In which order do you study concertos?
My question is in the title
Just, please ,begin from Mozart 3 violin concerto to the hardest(probably Paganini n°1+Sauret Cadenza)
Once you reach the "professional" repertoire, Bruch level and beyond, concertos are best thought of in tiers of difficulty rather than a sequence per se.
There are lots of lists already out there if you google them. No two people will agree on the exact order. Also you can't do them all. Viotti alone wrote dozens of them.
I'd say preferably not the order in which Eric Morecambe played the Grieg.
These answers don't helped me(but it will if we tell me how Delay's concerto sequence with groups works)
John, LOL thats funny ^_^
Each of the groups contains concertos in roughly ascending order of difficulty.
Here is the Sassmanshaus list:
It also depends on how young you are and how fast you learn and what your goals are. If you are wanting to go the professional route, you will want to learn all the major concertos from the DeLay list in Category I. You can skip a few (like Conus and all 3 Vieuxtemps) but you need to do most of them. My son (age 14, with professional aspirations) is on his 14th in Category 1. But others in his program do more skipping around in Category 1 because they have less time before conservatory auditions. You definitely don't want to go exactly in the listed order, though the pieces are generally listed from easiest to hardest. For example, my kids did 1 Bach, 1 Haydn, 1 Mozart, then Kabalevsky, back to the other Bach, then Mendelssohn then back to another Mozart. Sometimes my older one has gone back to pick up pieces he missed, like Mozart 3 and now Barber.
Personally I think there is no specific order and it really comes down to the student's strengths and weaknesses, and what music they are motivated to play. My former teacher once had a student who played Bruch then Intro and Rondo Capricioso and then Brahms. And I remember hearing the Brahms and being shocked at how amazing it was (my professional Musician mother agreed). Look, some teachers teach Mendelssohn after Bruch or teach Lalo after Mendelssohn. Others may teach Mendelssohn after Sibelius and before Shostakovich. There is no one proven method that works. Of course it's definitely not a good idea to jump from something like conus or Bruch all the way to Brahms or Beethoven. My Personal "sequence" was :
When I see such progress lists I have to wonder what 'I did' means? What level did the piece get to, with respect to (eg) movements, tempo, musicality, lack of errors; before you moved on to the next one.
Elise, good point. "I did" for me means being able to perform the piece for a grade examiner, before an audition panel, or an audience (doesn't matter what sort of audience, or a piano accompaniment instead of orchestra). Any of these should be pushing you to your top level, otherwise you've wasted your time. In my days as a cellist I reckon I could comfortably count the number of my "I dids" at grade 8 standard on my fingers.
Thanks for your answers
I have the same definition as Trevor Jennings. I consider a piece "played" when I've performed it to a good standard in front of an audience.
I did a Haydn G, Mozart 3, a whole pile of Viottis, deBeriots, and a Rode (plus lots of the intermediate showpiece type works) before finally doing Mendelssohn (just the third movement). Then Saint-Saens 3, Mozart 4, Barber (because I really wanted to play it), Prokofiev 1, and Tchaikovsky.