Re: just what, exactly, does it prove - if you play the worlds hardest piece?

[stevie]

hahahaha indeed

[stevie]

of course, the original question(what is the hardest piece ever composed...), if open ended like it is, is a little redundant because any 'impossibly hard' piece can be beaten by another guy who makes one that is just that little bit more complex and long.

the more interesting question to me was 'what is the hardest piece that actually sounds good and has actually been played'?

general concensus is that the opus cleavagecumbucket(sp) is the hardest piece ever recorded, for its complexity and length primarily. regardless of whether it actually sounds good or not, i think most people will agree.

the thing i wish to bring up IS, what exactly does playing this piece, and this kind of piece('super-hard') actually prove?

does it prove the person who plays it has one of the best techniques in the world? does it prove they are the greatest pianist? does it just prove they can sight read incredibly well?

i brought up a point in a previous post, regarding which is the most difficult feat - playing chopin's 10/2 in under 1 minute(with no cheating), or simply playing the opus cleavage...as written and intended?

they are different kinds of feats of course, one is all about taking in and playing lots and lots of complex notes and figurations, in essence - a mental task, wheras the chopin task is all about dexterity and technique.

something to think about, because there is alot of debates about the hardest piece, and i just have to question, what does it mean and prove to actually play the hardest pieces?

[ahinton]

Absolutely nothing, I would guess, beyond the fact that that the player
(a) believes him/herself to be certain as to what piece that is and
(b) has learnt and played it.

As you will already realise, there has long been another thread about the "world's hardest piece" on this forum and - as you and anyone else might expect - it has produced no incontrovertible evidence that any one specific piece merits that particular epithet; even if there were such evidence and one piece was universally agreed to be the "world's hardest", this qualification would doubtless prove to be something of a poisoned chalice for it...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

...the opus cleavagecumbucket(sp)...

Some of us know that you are aware of the correct spelling so, for the benefit of those readers (if any) who have never heard of Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum, it might have been more helpful had you used it at least once, dear Stevage...

i brought up a point in a previous post, regarding which is the most difficult feat - playing chopin's 10/2 in under 1 minute(with no cheating), or simply playing the opus cleavage...as written and intended?

they are different kinds of feats of course, one is all about taking in and playing lots and lots of complex notes and figurations, in essence - a mental task, wheras the chopin task is all about dexterity and technique.

The answer here is perhaps less as you suggest it to be than it is that playing Chopin's Op. 1 No. 2 meaningfully in less than a minute rather than "as written and intended" might be a less worthy exercise than playing Opus Clavicembalisticum "as written and intended"; that said, whereas these two would indeed be very different feats, as you write, please don't accordingly try to persuade anyone that both do not involve very considerable "dexterity and technique"...

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

playing the notes of the sorabji alone(i mean at a very slow tempo), does require coordination, but not much technique and dexterity as i would see it, playing it at the required tempo is a different matter, and now that i have thought about it, the sorabji could in theory be a more difficult task physically IF it requires more 'finger speed' than 10/2 under a minute.

although i doubt this...i looked through the score of the sorabji and i couldnt see any exact tempos.

madge, ogdon, and powell, have all played this piece, but id consider none of them to have among the greatest dexterity and technique of all pianists(im going out on a limb with powell, because ive only heard a couple of samples), and im sure none of them could do 10/2 in under a minute.

fact is, NOONE has played 10/2 under a minute, some have come close though....but at least 3 people have played the sorabji..

if i could make an analogy, the achievment of playing the sorabji is akin to finding your way and remembering the way through a huge complex obstacle course, lots of different physical tasks to do, and very mentally taxing, but no real need for the kind of speed (=dexterity)that it would take to run 100m in 9.5 seconds, which would probably be the equivelant of the 10/2.

