Prokofiev (6 each), Poulenc (3), and Bar-
ber and Hindemith (i each).
The third category expands the range of composers culturally rather than
chronologically. It parallels the emergence of ethnicity and nationalism as
major historical forces in the fields of politics and international relations.
This development awakened interest in national and regional forms of dance
and folk music, and was supported in this by the rash of establishment
of Conservatories outside Germany and Austria between i85o and I875.'3
Composers in this category in 1891-1920 included Anton Rubinstein (8),
Tchaikovsky (7), Macdowell (6), Grieg (4), Balakirev (2), and Smetana and
Albeniz (I each).
This source was less fertile in 1921-50, Rubinstein and Tchaikovsky
having almost completely disappeared, and Grieg and Macdowell entirely so.
(The brief popularity of the last named had depended heavily on the cham-
pionship of his former teacher, the American pianist Bloomfield Zeisler, who
died in 1927). These losses were only partly offset by the appearance of Gra-
nados (4), Villa Lobos (3), and Musorgsky (i).
A fourth category might be called, perhaps a trifle unfairly, Obscure
Composers. A praiseworthy feature of the recitalists of the period 1891-1920
was their willingness to offer a hearing to minor composers, new or old, who
had not achieved a firm position in the repertoire. Amongst those placed here
are Schiitt (4), Loeillet and Raff (2 each), and Schobert, Gradener, Lesche-
tizky, Scott, and Brockway (i each). Some of these, if not really making the
grade as composers, enjoyed a deserved reputation in other ways, notably
Leschetizky, one of the most celebrated and influential teachers in the history
13. For example: Warsaw, of the piano. None of these composers reappeared in 1921-50, perhaps be-
1861; Cordoba, 1862;
cause they had been given their chance to shine and had not shone brightly
St Petersburg, 1862;
Bucharest, 1864; Moscow, enough.

1865; Budapest, 1875; and Finally there is the familiar case of the composer who pla
in the USA, Peabody
(Baltimore), 1866; New
in public. In the early years of the piano recital playing o
England (Boston), I867. not thought to be in bad taste; on the contrary, the distinc

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 71

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
72 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recital from the beginnings to 1980

posing and performing was far from apparent, and the ethical question mark
hung rather over playing the works of others. Opinions on this issue were re-
versed only gradually, presumably in part because of the increasing volume
of the compositions of others clamouring for presentation. But additionally,
by the late i9th century the balance of skills had shifted; none were as gifted
in both directions as Mozart or Beethoven, but there were now many pianists-
would-be-composers, with the emphasis very much on the first rather than
the second. We do not think today of Anton Rubinstein, Gabrilovich, Hof-
mann or Horowitz as more than at best very minor composers.
In both of the periods under discussion many pianists did not hesitate to
display their own works. The motive was not merely vanity, or the hope of
improving the sale of sheet music, to the financial benefit of the composer/
performer. The earlier expectation that the performer would play his own
works had by no means completely died out, kept alive by the belief of some
audience members that a pianist's interpretive and technical prowess were
best displayed when playing his own works. And of course the names of
some pianists had become inextricably bound up with one or more of their
own compositions. In the 1920S and 1930s Rachmaninov found it as im-
possible to get off stage until he had played his Prelude in CJ minor as Liszt
had done, 80 or 90 years earlier, before yielding to the clamour for his Fan-
tasia on Robert le Diable.
Composers falling into this category in 1891-1920 included the following
(numbers in brackets refer to the total number of times a work of the pianist
named was played, the composer being also the performer in most, but not
all, cases): Paderewski (7); Gabrilovich and Rachmaninov (5 each), Hof-
mann and Godowski (2 each). In the following period the first two of these
dropped out, but this loss was partly compensated by the number of times
Rachmaninov played his own works. This was not the result of vanity on
Rachmaninov's part, but of the fact that embarking in middle age on a new
career as concert pianist, driven by poverty and the need to feed a family, he
at first lacked any substantial repertoire except for his own works.

ADRAMATIC CHANGE is apparent in the last period, 1951-80. In

sympathy with the overall decline of composer appearances

'other' composers, which had reached three figures in eac
preceding periods, fell to a mere 30. Moreover, this modest numb
as widely spread over either pianists or composers as previously. Of the 12
pianists sampled the two Russians, Richter and Gilels, between them ac-
counted for 16 of the 30, and it was mainly due to the programmes of these
two that exactly half of the 30 involved works by Russian composers:
Prokofiev (4); Scriabin (3); Rachmaninov, Shostakovich and Musorgsky (2
each); Kabalevsky and Stravinsky (i each). This was not simply a matter of

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Fig.4: Recitals by number of composers played, and average number of composers per recital, by period

Number of recitals by number of composers played Total Average

recitals number of
Period I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 composers

