what is harder? Opus Clavicembalisticum or Chopin 10/2?

[stevie]

hehe, not as simple as that

OC, or 10/2....in under 1 minute

completely different difficulties, but id say the 10/2 is

and yes, this might be stupid, but aside from the sheer amount of notes to learn, the art of speed and technical polish is in the end a more difficult discipline than learning the million notes of OC.

[pita bread]

You're forgetting the technical polish and speed required in parts of the OC.

[Etude]

Indeed.

[stevie]

You're forgetting the technical polish and speed required in parts of the OC.

no, im not

are there any parts of the OC that demand, if performed at the conmposer's indicated tempo, the same level of finger dexterity that is required to play 10/2 in under a minute?

lest we forget that the OC has been recorded a couple times, but noone has ever recorded op10no2 in under 1 minute.

[mrchops10]

Well, naturally it's easier to play the OC at a very slow tempo than 10/2 in under a minute. If you're going to set a time limit for the 10/2, to make it fair you would have to set a time limit for the OC--maybe in under 2.5 hours, perfectly.

In additionally, I imagine many could RECORD 10/2 to your specifications without actually being able to play it. They don't, however, because A. it's dishonest, and B. 10/2 is really about more than playing fast. It should also be whisper soft, which is very difficult. If you bang it out in under a minute, you really haven't accomplished much at all.

[prometheus]

Can anyone play a four hour long 10/2?

[Etude]

no, im not

are there any parts of the OC that demand, if performed at the conmposer's indicated tempo, the same level of finger dexterity that is required to play 10/2 in under a minute?

Well? 

[stevie]

If you bang it out in under a minute, you really haven't accomplished much at all.

well thats like accomplishing running a mile in under 3 minutes....not much.

[lisztisforkids]

This is ridicuolus, Opus Clavicembalisticum is 4 hours long, uses every conceivable piano technique, and you say that the 10/2 which only uses primarily ONE technique and only at the most 2 - 3 minuets long is harder??? Think about. Which one would be harder to practice?? 4 hours of madness, or 1 minuet of your right hand?

[yoshiki]

A question: Is the intended speed by Chopin of playing op.10 no.2 under a minuet? It sounds impossible and unnecessary.

[stevie]

This is ridicuolus, Opus Clavicembalisticum is 4 hours long, uses every conceivable piano technique, and you say that the 10/2 which only uses primarily ONE technique and only at the most 2 - 3 minuets long is harder??? Think about. Which one would be harder to practice?? 4 hours of madness, or 1 minuet of your right hand?

i am saying, that jonathon powel, john ogdon, and geff dick madge could play the OC, but i seriously doubt that ANY of them could play 10/2 in under 1 minute.

and yes, 10/2 in under 1 minute is debatably impossible, just like running 100 metres in udner 9.5 seconds is.

[Etude]

i am saying, that jonathon powel, john ogdon, and geff dick madge could play the OC, but i seriously doubt that ANY of them could play 10/2 in under 1 minute.

and yes, 10/2 in under 1 minute is debatably impossible, just like running 100 metres in udner 9.5 seconds is.

The question is, is 10/2 intended to be played in under 1 minute?  It's like playing OC in 30 minutes instead of 4 hours.

[palika dunno]

10/2 in under 1 minute is debatably impossible

I don't think so. vadim rudenkos is only 1 minute and 2 seconds...or even a bit less. so if he wouldn't do this rit. in the end and leave out some freedoms in the middle it would probably be 59,xxx seconds. but, WHO CARES???  this is such a beautiful piece that people who rush over it like rudenko should be shot 
Alfred Cortot plays it in 1 minute and 22 seconds and it's the best recording I've ever heard. so why all this trouble about speed?  that's a waste of time.

palika 

btw, cortot's recording -> https://www.geocities.com/alfredcortot/1002.mp3

[stevie]

The question is, is 10/2 intended to be played in under 1 minute?  It's like playing OC in 30 minutes instead of 4 hours.

um, no its not, chopin's intended speed for 10/2 is about 1'10 or so

but it does sound really good at any tempo faster than that, because the technique that is used limits the speed of the chromatic melody.

10/2 in 1 minute doesnt sound ridiculous to any non-pianist, unlike maybe richter's 10/4 would.


maybe i shouldve rephrased the question......sorabji wrote incredibly difficult music, but im sure he recognised the possibilities and impossibilities of the human body.

lets make a more fair comparison.

compare the most technically impressive recording of the OC(john ogdon) and the most technically impressive recording of the 10/2(rudenko)

now the question is simple, which is the more difficult feat to recreate?

im not saying learning the OC isnt difficult, its quite difficult....

[Etude]

compare the most technically impressive recording of the OC(john ogdon) and the most technically impressive recording of the 10/2(rudenko)

now the question is simple, which is the more difficult feat to recreate?

OC.  It uses techniques far more difficult than anything in 10/2, and for about 240 times longer.  As for speed have you heard Ogdon's First Cadenza?