[ahinton]

if i could make an analogy, the achievment of playing the sorabji is akin to finding your way and remembering the way through a huge complex obstacle course, lots of different physical tasks to do, and very mentally taxing, but no real need for the kind of speed (=dexterity)that it would take to run 100m in 9.5 seconds, which would probably be the equivelant of the 10/2.

The analogy is not too bad in some respects, but the only difference in terms of digital desterity between playing OC and playing Chopin Op. 10 No. 2 in under a minute is that the former merely has passages where such dexterity in both hands is essential (the Fantasia and Toccata are perhaps the most extended ones, but there's no shortage of others) whereas the latter would require that kind of dexterity of the right hand alone from first note to last.

One important point about Mr Powell's performances of OC (of which let us hope that there will be more soon) is that he never appears to display any sense of struggle in doing anything that the composer requires of the pianist in that work (which fact is nevertheless not, of course, intended to be taken to mean that he has not had to put in a lot of hard work to get his performance of it to the level that he has...).

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

i understand what you mean, it DOES take an incredible amount of dexterity to negotiate some of the most difficult passages of the sorabji at a fast tempo, with perfect accuracy.

the point is, powell may have a great technique and dexterity, and he could easily PLAY 10/2, but i REALLY doubt that he could play it anywhere near the tempo i state, plainly speaking the dexterity required for the feat i prescribed would have to be the worlds best, maybe even impossible by anyone living today.

there is a difference between MASTERING a technique and excelling in it, this is the whole point of my discussion, chopin etudes are a better means of comparitevely judging technique than the sorabji piece.

i chose 10/2 because it is the best etude for judging dexterity at its most elite, it seperates the great techniques from the BEST techniques.
true, it just deals with right hand dexterity, but this is almost irrelevant, lets add the godowsky LH 10/2 , under 1 minute too, and we have the best means of judging overall dexterity, to my knowledge.

[bearzinthehood]

Why do you have this silly obsession with technical difficulty.  A computer can "play" 10/2 in under 1 second, does this make it a great artist?

[stevie]

Why do you have this silly obsession with technical difficulty.  A computer can "play" 10/2 in under 1 second, does this make it a great artist?

why do billions of sports fans have a 'silly obsession' with other physical disciplines?

this is nothing to do with musical artistry, it is an altogether different aspect of piano playing- the raw dexterity and capability of the playing mechanism.
anyone who is seriously interested in piano playing, and not just for the sake of music or art, will also have an interest in this.

another observation - a car can drive 100 metres in under a second too, so why do people still run races?

[ahinton]

i understand what you mean, it DOES take an incredible amount of dexterity to negotiate some of the most difficult passages of the sorabji at a fast tempo, with perfect accuracy.

the point is, powell may have a great technique and dexterity, and he could easily PLAY 10/2, but i REALLY doubt that he could play it anywhere near the tempo i state, plainly speaking the dexterity required for the feat i prescribed would have to be the worlds best, maybe even impossible by anyone living today.

there is a difference between MASTERING a technique and excelling in it, this is the whole point of my discussion, chopin etudes are a better means of comparitevely judging technique than the sorabji piece.

i chose 10/2 because it is the best etude for judging dexterity at its most elite, it seperates the great techniques from the BEST techniques.
true, it just deals with right hand dexterity, but this is almost irrelevant, lets add the godowsky LH 10/2 , under 1 minute too, and we have the best means of judging overall dexterity, to my knowledge.

The other point here (which I omitted to mention previously as I thought it might have spoken tacitly for itself) is that there is no obvious reason why Mr Powell (or anyone else, for that matter) would actually want to play Chopin Op. 10 No. 2 in under a minute, other than to prove that he could - and I doubt very much that he would hav the slightest interest in pulling off any such stunt even for that reason.

