I recently attended a Junior Recital by one of my fellow violists from school. He played a Sibelius Concerto, a Bach Sonata for Viola da Gamba, and Suite Hebraique by Bloch. These pieces are all extremely difficult, in fact, they are at about as difficult as he (or I for that matter) could perform reasonably well. He did a good job.

My own recital is coming in a week and a half. I am playing a Vanhal Concerto, a Bach Cello Suite transcribed for viola, two Bartok viola duets, a Haydn quartet and two short romantic pieces by Frank Bridge.

I am curious why music that is difficult is more desirable than music that is easier as far as technique goes, but just as pretty. For example, I told my friend when he asked for my true opinions about his recital that I thought he didn't have any down time. Every piece he played was extremely demanding, and even our viola instructor called the program "ambitious." My program has some downtime built into it. For example, one of the Frank Bridge pieces is relatively easy. It's called "Berceuse" which is just a generic music term for lullaby. It is a beautiful piece despite being easy, and I am sure to do a fantastic job when I perform it. I have placed it between the Bartok duets and an extremely fast piece by Frank Bridge called Moto Perpetuo. I really think that my program will come off as more appealing to an audience with a range of pieces in various levels than only playing very demanding pieces only moderately well.

Academia has forgotten what we do and who we do it for. I love to perform, and I want to play for the audience as much as play for myself. Playing very well and beautifully is for an audience. Playing things that are at the very top of my personal abilities are for myself. I hope that I will always be able to keep a good balance.