1861-90 7 3 7 4 1o ii 6 7 4 I o o 6o 5.17

1891-1920 4 I 4 9 14 2 13 8 3 I O I 6o 5.67

1921-1950 4 2 7 7 12 18 4 4 2 0 o o 6o 5.05

1951-1980 Io 6 27 12 4 I o o o o o o 6o 2.95

national pride, or of the fact t

biased towards Russian music. In
permission to travel abroad to play elsewhere were expected to indicate an
intention to display Russian and Soviet works.14
In these 6o recitals other sources of 'other' composers were little in evi-
dence. Pre-Beethoven music was represented only twice. Richter, perhaps sur-
prisingly but in line with his practice of playing only music he really liked,
included a Handel suite in a 1963 recital; Brendel, not at all surprisingly, in-
cluded a Haydn sonata in a recital in 1974 which was one of a series in Carnegie
Hall, each consisting of works by Haydn, Beethoven, and Schumann.
Though a majority of the 30 composer appearances involved works
actually written in the 20th century, only four represented the major German/
Austrian and French schools of 20th-century composition. Pollini played
Webern's Variations op.27, composed in 1935-36, in 1975; in 1978 Cher-
kassky offered Messiaen's ile de Feu Land II, dating from 1949-50; in 1966
Barenboim played Berg's Sonata no.i, written as early as 1907-08; and in
1959 Arrau contributed Schoenberg's Klavierstiicke op.i i, dating from 1909.
Apart from the Russian composers only five appearances went outside the
German/Austrian mainstream: Ravel (4) and Granados (i). And none of the
30 could fairly be called 'Obscure'. Thus in the last period 'other' composers
were not only far fewer in total, but were drawn from much more restricted
sources.

The total number of composer appearances

been given, but the average number of compo
bution of recitals by numbers of composers ar
given in fig.4.
The average number of piano composers in t
rally small, because most of the recitals were
periods the average did not change much: 5.2,

14. Parrott
there were some changes in distribution. In the
with Ashkenazy:
Beyond 1920p.
frontiers, numbers
57. varied over a very wide range,

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 73

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
74 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recitalfrom the beginnings to 1980

Fig.5: Numbers of composers in six recitals by four pianists before and after 1950/51

Kempff Cherkassky

Years of recitals 1932-42 1959-64 1935-40 1968-78

Average number of composers 4.8 3.7 7.5 4-7

Arrau Artur Rubinstein

Years of recitals 1946-49 1970-71 1938-39 1961-62

Average number of composers 7.3 3.5 6.2 4.3

period and one to 12 in the later. The mo

or seven, but these represented less tha
1921-50 saw a limited but definite movem
average number dropped only slightly, b
nine or more composers declined from
more. Further, exactly half were now of
The biggest change, however, came in the last period. Total composer
appearances declined from over 300 to 177, so that the average number of
composers per recital fell sharply to below three. Only one recital included
works by as many as six composers, none had more than that, and the number
of single composer recitals increased from four to ten. Over two-thirds of the
60 recitals featured no more than three composers.
It might be wondered whether this dramatic change could in part be a
statistical illusion, arising from a chance oversampling of pianists who fa-
voured less varied programmes? As a partial check on this, four recitalists
were chosen whose playing careers straddled the 1950-1951 boundary. For
each of them six recitals (not already analysed) on either side of this boun-
dary were randomly selected, and the average number of composers in each
of the eight cases was calculated. The results are shown in fig.5; the years
within which the recitals were played are also shown.

For all four pianists the number of composers per recital was small
1950-51 than before it. The steepness of the decline varied from piani
nist, being least marked for the German Kempff, who already favou
composers than the others in the earlier period. But the average declin
four pianists combined (36 per cent) is only a little below that calcula
the overall data in fig.4 (42 per cent), which tends to confirm that th
change observed is not a merely accidental result of the choice of pianists.
It would be interesting to be able to calculate from Kehler's data some
indication of the average duration of recitals in the four periods since 186o.
But an attempt to discover the present-day playing time of the hundreds of
compositions included in the 240 recitals was quickly abandoned as im-

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 practical, and in any event this approach would finesse the vexed
changes in tempi as between the i9th and zoth centuries. But even
in quicker 19th-century tempi the eight sonatas which comprised the all-
Beethoven recital in Anton Rubinstein's famous historical series would
surely exceed the staying power of most present-day audiences (opp.27/2,
31/2, 53, 57, 90, IOI, 109, and III). Today, several combinations of just three
of these sonatas, and almost any combination of four, would be enough to
allow the recitalist to feel that the audience was getting value for money.
While this was fairly exceptional, Allen Lott comments that Rubinstein's
early recitals in the USA (with repertoires which he also played in Europe)
averaged two-and-a-half to three hours, with some nearly reaching four.'5

IN CONCLUSION, the foregoing survey suggests a tripartite periodisation.

The first period, to about 1870, saw the birth of the solo piano recital from
its gestation in the 'mixed' recital, and the consolidation of the solo
recital's position as a unique vehicle for the presentation of serious classical
music by dedicated performers. This involved the changed expectation that
recitalists would mostly perform the works of others, rather than their own.