By "technique" - which in fact is a notion that by proper definition embraces all aspects of a player's facility and ability to communicate - I take you to mean "mécanique", which is just one of the necessities that go to make up a player's overall technique; furthermore, your point here is only about one aspect of that mécanique - i.e. the ability to play very rapid passagework in single notes with unerring accuracy. Being able to play that Chopin étude in less than 60 seconds with unfailing accuracy not only of pitches but of phrasing, dynamics, etc. would certainly require an advanced digital facility, but then so - as you agree - would certain passages in OC as they should be played; it remains unclear, therefore, what qualifies the former but not the latter as possessing "the best means of judging overall dexterity".

Since you are writing specifically about rapid passage-work here, it may be worth noting, for example, that one could as easily cite an extended passage from Finnissy's Fourth Concerto as demanding a similarly well-developed dexterity to bring it off as it should be - and as I have indeed heard Mr Powell do.

It seems to me that the primary prerequisite for determining what piece (or part thereof) is a valid and viable "means of judging overall dexterity" is a thorough and sound practical knowledge and experience of the music concerned; I am not here seeking to "judge" your judgement here, but it would not be unreasonable to surmise that you might have arrived at your conclusion by means - and as a consequence - of your greater familiarity with the Chopin example than with the Sorabji one.

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

well, firstly, yes - it is a habit, by technique and dexterity, i simply mean the playing mechanism, the power and speed it is capable of.
all other elements of technique cannot truly be objectively judged, still - this 'mechanique' is the area of primary interest to most enthusiatic fans of pianistic virtuosity, the speed and accuracy with which one can negotiate the piano.

at its most basic, the primary areas of the playing mechanism are the 10 fingers, and the 2 wrists...

the most raw and basic, maybe even ideal means of comparing the ability of a pianists mechanism is raw repeated octaves, repeating on the same note and finding which pianist can do them the fastest, or who can sustain their speed for longer.
with fingers this is more difficult, trills are the most basic way, but as you know the 'technique' for playing them can involve use of the wrist, and thereby invalidating the results, so the only way would be to make sure that the wrist cant assist - like in the dohnanyi exercises, relying purely upon the fingers own ability.

now, the reason for choosing 10/2 is that forces you to use minimal wrist(as compared to 25/6) and rely more purely upon finger dexterity alone, with the outer fingers.

and yes, alot of pieces can be used as means to compare techniques, but chopin etudes are more commonly played, and many of the greatest pianists have played them...

[ahinton]

why do billions of sports fans have a 'silly obsession' with other physical disciplines?

this is nothing to do with musical artistry, it is an altogether different aspect of piano playing- the raw dexterity and capability of the playing mechanism.
anyone who is seriously interested in piano playing, and not just for the sake of music or art, will also have an interest in this.

another observation - a car can drive 100 metres in under a second too, so why do people still run races?

Leaving the sporting and driving comparisions on one side (for all their admitted validity), it is one thing to have a "silly obsession" with such matters, but it is quite another to recognise their importance as part of an entire panoply of disciplines that the instrumentalist must master in order to present his art. Liszt understood this many years ago when he (reportedly) castigated a student with the words "do you think I care how fast you play octaves?!"; I do not seek to act as Liszt's interpretative mouthpiece here, but I suspect that what he meant was that he did indeed care how fast the student could play octaves, though in terms not of how he/she could impress anyone with that facility alone but of the artistic rationale for rapid octave passagework where the music requires it.

Since we are considering pianists here, it must be said that, from the standpoint of the observer in the audience, the more physically undemonstrative the pianist is in his/her octave work, rapid chord despatch, passagework accuracy and velocity, etc., the less of an impression will be made in terms of eliciting attendees' amazement at their successful negotiation, even if the musical results are still less than entirely satisfying; when those results are also wholly satisfying, these physical feats of virtuosity alone will make even less of an impression still.

Of those great pianists especially known for their physical undemonstrativeness at the keyboard, Rakhmaninov and Michelangeli are generally agreed to have possesed highly developed physical facilities that enabled them to accomplish all manner of feats of virtuosity; I think that it is also generally recognised that it is their artistic achievements, enabled by discreet use of those facilities, that made the principal impression.

