which would you consider a greater feat?

[BoliverAllmon]

ok we hear of the recitals of someone doing Chopin's complete etudes and though that is impressive, would you consider someone performing Bach's Golden 24 (either set) just a big of a feat, bigger, or smaller?

I would think just as big or bigger myself.

boliver

[arensky]

The WTC is the more difficult and impressive program IMO. There's so much more music in the WTC and it's harder to memorize, and the technical challenge is greater. Seems like a no-brainer to me...

[lisztisforkids]

The WTC is the more difficult and impressive program IMO. There's so much more music in the WTC and it's harder to memorize, and the technical challenge is greater. Seems like a no-brainer to me...

I agree.

[stevie]

each book of the WTC  is 2 hours or so, so this isnt a fair contest.

as with anything, it depends on how well they are played.

what ios a more impressive feat?
memorising the entire WTC?
or playing chopin's 10/2 like vadim rudenko?

thats more interesting

[lisztisforkids]

\
what ios a more impressive feat?
memorising the entire WTC?
or playing chopin's 10/2 like vadim rudenko?

thats more interesting

whats more substanial? Playing 10/2 really fast or playing the WTC?

[I Love Xenakis]

whats more substanial? Playing 10/2 really fast or playing the WTC?

The question wasn't what's more substantial; it was what's more impressive.  Also, nobody said we weren't allowed to have a page-turner ^^


I'd say performing all 24 of Chopin's Etudes is more impressive than one of the books of WTK since WTK is well, not considering length, a lot easier.

[stevie]

whats more substanial? Playing 10/2 really fast or playing the WTC?

depends, WTC is more musically substantial, 10/2 - more technically substantial.

and lots of people have played the WTC, NOONE has played 10/2 at rudenko's speed, that is the point, and so - the more unique feat could be considered the most substantial.

[zheer]

Its funny you should ask this, cause i was recently thinking what is more demanding, the 32 sonatas by Beethoven or the 24 Chopin Etude. OMFG i love these 2 composers.

[I Love Xenakis]

Are you serious?


Hammerklavier, Les Adieux, Op. 109, Op. 110 and Op. 111 together would probably be more insane that doing Chopin op. 10/25/28

[kriskicksass]

Are you serious?


Hammerklavier, Les Adieux, Op. 109, Op. 110 and Op. 111 together would probably be more insane that doing Chopin op. 10/25/28

Expecially true when you consider that Beethoven's writing is much less pianistic than Chopin's.

[pita bread]

The WTC is the more difficult and impressive program IMO. There's so much more music in the WTC and it's harder to memorize, and the technical challenge is greater. Seems like a no-brainer to me...

Mass-debatable.

The WTC performance would be quite a feat but wouldn't impress me more than the performance of the Chopin etudes.

[lisztisforkids]

depends, WTC is more musically substantial, 10/2 - more technically substantial.

and lots of people have played the WTC, NOONE has played 10/2 at rudenko's speed, that is the point, and so - the more unique feat could be considered the most substantial.

You are saying that one chopin etude is more technically substantial than the WTC? Give me a break. While I do realize that 10/2 at Rudenkos speed is a marvel, does it really pan out against a whole set of the WTC?

[pita bread]

You are saying that one chopin etude is more technically substantial than the WTC? Give me a break. While I do realize that 10/2 at Rudenkos speed is a marvel, does it really pan out against a whole set of the WTC?

The WTC is not much of a technical landmark when compared to Chopin's etudes.

[lisztisforkids]

The WTC is not much of a technical landmark when compared to Chopin's etudes.

Uhh..... Much of western music is based on the WTC. Havent you ever heard of the 'Bible of Classical music?'. Its just as technically difficult, just not as flashy to some people.

[pita bread]

Uhh..... Much of western music is based on the WTC. Havent you ever heard of the 'Bible of Classical music?'. Its just as technically difficult, just not as flashy to some people.

I said technical, not musical. And when I say technical, I am talking about physical technique, not musical technique.

Assuming that we are talking about good performances, a performance of the complete Chopin etudes should be far more physically taxing than a performance of the WTC.

[stevie]

You are saying that one chopin etude is more technically substantial than the WTC? Give me a break. While I do realize that 10/2 at Rudenkos speed is a marvel, does it really pan out against a whole set of the WTC?

point is - i could learn to play the whole wtc at a good standard if i had the time and will.

but to perform the 10/2 at rudenko tempo, its a more unqiue feat, noone else has done it, many people have played the WTC

[musicsdarkangel]

All of the Chopin etudes are different technically, where-as the WTC technique is usually similar.