The second period, from about 1870 to 1950, was not marked by ma
changes. The solo recital had all but triumphed over the mixed form when
began. Repertoires naturally changed and broadened as more and more
music became available to be played. The establishment of Conservatories
outside the German/Austrian heartland encouraged new nationalistic styles
of composition, and trained pianists wishing to play them. The recitals
studied in preparing this article strongly suggest that in general pianists born
and trained elsewhere than in Germany and Austria favoured more varied
programmes, featuring more composers, than did those from those coun-
tries. This in some degree accounts for the more adventurous repertoires
characteristic, in particular, of 1891-1920. But otherwise the structure of the
piano recital consolidated rather than changed during these 90 years.
Much sharper change came in 1951-80o - for reasons which are by no means
obvious, and which it must be left to a further article to explore. The average
15. Lott: From Paris to Peoria, number of composers per recital was virtually halved, and recitals almost
p.I78. certainly became shorter. Composers from outside the German-Austrian
16. William Weber: 'The tradition fared particularly badly. This tendency would be even more ob-
history of musical canon',
vious were it not for the countervailing efforts of pianists trained in Russia
in Nicholas Cook & Mark
Everist, edd.: Rethinking and Eastern Europe. And, again apart from Russian works, the 'Contem-
music (Oxford University
porary' category almost disappeared from repertoires.
Press, 1999), P.34. Weber
conceded that there was These features have not escaped either notice or criticism. William Weber,
some evidence after 1980 tracing the history of musical canon, claimed that the period 1945-80 was
of reviving interest in new
works, 'chiefly in avant-
characterised by 'an extreme, indeed intolerant, predominance of classical
garde artistic circles'. over contemporary music'.I6 He was writing, admittedly, of both the concert

THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2005 75

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
76 What did they play?: the changing repertoire of the piano recital from the beginnings to z980

hall and the opera stage; his verdict on the piano recital specifically
17. So great was his perhaps have been less severe. There were, after all, leading pianist
international reputation that
period - Pollini, Glenn Gould, Brendel - who championed Schoenberg and
one forgets how distinctively
Russian a musician Richter gave at least some exposure to the Second Viennese School.
was. Playing outside Russia But there were undoubtedly many who confessed to little or no interest in
for the first time in 1960, at
the age of 45, he appeared
contemporary works. Richter, despite his huge repertoire, played, of the
only 60 times even in Paris, major 20th-century German/Austrian composers, only Berg's Chamber
his favourite foreign venue,
Concerto and Webern's Variations op.27; he would not play Schoenberg,
as against 851 times in
Moscow. A similar indication whom he saw as 'a composer who set out to destroy'."7 Very little contem-
is given by his repertoires.
porary music appealed to Ashkenazy.'8 Barenboim admitted to having neg-
The five composers whose
works he played most often lected the Second Viennese School until late in life, when Boulez persuaded
were: Shostakovich (4641 him otherwise.'9 Horowitz, as part of his war effort, saluted America's Rus-
items); Rachmaninov (2683);
Debussy (2444); Beethoven
sian ally by learning and performing three Prokofiev sonatas, and as if to
(2327); Prokofiev (1797) reciprocate, premiered Barber's Sonata in Havana in 1949. But otherwise he
(Monsaingeon: Sviatoslav
could find little 20th-century music to interest him.20 Moreover, it requires
Rickter, pp.143, 381-82).
some latitude in regard to chronology to regard some of the compositions
18. Parrott & Ashkenazy:
Beyond frontiers, pp. 167-68. mentioned above as 'contemporary', from the vantage point of the year in
which they were performed.
19. Daniel Barenboim,
ed. M. Lewin: A life in music As for the more general question of the structure of recitals, the arch
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Romantic Horowitz, who gave very careful consideration to the constructio
1991), p.49.
of his own programmes, striving above all for 'variety, variety, and mor
20. Schonberg: Horowitz,
variety',2' is said to have 'looked with scorn on programs that contained on
pp.157-58.
three Beethoven or Schubert sonatas." Quite contrary to what one might
21. David Dubal: Evenings
with Horowit: a personal have expected, in view of the ever increasing availability of recorded and
portrait (Birch Lane Press, broadcast music, the piano recitals of the late 20th century, judging by
1991 ),p.112. It has to be
Kehler's repertoires, seem to have relied to a greater extent than those of
admitted that late in life, with
a shrinking repertoire and 1891-1920 on frequent repetition of a very limited range of works, and even
failing memory, Horowitz
identical repetition of entire programmes in several centres.
was unable to follow his own
prescription. What, in the light of all this, the long-term future of the live solo piano

22. Schonberg: The

recital is, is a good question; one to which it is not easy to fashion an answer
glorious
ones, p.416. both optimistic and persuasive.

John Gould is Emeritus Professor of Economic History at Victoria University of

Wellington, New Zealand.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]