Likewise, some challenging piano works are far more likely than others to satisfy those who seem to regard piano performance as some kind of athletic spectator sport; many pianists know, for example, the feats of mental / digital dexterity and co-ordination involved in successful presentation of the Chopin/Godowsky Studies - just as they also know that such presentation is unlikely to cut much ice with such "spectators", since these works offer very few opportunites to gawp at keyboard gymnastics...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

well, firstly, yes - it is a habit, by technique and dexterity, i simply mean the playing mechanism, the power and speed it is capable of.
all other elements of technique cannot truly be objectively judged, still - this 'mechanique' is the area of primary interest to most enthusiatic fans of pianistic virtuosity, the speed and accuracy with which one can negotiate the piano.

"Fans of pianistic virtuosity" is clearly exposed as the kernel of your argument here; as I have already observed, what interests such people as an end in itself is in fact a mere servant of the artistic reason for the composition and performance of the music itself, however "virtuosic" some of it may be.

and yes, alot of pieces can be used as means to compare techniques, but chopin etudes are more commonly played, and many of the greatest pianists have played them...

This is, of course, true - but then I already wrote in an earlier post on this subject that "the primary prerequisite for determining what piece (or part thereof) is a valid and viable "means of judging overall dexterity" is a thorough and sound practical knowledge and experience of the music concerned". Whilst it is therefore inevitable that more people are currently able to exercise such judgements by reference to the Chopin than to the Sorabji due to greater familiarity with the former, that fact does not of itself necessarily define the Chopin as an intrinsically superior means of enabling such judgement.

Lest I be misunderstood, I should perhaps clarify at this point that I yield to none in my respect, love and admiration for Chopin's études - especially those of Op. 10 which were written, for God's sake, by a composer still in his 'teens; I also happen to believe that the Godowsky studies on them constitute one of the most remarkable commentaries on them and that they were made with like respect, love and admiration (not to mention a phenomenal technique and imagination!).

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

that last part isnt true about the godowsky, especially in libetta's hands, he generally plays them faster than hamelin.

of course, we all realise technique and the playing mechanism is a 'means to an end' , that end being musical, BUT i also am of the opinion that it can be and often IS an end in itself, and that to achieve a world class technique ALONE and to be musically a poor pianist IS a great achievment, as great as that of a wolrd class sportsman.

the point i have made numerous times is that i am a fan of virtuosity for its own sake, and unashamedly so. this doesnt mean i am not a huge fan of music. it just means that in my view, the physical and musical aspects of piano playing can be seperated and be admired seperately.

though i do agree, that virtuosity as a whole, the combination of wonderful musical artisty and supreme pianistic 'sportsmanship' is the thing that makes piano playing and music so viscerally and aesthetically pleasing, the excitement of both the sound produced , and the physical feats it takes to produce them, makes them all the more exciting, psychologically.

[stevie]

This is, of course, true - but then I already wrote in an earlier post on this subject that "the primary prerequisite for determining what piece (or part thereof) is a valid and viable "means of judging overall dexterity" is a thorough and sound practical knowledge and experience of the music concerned". Whilst it is therefore inevitable that more people are currently able to exercise such judgements by reference to the Chopin than to the Sorabji due to greater familiarity with the former, that fact does not of itself necessarily define the Chopin as an intrinsically superior means of enabling such judgement.

i did explain, the etude 10/2 in particular restricts the assistance of the risk and relies more purely than any other normal double note piece/passage on the dexterity of the fingers alone, particularly the outer ones.

and the godowsky studies are often more multi-figurational, not as good for comparing in an atheletic way - sustaining the same figuration for a longer period of time is more demanding for that one area of technique it covers(this is the main reason i believe chopin etudes require more discipline than liszt etudes).

one exception is the LH 10/2, and that is nearly as great an example of a 'dexterity' tester as the original 10/2 is(the difference being, the contours of the LH version allow slightly more wrist assistance)

[bearzinthehood]

anyone who is seriously interested in piano playing, and not just for the sake of music or art, will also have an interest in this.