If you learn the 3rd P+F, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to learn any of the other ones.... or much easier.


If you learn a Chopin etude..... well, you've just learned a Chopin Etude; and it won't help you as much with the rest.

However, I am not sure what I would be more impressed with.  Since Bach comes more easily to me, perhaps the etudes.

[BoliverAllmon]

depends, WTC is more musically substantial, 10/2 - more technically substantial.

and lots of people have played the WTC, NOONE has played 10/2 at rudenko's speed, that is the point, and so - the more unique feat could be considered the most substantial.

who has played the WTC in one recital? I haven't heard of it being done.

[contrapunctus]

I would say the WTC, mainly because it actually requires talent to play. Here are some things that you need to be able to do that you don't need in the etudes.

1) Clarity
2) ability to bring out different voices and the left and right hands must be equal.
3) I don't know if you have heard a rec. of the WTC, but I would have to say that many parts of it actually require more speed than the etudes.

[pita bread]

I would say the WTC, mainly because it actually requires talent to play. Here are some things that you need to be able to do that you don't need in the etudes.

1) Clarity
2) ability to bring out different voices and the left and right hands must be equal.
3) I don't know if you have heard a rec. of the WTC, but I would have to say that many parts of it actually require more speed than the etudes.

Lets see,

To play Chopin etudes, or almost any virtuosic repertoire, you'll need:

1. Clarity, unless you want to sound like crap
2. Ability to bring out different voices and the left and right hands must be equal, aka. polyphonic playing, which can be found in most of the etudes, but very notably in Op. 10 #3, 4, 6,
3. Speed - I don't know if you're deaf or something but how many of the WTC PFs require more speed than Op. 10 #1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12 and Op. 25 #2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12?

[cjp_piano]

Everyone quit your bitching, geez.

It IS very difficult to play the WTC, in a different way than the difficulty of the Chopin.   Both would be impressive in their own ways, but how can you even compare Bach to Chopin?!?!  

I did hear a recital of the enitre Book 1, but it was played by 4 rotating pianists.

I also found this article of a pianist playing BOTH BOOKS!

https://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/1997/october/1020acrsch.html

[arensky]

Chopin's music is monophonic. It is not really all that different from playing popular music. You have the tune and the chord progression. It's easier for you, and your average audience will enjoy it more, because it's easier for them to relate to. Yeah there's a lot of notes, but by and large the acheivement and feat is a physical one, or one that is acheived through physical acts. The Chopin Etudes are extraordinary pieces, by no means are they spewage, like many etude type pieces by other composers. BUT it is still primarily a physical stunt. Playing the Bach WTC, one book or the other or both is a mental feat, even with a page turner, as ILX has cleverly pointed out. And if the WTC recital were the easier accomplishment, we would hear that more. I have been to three different complete Chopin Etudes recitals by three different pianists (Youri Egorov, Christopher O'Riley, Juana Zayas) but have as yet, as BA points out, to have the oppurtunity to attend a complete WTC recital, of either book let alone both. And for anyone to dismiss the technical challenge of Bach; well you know what you said. Now you have some Karma repair to do.


It is the difference between Patton and Rommel (master tacticians, = chopin etudes) and Alexander and Napoleon (master strategists AND tacticians, = bach WTC), to borrow a similar example from military history.

[pita bread]

And for anyone to dismiss the technical challenge of Bach; well you know what you said. Now you have some Karma repair to do.

Naw. I specifically stated that I was talking about the physical aspect.

But now that you bring up the mental challenge of the WTCs, don't you think it would take am equally horrendous amount of mental control to pull off all the Chopin etudes, live, with the same amount of precision, clarity, and expression as one would expect from a performance of the WTC?

[I Love Xenakis]

It is the difference between Patton and Rommel (master tacticians, = chopin etudes) and Alexander and Napoleon (master strategists AND tacticians, = bach WTC), to borrow a similar example from military history.

You're retarded.  Your analogy is retarded.  Your logic is retarded.


The Chopin Etudes don't require "strategy"?  what does "strategy" even mean?  I assume it means "complex playing", and if it doesn't then you shouldn't have been so vague.  A single Chopin Etude is more difficult than any of the WTK P/F.  Since in ONE book, which was the original question, there are 24 P/F, and there are 24 Chopin Etudes, and a single Chopin Etude is MUCH much much more difficult than a single P/F, the 24 Chopin Etudes are therefore more difficult than a book of the WTK.  And while Bach's work may require a couple things that the Chopin Etudes don't, the Chopin Etudes, as a whole, require a myriad of things that the WTK doesn't even touch.

