the ultimate 'technique test' piece?

[stevie]

lets say, in an ideal world, we could ask all the top technical pianists in the world to play ONE piece for us all to decide which of them has the best all-round technique.

the piece we choose must be very technically demanding, and encompass all major techniques in both hands -

ie - lh + rh chords, octaves, scalar and arpeggiated figurations, and double notes of various kinds

which would be the ultimate single piece to do this with?

the best one that springs to mind to be is the brahms-paganini variations.

[thierry13]

Hamelin's transcription of la campanella.

[hazypurple21]

the goldberg variations

[chromatickler]

hanon

[Nightscape]

Jesu Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring by Bach

[thierry13]

Jesu Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring by Bach

the goldberg variations

hanon

Do you really think those are more ultimate than hamelin's transcription ... mmm i don't think so.

[pianiststrongbad]

I agree with the Paganini Variations by Brahms and also the Goldberg Variations.  Some of the Scriabin Etudes come to mind also- Op. 42 no. 5. 

[thierry13]

I agree with the Paganini Variations by Brahms and also the Goldberg Variations.  Some of the Scriabin Etudes come to mind also- Op. 42 no. 5. 

All of those are easier than hamelin's campanella.

[stevie]

i havent looked at the campanella score for a while, but i know it doesnt have right hand octaves.

the brahms-paganini has it all

right and left hand 3rds, right and left hand 6ths, octaves in both hands

it really does allow to see a players full technique in just 1 piece, thats the aim of this discussion

what about islamey too?

[Waldszenen]

Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano

[maxy]

just like that, for a short piece I would go with Alkan's Festin.  It  has some of the nastiest transitions...

[musicsdarkangel]

Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano

That's an excellent suggestion.

Although it is by no means a large scale work, I would put La Campanella in the section of versatility, but more so the Busoni transcription.

I echo the Brahms Pagannini Variations.

Liszt's Don Juan Fantasy and his Dante Sonata both have incredible technical feats, and are fierce competitors as well.

[hazypurple21]

Do you really think those are more ultimate than hamelin's transcription ... mmm i don't think so.

I can't speak for the other two posters, but yes, I think the Bach is more definitive of real core technique. Doesn't mean they're harder overall than the Hamelin, but as many of us know, Bach can be hell when it comes to exposing mistakes. That's why I think they demand a more solid technique for a good performance.

[thierry13]

I can't speak for the other two posters, but yes, I think the Bach is more definitive of real core technique. Doesn't mean they're harder overall than the Hamelin, but as many of us know, Bach can be hell when it comes to exposing mistakes. That's why I think they demand a more solid technique for a good performance.

I hate that kind of thinking. "It is more exposed to mistake bla bla" ... WHO CARES! If you are a real musician, you can see wrong notes in Islamey as well as in a Bach prelude, if you have a trained ear. What is harder to play NO mistake ? The Hamelin. You're saying the Hamelin is easier because if you do a mistake it will not be easy to see... who cares ?!? If you did the mistake, a trained musician will see it very clearly, so those kind of things doesn't count.

[thierry13]

i havent looked at the campanella score for a while, but i know it doesnt have right hand octaves.

It has right hand octaves plus one note chord. So it is again more killer than simple octaves 

[chromatickler]

It has right hand octaves plus one note chord. So it is again more killer than simple octaves 

WRONG. by your reasoning, cluster chords would be more 'killer' than simple scales. face it, hamelin's transcription don't cover all techniques. and if it did, he wouldn't have gabbled up the simple repeated notes in the original.

[da jake]

Goldberg Variations
ChopGod etudes.

[hazypurple21]

I hate that kind of thinking. "It is more exposed to mistake bla bla" ... WHO CARES! If you are a real musician, you can see wrong notes in Islamey as well as in a Bach prelude, if you have a trained ear. What is harder to play NO mistake ? The Hamelin. You're saying the Hamelin is easier because if you do a mistake it will not be easy to see... who cares ?!? If you did the mistake, a trained musician will see it very clearly, so those kind of things doesn't count.

I did not say the Hamelin was easier for that reason, and a mistake doesn't have to mean a wrong note. In my opinion, it's harder to make the Bach sound good, even if you play all the right notes.
Besides that, they're extremely different kinds of technique, I just vote for the Bach because I think the techniques required in it are core and therefore extremely essential.

