In my opinion (I'm attacking no one here), you should only be able to give a proper judgment if you have experience in playing or learning the pieces being ranked.
That is a horrible list.Here's why:1. Rachmaninoff 3, Brahms 2 > Alkan2. Your ranking of Bartok 3 is absolutely ridiculous. It is generally considered one of the easier concerti in the repertoire, yet you placed it with Bartok 2, which is generally considered equal to Rachmaninoff 3rd and Brahms 2nd. what?3. Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini is far more difficult than the Second Concerto.4. Prokofiev 2 is grossly underrated here. It is equally as challenging as Rach 3, Brahms 2, and Bartok 2.5. Saying that the Ravel concerti are as difficult as Prokofiev 3, terrible.6. Both the Chopin concerti are more difficult than Ravel7. The Liszt concerti are as difficult as the Chopin.8. You decided to just throw all those Mozart at the bottom to be cute, I guess. Mozart D Minor and B-flat are as hard as Beethoven 3, there's no doubt about that.etc.
No need to be anal.You're wrong about Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on a theme by Pagannini.Just because of how akward the 2nd concerto is, they are both about equal to eachother.And this is coming from someone who is currently working on the Rhapsody and sightreading the 2nd.You would think I would be biased towards the difficulty of the RHapsody, but you are simply incorrect.
Except nearly everyone on this forum, and even those not on this forum, would agree that the Paganini is harder than the Second Concerto.
Speak for yourself. Koji (Who has had experiences with both) and Rachmaninoff HIMSELF disagree.Hell, Rachmaninoff finds his 3rd easier than his 2nd. THAT is the awkwardness of the second concerto.What leads you to believe so strongly in what you say? There is no definite answer. Give me some sources. Come on, work with me here. You seem confident..... but I don't see the reason to be.You need to back up your "facts" because in the thread comparing the Pagannini to the 2nd concerto, there were mixed answers. Go back and see for yourself.
point by point...1. I said Alkan SOLO Concerto. If you're gonna try to tell me the Rachmaninov 3 is as difficult as the 60 minute Alkan Solo Concerto I'd laugh in your face.2. Yeah I agree the Bartok Concerto No. 3 should be moved down on the list. I think I must have accidently put it there honestly. Move it down one. But the Bartok 2 in my personal opinion is overrated in difficulty.3. The Rhapsody is not as hard as Concerto No. 2. You claim that everyone on here will agree with you but when there was a thread on this the Rhapsody was considered either the easiest or second easiest on most people's lists.4. The Prokofiev Concerto No. 2 IS on the same difficulty level block as the Bartok 2. So what steinwayguy...5. I personally think the Ravel Concerti, or at the very least the Concerto in G is absolutely as difficult as the Prokofiev Concerto No. 3.6. Chopin Concerti are definitely not as difficult as the Ravel, and don't be all like "well you shouldn't talk if you don't have any experience" because I do on that particular point.7. The Liszt Concerti are as difficult as the Chopin??? Maybe that's why I put them in the same difficulty category eh?8. Firstly, I'm already cute ^^ But the Mozart Concerti are NOT as difficult as the Beethoven 3 technically; they are probably more difficult on a musical level but this was based on general technical difficulty.Remember these are just my personal opinions and what is difficult for one person isn't always the same for the next guy.
OK, guys, we've come on a final answer.........NEITHERdammit. they are tough in their own ways. The Rhapsody is faster, the 2nd more awkward.
OK, speaking of Rhapsody and 2nd concerto of Rachmaninoff, does anyone agree with me that Rach1 is much more difficult than both of them?? Thats what Dale Jackson said (one of my judges) and I found it interesting. It makes sense too. SAM
Just to add to your troubles.Rachmaninoffs 3rd really belongs in the Ridiculously Virtuosic category. The only reason it sounds easier than the other concerto's in that category, is because the harmony of Rachmaninoffs sounds pleasurable to the ear. The 20th Century concerto's are very atonal and very chromatic and dissonant to the ear, making them harder to remember (when learning the piece) but the actual pieces themselves are just as hard.
I don't even know what to say to this. You want me to put the Rach3 in the same category as Busoni, Finnissy, Sorabji or Xenakis? um yeah... or not. Could someone get some sample pics of some Sorabji and Finnissy up here for this person?
ok. so fur elise is harder than the OC. of course! how could i miss that?