[arensky]

Naw. I specifically stated that I was talking about the physical aspect.

But now that you bring up the mental challenge of the WTCs, don't you think it would take am equally horrendous amount of mental control to pull off all the Chopin etudes, live, with the same amount of precision, clarity, and expression as one would expect from a performance of the WTC?

No, not equally.

[arensky]

You're retarded.  Your analogy is retarded.  Your logic is retarded.


The Chopin Etudes don't require "strategy"?  what does "strategy" even mean?  I assume it means "complex playing", and if it doesn't then you shouldn't have been so vague.  A single Chopin Etude is more difficult than any of the WTK P/F.  Since in ONE book, which was the original question, there are 24 P/F, and there are 24 Chopin Etudes, and a single Chopin Etude is MUCH much much more difficult than a single P/F, the 24 Chopin Etudes are therefore more difficult than a book of the WTK.  And while Bach's work may require a couple things that the Chopin Etudes don't, the Chopin Etudes, as a whole, require a myriad of things that the WTK doesn't even touch.

By strategy I meant having to put some thought into what you're playing while you're playing it, as opposed to learning a melody set with a complicated technical pattern (Chopin Etude), which once it is mastered is primarily a physical response controlled by muscle memory. The Preludes and Fugues require both technical skill and mental control, to a greater degree than the Chopin Etudes. I am not saying that the Chopin Etudes are an easy accomplishment. I think either book of the WTC would be more difficult to learn and perform WELL than both books of the Chopin Etudes. You think differently. But why does this provoke you to name calling?

[I Love Xenakis]

*in a high, squeely voice* Oh I love Xenakis!  You're so right!  I relish in your rightness!  You are always right and I am always wrong when I am contradicting you, and I'm wrong some other times too!  rawr rawr rawr pet me ^^

*pet pet*

[arensky]

*pet pet*

You are very strange....

[I Love Xenakis]

hahahaha   almost definitely.


ARG I HATE THIS 60 SECOND RULE!!!

[tompilk]

I would prefer liszt 12 transcendental etudes...

[I Love Xenakis]

I prefer complete works by all composers ever.


times 2.

[thejoel]

 Since in ONE book, which was the original question, there are 24 P/F, and there are 24 Chopin Etudes, and a single Chopin Etude is MUCH much much more difficult than a single P/F, the 24 Chopin Etudes are therefore more difficult than a book of the WTK.  And while Bach's work may require a couple things that the Chopin Etudes don't, the Chopin Etudes, as a whole, require a myriad of things that the WTK doesn't even touch.

And how are you defining "difficult"?

[pita bread]

No, not equally.

Not equally indeed; it takes more mental control to control the technique and focus on music in the etudes than simply focusing on music in the WTC.

[countchocula]

In fact, the Etudes are quite substantial enough musically, which is the miracle, that they are not just technical showpieces.  The entire set is truly a musical miracle, all things considered. 
IT IS POMPOUS AND ARROGANT TO CALL ONE SET MUSICALLY MORE "SUBSTANTIAL" THAN THE OTHER!  You all sound foolish and ridiculous.
It's probably more difficult to memorize the entire WTC than the Etudes, but physically the Etudes are way more demanding, that is for sure - any pianist that has studied both will tell you.
For me, I am more comfortable perfoming all the Etudes than even a few of the WTC, simply because of my own strengths and weaknesses.  But I know pianists who are very good at Bach, that can't make it through some of those Etudes.  So the difficulty of each lies in the individual.  Like Richter said: " "dificult" is what you can't do".

[cjp_piano]

IT IS POMPOUS AND ARROGANT TO CALL ONE SET MUSICALLY MORE "SUBSTANTIAL" THAN THE OTHER!  You all sound foolish and ridiculous.

It's probably more difficult to memorize the entire WTC than the Etudes, but physically the Etudes are way more demanding, that is for sure - any pianist that has studied both will tell you.
For me, I am more comfortable perfoming all the Etudes than even a few of the WTC, simply because of my own strengths and weaknesses.  But I know pianists who are very good at Bach, that can't make it through some of those Etudes.  So the difficulty of each lies in the individual.  Like Richter said: " "dificult" is what you can't do".

Well put.  The difficulty totally depends on the person playing.  What would impresses me is an outstanding performance of either.