If the piano is not to be used in the pursuit of art, then it best not be used at all.

[stevie]

If the piano is not to be used in the pursuit of art, then it best not be used at all.

your opinion....ive stated mine

[bearzinthehood]

your opinion....ive stated mine

fair enough

[ahinton]

that last part isnt true about the godowsky, especially in libetta's hands, he generally plays them faster than hamelin.

I know he does (and I note here that you refrain from comparisons with Grante or Hatto, or with any of the other pianists who have only performed/recorded some rather than all of these works - Hobson, Béroff, Berezovsky, etc. - in this particular regard), but the sheer fact of this additional velocity (in those cases where it applies) still does not of itself make his performances of these pieces any more of a viable spectator sport to observe with the eye. Naturally, pianists with some understanding of all that is involved in preparing and presenting these pieces will be more impressed by Libetta's achievement with them than those who do not have that knowledge, but my point here is that these works have few examples of extreme leaps, rapid octaves and the other kinds of requirement whose presentation is more obvious to the semi-trained eye, their principal challenges being instead in the sensitive balancing and articulation of multiple linear layers and other issues more closely related to matters of hand-eye co-ordination; furthermore, they are less amenable to physically demonstrative playing in any case.

What you haven't yet told us (although, to be fair, you've not yet been asked to do so in as many words), is whether you might consider certain passages in OC as equally useful determinants of a pianist's abilities in extended examples of rapid single-note passagework were your practical familiarity with them as great as it is with Chopin's Op. 10 No. 2; perhaps you might feel inclined to enlighten us on that, if you are able.

Best,

Alistair

[tds]

Re: just what, exactly, does it prove - if you play the worlds hardest piece?

that you are 'stevie' enough

[stevie]

I know he does (and I note here that you refrain from comparisons with Grante or Hatto, or with any of the other pianists who have only performed/recorded some rather than all of these works - Hobson, Béroff, Berezovsky, etc. - in this particular regard), but the sheer fact of this additional velocity (in those cases where it applies) still does not of itself make his performances of these pieces any more of a viable spectator sport to observe with the eye. Naturally, pianists with some understanding of all that is involved in preparing and presenting these pieces will be more impressed by Libetta's achievement with them than those who do not have that knowledge, but my point here is that these works have few examples of extreme leaps, rapid octaves and the other kinds of requirement whose presentation is more obvious to the semi-trained eye, their principal challenges being instead in the sensitive balancing and articulation of multiple linear layers and other issues more closely related to matters of hand-eye co-ordination; furthermore, they are less amenable to physically demonstrative playing in any case.

true, they are the primary challenges in most of the godowsky studies, atheletic displays take a back seat.

there are 53 of them though..., at least the op10/1version 1, 10/2 - both versions, and many of the fast paced ones offer an 'atheletic challenge'.

the 10/1 version doesnt sound as good when played super fast though, it loses the grandeur, but it can still be used an an arpeggio challenge for both hands...

certain LH etudes like the 10/4 and 10/12 really do IMO sound better taken at a tempo similar to the original, this is VERY challenging, and all the moreso because the pianist has to maintain the clarity of the various simultanious lines whilst keeping the breakneck pace.

this is where i feel hamelin is lacking in some of the etudes...he lacks the fire, he has the clarity, plays all the notes, but not fast enough to produce the fire that libetta does with his 10/4 LH rendition in particular.

berezovsky is very impressive too, but his LH dexterity isnt quite at the level of libetta, as i have observed.