EXCUSE ME?? I'm doing a double Degree in Music at University. One of our Piano Teachers have played a couple of the 20th Century Piano conertos such as the Finnissy and the Sorabji Piano Concertos.... I'm not a flipping idiot - I have seen and heard the Concertos.
There is such a line where Piano Concertos are written for complete perfection and their sole aim is to truly test the Pianists abilities. Then there are those who overstep that line and just try and make their pieces sound so ridiculously hard with their incredibly hard and tight crushed chords and ecstatic eccentricities. The Busoni Concertos, Finnisy, and the other concertos in that category demand that the player has brilliant technical abilities yes... and to be able to play the notes right.
Rachmaninoffs 3rd Piano Concerto demands nothing less than perfection. The piece is scrutinised so much that there is so much pressure to play the piece with not just their fingers but with a sole mind and emotional ecstacy.
So don't treat me like some moron Skeptic-otamus.... I am not an idiot. I don't listen to anything but Classical Music (when I mean classical - I don't mean LITERALLY classical) I mean anything instrumental written in the last 300 years.)
The emotional and perfectional aspects of playing the Rach 3 (Sorry for those who don't like it being called that - but it saves me typing the whole *** thing... )
I'm sorry you felt like I was talking down to you hun, but this was obviously a misunderstanding of yours. I don't see where I called you an idiot anywhere; it's not my fault if you make assumptions about what I mean and I don't personally like being attacked because of your own misunderstandings.Busoni Concertos? I didn't even know he wrote more than one. So the Concerti I considered the most difficult are "rediculously hard" and have "incredibly hard" chords and require "brilliant technical abilities"? Wow! So far it sounds like, now follow me on this one, that they are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT! And the fact that these comments are in comparison to the Rach 3 infer that these comments refer exclusively to the concerti mentioned besides the Rach 3, meaning that they are indeed more difficult. Apparently you too think they are more difficult, but let's read on =) (also I don't appreciate, nor do I think quite a few other members will appreciate, the inferrence that Sorabji and Finnissy wrote their music to only be difficult. And by "inferrence" I mean hearing it from you, seeing as how you weren't in any way just infering it; you were saying it outright. Also, if something was written to only be difficult that would make it more difficult than the Rach 3 because you said yourself the Rach 3 isn't one of these concerti.)So basically the only reason you think the Rach 3 deserves to be in the same category is because people expect a lot from it? Ok then, you admit that the Sorabji and Finnissy Concerti are more difficult technically. Seeing as how this was based on technical difficulty that WOULD, or should, suffice in shutting you up, but I feel like going on =) My teacher once told me that people who use this mentality, as in the one that will be like, "This piece is difficult because it requires perfection.", are lazy pianists. Teacher's words; not mine. Every piece requires perfection. The people that will say a Scarlatti Sonata is as difficult as a Liszt piece because it requires such perfection; that's what I'm talking about. That's a load of crap but people say that kind of BS all the time. Also, I don't think any of the other Concerti on that list require any less of a level of a "sole mind and emotional ecstasy.", with the possible exception of the Carter Concerto, which is basically like playing a Boulez Sonate with an Orchestra behind it. Tell me a Boulez Sonate doesn't require perfection. I dare you. It may not be very emotional but it sure as hell requires a sound mind."Skeptic-otamus"? Well besides just being stupid and painfully immature that doesn't even make any sense so I don't really know what to say to that. Again I didn't call you an idiot in my last post. Also, nobody cares what kind of music you listen to; I also listen to only classical music, but 99% of that is modern so by your "logic" that makes me a better source on this anyways. So either your logic sucks and you're stupid, or I do indeed know more about this and you are wrong.In closing, you said yourself that the Finnissy and Sorabji are more difficult technically so thanks for wasting my time and proving my point yourself. This list was based on technical difficulty and you said yourself that they are harder technically so I have no idea what you're rambling about. Also, I would LOVE to know the name of your teacher that is playing Sorabji and Finnissy, and if you remember I'd like to know which concerti it was that he played.
you're wrong.
Topic: ANOTHER concerto ranking 