[thierry13]

I did not say the Hamelin was easier for that reason, and a mistake doesn't have to mean a wrong note. In my opinion, it's harder to make the Bach sound good, even if you play all the right notes.
Besides that, they're extremely different kinds of technique, I just vote for the Bach because I think the techniques required in it are core and therefore extremely essential.

If you can play the goldberg variations well, doesn't mean you can play any piece. If you play the hamelin's transcription WELL ... I'm sure there will be no piece you won't be able to play after that... in common repertoire 

[lisztwasgod]

Right off the bat, the Brahms Variations came to my mind too, although i did hear someone say liszt's don juan fantasy...i try to reply only to stuff i know about, and this is my expertise...Don Juan would be a great piece, probably better than la camp or hamelin's transcription thereof. THe problem with don juan is that it wouldnt test just technicality because of the duetto middle part; and if this were shearly a technical competition the musicality of the piece should not come into question,only the ability to execute unflinchingly and with little exertion. Thus, a set of variations might not be ideal because each variation also requires a different mood or tone, even though a lot of technical feats are encompassed. Thus, thinking of a shearly technical piece that has little musical bearing,i might suggest Islamey, as volume and mood-wise it isnt as challenging as even the most shallow rach work. therefore, rach is out, liszt is out, chopin...out. Although unreasonable, i might suggest the OC, and seeing as how it is four hours of blistering technical ass-rammery,  it is dense, and just understanding it is troublesome, i might recommend that. But for difficulty technically if musicality is only a result of viruosic expression, then i might also suggest the second prokoffiev concerto, the rach 2 sonata, liszts norma variations or, yes, islamey...i like the brahms variation way too much to reduce it to only technical stature

[thierry13]

Hey lisztwasgod ...... he is STILL god ... 

[rob47]

i believe technicality encompasses musicality and, that it almost redundant to stress one over the other as they are the same thing. They both use the brain, they both need the fingers.

I hate that kind of thinking. "It is more exposed to mistake bla bla" ... WHO CARES!

Do you want to hear Lang Lang play Bach? I don't. It'd probably be perfect and highly musical.  But I DO want to hear Argerich play Bach though. thinkkkkkkkkkk aaboooooooout it


my vote is also for paganinni avarioaraoiraoriotions.

Someone like Messiaen uses a whollllllllllllle bunch of techniques that liszt/brahms/bach et. al have not.

Perhaps all 20 vignt regards?

[maul]

It's without a doubt:

Rob Kawasaki - Rapsodie Ridicolosamente e Stupidoso op. 22 no. 1

[lostinidlewonder]

Isn't this like saying to a painter. Ok, what picture should I paint to demonstrate the complete mastery of my art?

[rob47]

It's without a doubt:

Rob Kawasaki - Rapsodie Ridicolosamente e Stupidoso op. 22 no. 1

that ridiculous piece? Apparently the moron who wrote it can't even play it! WHAT A LOSER!

[ahinton]

Isn't this like saying to a painter. Ok, what picture should I paint to demonstrate the complete mastery of my art?

It is rather - in my opinion, at least. I can imagine few composers - even such inveterate providers of piano études of one sort or another in different eras as Chopin, Liszt, Alkan, Godowsky, Skryabin, Rakhmaninov, Sorabji, Ligeti, etc. - actually sitting down deliberately to write a piece which purposely encompassess all the requirements of a pianist's technical armoury for the sake of so doing and with the intent (perhaps) of proving a point to satisfy people such as the originator of this thread; indeed, the fact that all of these composers' individual piano études are instead largely geared to specific individual technical issues would seem to support the idea that any search for "the ultimate "technique test" piece" is probably rather futile...

Best,

Alistair

[m]

lets say, in an ideal world, we could ask all the top technical pianists in the world to play ONE piece for us all to decide which of them has the best all-round technique.

And you call it ideal world? Can you imagine something like calling all the top pianists and telling them: "Hey guys, now you gonna play ONE piece, and we on the pianostreet board will decide who of you has the best all-around technique. Join the party"?  I'd really love to hear their answers.