[mlsmithz]

Even keeping the original parameters of this comparison would probably give the nod to Opus Clavicembalisticum (though I say this having never heard it).  To play the Chopin Op.10 No.2 in under a minute requires a metronome mark of approximately 200 beats per minute (it's in 4/4 and is 49 bars long), and since the right hand is playing semiquavers for almost the entire duration of the piece, this means the right hand would be operating at 800 notes per minute.  However, Alkan's 'Comme le vent' has a metronome mark of 160 bars per minute; it's in 2/16 and most bars feature six triplet demisemiquavers for a total of 960 notes per minute; though it has never been recorded at that speed (and likely never will be), Gibbons comes close (at speed, it lasts four minutes and seven seconds; Gibbons takes four and a half minutes) and certainly tops 800 notes per minute.  And in contrast to the Chopin, Alkan did intend 'Comme le vent' to be played at blinding speed (I agree that much of the beauty of the Op.10 No.2 would be obliterated by a lightning fast performance).  Granted, the fast lines in 'Comme le vent' don't centre on chromatic scales played solely by the weaker fingers on the right hand, but it makes up for this with greater unpredictability (and it must also be sustained for four or five minutes).  So a similar comparison of difficulty might be between 'Comme le vent' and the OC - I cannot and never will be able to play either one, but I would imagine most people would label the OC the more difficult of the two.

Then again, most difficulty comparisons of this nature are apples and oranges anyway.  In particular, I doubt there are many people who can play both the Sorabji in its entirety and the Op.10 No.2 etude in under a minute, and really they would be the only people who could speak authoritatively on which is more difficult.  It's a bit like comparing the relative difficulties of, say, the Rachmaninov Concerto No.3 and the Brahms Concerto No.2 - though both are among the more difficult concerti in common repertoire, they are difficult in different ways, and which one a given performer finds more difficult depends on which difficulties present him or her with a more formidable challenge.  But that's straying from the topic at hand.

[stevie]

good post, i agree somewhat.

but i hope people realise the purpose of my original post...

with all these debates about 'the most difficult piece ever' , i still think it is more difficult to achieve a sub 1-min timing in the 10/2, and to match the timing alkan provided in comme le vent , than to simply 'play the notes' of the OC.

a completely different difficulty, its like comparing ....memorising the bible, with running 100 metres in under 9.5 seconds.

and also, which would i rather do?

id rather be able to play the world speed records of the chopin etudes, than play the notes of herma, OC, etc.

[rimv2]

Well, naturally it's easier to play the OC at a very slow tempo than 10/2 in under a minute. If you're going to set a time limit for the 10/2, to make it fair you would have to set a time limit for the OC--maybe in under 2.5 hours, perfectly.

In additionally, I imagine many could RECORD 10/2 to your specifications without actually being able to play it. They don't, however, because A. it's dishonest, and B. 10/2 is really about more than playing fast. It should also be whisper soft, which is very difficult. If you bang it out in under a minute, you really haven't accomplished much at all.

Some one's reading into this topic a little bit too seriously.

[chromatickler]

To play the Chopin Op.10 No.2 in under a minute requires a metronome mark of approximately 200 beats per minute (it's in 4/4 and is 49 bars long), and since the right hand is playing semiquavers for almost the entire duration of the piece, this means the right hand would be operating at 800 notes per minute.  However, Alkan's 'Comme le vent' has a metronome mark of 160 bars per minute; it's in 2/16 and most bars feature six triplet demisemiquavers for a total of 960 notes per minute;

an 'argument' of the uttermost idiocy. it's obvious you don't play (or have even attempted) either piece. in fact it's mindboogling that you would choose this comparison AFTER (presumably) seeing the score.

[thierry13]

Well? 

If it is in C-sharp major, it makes it A LOT easier 

[mlsmithz]

an 'argument' of the uttermost idiocy. it's obvious you don't play (or have even attempted) either piece. in fact it's mindboogling that you would choose this comparison AFTER (presumably) seeing the score.

First, there's no need to be so rude about it.  Second, I have seen the scores to both pieces and have attempted them (the Op.10 No.2 more successfully than 'Comme le vent') and do not appreciate the implication that it is 'obvious' I have not attempted either one.  If you disagree with the comparison, fine, but do not phrase this disagreement as an unprovoked insult.  Rather, why not explain why you disagree with it?

[mrchops10]

I agree that chromatickler was being rude, but I can understand his point. Op. 10/2 is much more than just chromatic scales--it is 3-4-5 chromatic scales for 4 pages without break. While I can't speak much to comme le vent, I can say that to judge op. 10/2 difficulty by breaking down the number of notes per minute is completely besides the point. The speed alone does make it difficult, because if it was a conventional chromatic scale (1-2-3) no doubt several pianists could play it in under 30 seconds.

Some one's reading into this topic a little bit too seriously.

 

[pita bread]

maybe i shouldve rephrased the question......sorabji wrote incredibly difficult music, but im sure he recognised the possibilities and impossibilities of the human body.

Not as much as Chopin did. Chopin was actually a regularly-performing pianist.