What you haven't yet told us (although, to be fair, you've not yet been asked to do so in as many words), is whether you might consider certain passages in OC as equally useful determinants of a pianist's abilities in extended examples of rapid single-note passagework were your practical familiarity with them as great as it is with Chopin's Op. 10 No. 2; perhaps you might feel inclined to enlighten us on that, if you are able.

im not intimately familiar with the piece, of course there are examples of rapid single-note passagework, and the OC covers just about every pianistic figuration known to man.

ive noticed there are brief parts with a figuration similar to that of 10/2, but it doesnt look as though they are meant to be played extremely fast.

in any case, ANY passage in any piececan be used to compare the mechanism of a pianist in that particular figuration.

the question IS....which figuration provides the most efficient means of determening the 'raw mechanical ability' of a pianist, if played with the utmost velocity, accuracy and control.

ANY figuration will provide some insight, to some degree, but some provide more obvious results than others, some are more 'pure'.

chopin etudes are precisely this, they provide sustained essays running with certain pianistic figurations, thus - the mechanism of the player can be measured in terms of both basic speed, and endurance - due to the fact the figuration is sustained - varied upon, but still using the same finger groupings.

10/2 is not simple single note runs....i dont know where you got this impression from.
10/1 has arpeggios, 10/8 has scalar/arpeggio figures, thing is - they involve use of the wrist combined with the fingers, so they arent ideal means of determening finger dexterity, just like 25/6 - the wrist is heavily involved in the playing of 3rds.

in 10/2 the weakest fingers are forced to work more than in any other etude.

of course we can also isolate the stronger fingers, 123, but they are covered in most rapid passages in the repertoire, the purpose of 10/2 is to determine the dexterity of the weak fingers..

[ahinton]

the 10/1 version doesnt sound as good when played super fast though, it loses the grandeur, but it can still be used an an arpeggio challenge for both hands...

This is true on both counts; Grante still takes it at quite a fast pace, but not too fast, I think.

10/2 is not simple single note runs....i dont know where you got this impression from.

Of course it isn't JUST that, as well I know - but the object is nevertheless to ensure that those "weakest" fingers to which you later draw attention can execute a long passage in single notes unfettered by the chords that the other right hand fingers have also to play as part of that texture.

Where, as a matter of interest, would you place Libetta's compatriot Grante in your general estimate of various pianists' achievements with the Chopin/Godowsky Studies?

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

well, i havent heard anything more than samples of his chopin-godowsky, and ive read reviews. the only full recording i have is of the passacaglia which ive compared with hamelin's, and hamelin clearly sounded the technical superior of the two, by comparison, to me.

another thought, when considering how some of these 'super-virtuosi' seem to sometimes outshine eachother in particular repertoire, other than the obvious fact that some may have particular technical strengths(better left hand octaves, for example) superior to the others, is....that in a situation like this, a comparison with a formula 1 racing driver can be appropriate.
the driver with the slight edge in driving technique and slight edge in the speed of his engine, would always have the advantage if it were not for 1 simple fact - on a course that the superior driver does not know as intimately as the others, and hasnt had as much time to rehearse, a driver with slightly less speed and ability COULD take over him and win the race due to specialized intimate experience with that one particular race course.

this comparison can be used to explain cziffra's recordings of 10/2 and 10/4, as compared to richter's, richter is clearly the faster of the two, but from my experience, in general, cziffra is the one with the greater finger dexterity!
other, musical decisions aside, richter just practised those particular etudes more, and specialized in them.

this may be how hamelin can be outshined, technically,  with some of his repertoire that he doesnt work on as much as others - and actually, the small samples of original chopin etudes that he played in the 'supervirtuoso' documentary, along with the recording and video of his own 'triple etude'(using some of the figurations from 10/2 and 25/11) have been laughed at by some people i talk to, because of their lack of speed and evenness as compared to some of the great recordings...
how can this be? how can such a great technician as hamelin not be as good in these bits of chopin etudes?
i think its simply because he just doesnt practice them, or at least hasnt in a very long time....