I had a friend who had phenomenal motorics and could play Brahms-Paganini faster then anybody else. His Chopin 10/2 was truly astounding. For "better" effect he used to start it without a pause, right after (phenomenal) 10/1, the same tempo, even without changing pedal. The guy pathologically could not play a single passage in Beethoven Sonata evenly. Does he have a great technique? It was many years ago. I think he still masters his 10/2 right after 10/1, which I can respect, BTW.

In ideal world I wish people would remember words of two people, who I believe understood something in piano technique, and whom I deeply respect and love--Chopin and Liszt. Both used to say that technique is ART OF SOUND.

In ideal world I wish people would remember what great J. Hoffmann said about technique:

"Technique is a chest of tools from which the skilled artisan draws what he needs at the right time for the right purpose."

You can hear who the artist IS from two notes, whether it is Hoffmann playing Chopin Nocturne in B-Major, Friedmann playing Chopin Nocturne in E flat Major, Rachmaninov in Gluck-Sgambatti Melody, Gould with Contrapunct from Art of Fugue, or Lhevinne in Blue Danub.
Isn't it the ultimate realization of technique?
 
I cannot tell most of the modern pianists one from another, as I cannot tell the difference between most of the Hollywood "stars". They all look to me the same.

In ideal world it should be and would be very different...

[danyal]

Prokofiev's 3rd sonata, 1st mvt. In 7 mins it tests every technical ability and aspect known. Pure hell.

[m]

Prokofiev's 3rd sonata, 1st mvt.

As far as I know, it is one movement Sonata, opposite to what your post might suggest.

[lisztwasgod]

Hey lisztwasgod ...... he is STILL god ... 

yes, but sadly, he is dead...although i most certainly agree with your statement! He and Rachmaninoff were transcendent gentlemen for progressing the study and mastery of the piano...Liszt himself wrote some of the most viscious works for piano, and aside from the technically blistering rach 3, rachmaninoff's difficulty was more int he expression of the piano and what lies within, so to speak. Liszt was a virtuouso's virtuoso in that there were, for him at least, no technical "difficulties," just mere exertions at the piano which for him were simple and elegant, but hellish and brutal for the average piano artist. I have at some point or another in my life played every single liszt work, and there are still those that give me trouble. Leslie Howard did the complete recordings of liszt's piano works, and even he sturggles with some phrasing and difficulties in the more obscure and dense works. But yes, in short, liszt defied, and in many ways still does, the boundaries of masterful piano playing and virtuosity! I appreciate the recognition of his talent and im sure he does too...good man!

[sevencircles]

What would you say is Liszt´s hardest piece in  terms of technique?

[rapmasterb]

Either the 5th or 10th 1838 Transcendental studies.

[danyal]

As far as I know, it is one movement Sonata, opposite to what your post might suggest.

My mistake. It was late, (I work on SA time) and I was tired.

[prometheus]

What would you say is Liszt´s hardest piece in  terms of technique?

The transcription of Beethovens 9th. Or the transcription of Symphony Fantastique.

[presto agitato]

All major techniques in both hands :

ie - lh + rh chords, octaves, scalar and arpeggiated figurations, and double notes of various kinds

which would be the ultimate single piece to do this with?

the best one that springs to mind to be is the brahms-paganini variations.

Variations Serieuses by Mendelssohn is my choice.

I think they arent as hard as Paganini Variations but i think they cover all the the requirements that you requested.

[musicsdarkangel]

What would you say is Liszt´s hardest piece in  terms of technique?

Don Juan

[stevie]

Either the 5th or 10th 1838 Transcendental studies.

this is a better answer

also the 1st versions of the paganini etudes

don juan is longer, but on a minute by minute basis, they slaughter big don

[burstroman]

Beethoven, Sonata Op. 106

[pies]

­

[pianoden]

Either the 5th or 10th 1838 Transcendental studies.

Actually, the early 5th study is actually no harder than the later version.  The studies that actually become extremely hard in the early versions are the 10th (as mentioned), the 8th (I'm surprised no one ever mentions this one, because it does contain a few near-impossible techniques that, AFAIK no one else has ever used) and the 2nd (surprisingly!).  Some of the tremolos in the 12th study are pretty tricky as well in the early version.