[chromatickler]

(the Op.10 No.2 more successfully than 'Comme le vent')

in order for your previous argument to make any sense, this statement must mean that you find 10/2 easier to play than comme le vent on a SEMIQUAVER/SEMIDEMIQUAVER PER SECOND basis.

and in order for THAT to make any sense, you would have to enforced my previous point -the extent to which you have attempted either piece is by any practical definition: none-existent. 3 notes of each is my charitable guess.

[mlsmithz]

in order for your previous argument to make any sense, this statement must mean that you find 10/2 easier to play than comme le vent on a SEMIQUAVER/SEMIDEMIQUAVER PER SECOND basis.

and in order for THAT to make any sense, you would have to enforced my previous point -the extent to which you have attempted either piece is by any practical definition: none-existent. 3 notes of each is my charitable guess.

Wrong again.  I've attempted both from start to finish and am growing quite weary of these baseless, insulting aspersions.  The point of my original argument, which I'm not convinced you understood, is that playing the Op.10 No.2 in one minute still does not require the speed and dexterity of 'Comme le vent', which is longer, faster, less predictable, and spreads the rapid fingerwork across both hands, sometimes simultaneously, and since the Alkan still falls short of the difficulty of the Sorabji in most minds, then I'd cast my vote in favour of the OC in the original discussion.

Of course I find the Op.10 No.2 easier to play at the prescribed speed than 'Comme le vent'.  There are surely few pianists who do not judging from the number of recordings of the former versus the latter.  But even if Op.10 No.2 is sped up to take less than a minute my argument is that it would still be less difficult than 'Comme le vent' for a number of reasons.  If I didn't make that clear then that's my error, but that is still no reason for you to be the jerk you have been in both of your replies thus far.

I agree that chromatickler was being rude, but I can understand his point. Op. 10/2 is much more than just chromatic scales--it is 3-4-5 chromatic scales for 4 pages without break. While I can't speak much to comme le vent, I can say that to judge op. 10/2 difficulty by breaking down the number of notes per minute is completely besides the point. The speed alone does make it difficult, because if it was a conventional chromatic scale (1-2-3) no doubt several pianists could play it in under 30 seconds.

Fair point (though in my defence I did note that the chromatic scales in Op.10 No.2 use the weaker fingers on the right hand), but 'Comme le vent' is 21 pages of more rapid and more unpredictable passagework without break (excepting the last half page or so), and a good deal of it also requires the light touch of the Chopin ('like the wind', as the title says).  I'd still point to it as more difficult than playing the Chopin in under a minute even if it doesn't have the same emphasis on the weaker fingers.

[chromatickler]

'Comme le vent', which is longer, faster, less predictable, and spreads the rapid fingerwork across both hands, sometimes simultaneously... 'Comme le vent' is 21 pages of more rapid and more unpredictable passagework without break (excepting the last half page or so), and a good deal of it also requires the light touch of the Chopin ('like the wind', as the title says).  I'd still point to it as more difficult than playing the Chopin in under a minute even if it doesn't have the same emphasis on the weaker fingers.

regardless of what you claim, i thought you would be smart enough to at least consult the score (let alone actually trying it out on a piano) during the course of this 'discussion' of ours.

CLV is without break? it's 20 pages (my edition) with NEITHER HAND sustaining more than 3 and a half pages of continous passagework in ANY part of the piece.

the passagework in CLV is unpredictable and requires more dexterity? again, please get the score and READ it. half of the 'passagework' in CLV consist of ARPEGGIATED CHORDS repeating themselves over and over. (coincidentally this is most prominent in the only stretch of sustained 'passagework' that's over 3 pages) another quarter consists of repetitive scale figures within a single hand position, and the other quarter is mordents, which can even be simplified into scale figures within a single hand position if you count from a down-beat. for a piece that boasts 20 pages of single note passagework, nowhere does it even require a none-sequential (ie 1324) fingering. Nowhere does it even require any thumbpassing except a lone 3 bar RH scale and the two lines at the bottom of page 19, which are unpredictably, C MAJOR scales.

now you want to find me a piece (apart from that one short passage in the OC, written a century later) that requires 2.5 pages of sustained chromatics with the outter fingers while BOTH the THUMB AND INDEX FINGERS play chordal accompaniment? yeah, that's rather odd, MUST BE PREDICTABLE!

i will spare you an analysis of the SPEED LIMITS concerning the techniques involved in each respective piece.

oh yeah, and a LIGHTER TOUCH makes it harder to play faster? ok

now how about i remind you of your comparative argument:

(for 10/2) this means the right hand would be operating at 800 notes per minute... (for CLV) "Gibbons comes close (at speed, it lasts four minutes and seven seconds; Gibbons takes four and a half minutes) and certainly tops 800 notes per minute."

why else would you say that if you didnt intend a direct comparison on a NOTE PER SECOND basis? good job on backing out of this in your last reply.

i'm hardly a jerk, but you're still WRONG.

[stevie]

let us remember that in order to learn, we must have the munimity to sometimes accept that we are WRONG.

[fredo]

where can i find a Recording of Richters 1004?