[mephisto]

this may be how hamelin can be outshined, technically,  with some of his repertoire that he doesnt work on as much as others - and actually, the small samples of original chopin etudes that he played in the 'supervirtuoso' documentary, along with the recording and video of his own 'triple etude'(using some of the figurations from 10/2 and 25/11) have been laughed at by some people i talk to, because of their lack of speed and evenness as compared to some of the great recordings...
how can this be? how can such a great technician as hamelin not be as good in these bits of chopin etudes?
i think its simply because he just doesnt practice them, or at least hasnt in a very long time....

Why? It is clearly that he played them slow on purpose just as an example of what etudes he was using in his own etude.
It is obvious to me that some one who can play the Chopin - Godowsky etudes like Hamelin also can play the Chopin etudes with insane virtousity.

[ahinton]

Why? It is clearly that he played them slow on purpose just as an example of what etudes he was using in his own etude.

Precisely. Back in 1977, I wrote a piece based on the three A minor études of Chopin (called Les Trois Chopins) but then discovered that Godowsky had apparently done this, so I discarded it. In the early 1990s, Marc-André Hamelin played me his Triple Étude and it prompted me to rework mine from memory and dedicate it to him, which I did (it's now called Étude en forme de Chopin). As with Hamelin's piece, anyone wanting to take it at the speed of 10/2 or 25/11 would be on a hiding to nothing, as it would sound like nonsense even from a pianist who could (improbably) negotiate all the notes accurately and correctly balanced at that speed.

Best,

Alistair

[march05]

i think one of the motivations to try to play the generally considered very-hard pieces is to prove, at least to yourself, that you can do it, that you are there technically... this is quite important i think because it's probably very hard nowadays to survive in the piano profession if you don't have an adequate technique to compete on...

regarding most-difficult piece: it's very easy to write a difficult piece for piano, use a computer to spit out random notes in piano style and voila we'll have created a new unplayably difficult piece. the challenge is to create both difficult AND good music, otherwise there's not much point to learn them i think...

EDIT: just to be clear, i don't really mean to include sorabji or finnissy[?] compositions among the "generally considered very-hard pieces". they are very avant-garde and (today) very far from mainstream piano music that most pianists feed on. to learn them is certainly a challenge, but if i could pick one piece to play really well, i'd definitely choose the Rach3 instead of Opus Cembalism.

[m]

the driver with the slight edge in driving technique and slight edge in the speed of his engine, would always have the advantage if it were not for 1 simple fact - on a course that the superior driver does not know as intimately as the others, and hasnt had as much time to rehearse, a driver with slightly less speed and ability COULD take over him and win the race due to specialized intimate experience with that one particular race course.

this comparison can be used to explain cziffra's recordings of 10/2 and 10/4, as compared to richter's, richter is clearly the faster of the two, but from my experience, in general, cziffra is the one with the greater finger dexterity!
other, musical decisions aside, richter just practised those particular etudes more, and specialized in them.

Despite the whole silliness of such comparisons, let's for a second adopt such an approach to see what it shows.

First, in formula 1 (as any other sport) the rule is--came first--got the medal (and money prize). In sport nobody really cares how much the performer has been practicing to get it. Nobody really cares about POSSIBILITY of the performer of getting it. Moreover, in sport nobody cares what potential the performer has. Only final result matters, i.e. not what you are ABLE to do, but what you actually DO.

Oh, and in my experience, basing on not only comparison of 10/4 and 10/2, in general, Richter is one with greater finger dexterity, FWIW.

[emmdoubleew]

If the piano is not to be used in the pursuit of art, then it best not be used at all.

That's completely unfair. What about the people who like to play the piano and simply enjoy themselves and relax? No one has any right to tell them it's best they leave the piano alone.

[bearzinthehood]

That's completely unfair. What about the people who like to play the piano and simply enjoy themselves and relax? No one has any right to tell them it's best they leave the piano alone.

You misunderstood.  If you play in order to produce music, then you are using using the piano in the pursuit of art.  If you are simply trying to push buttons as fast as you can, then you should perhaps pursue another hobby.

[emmdoubleew]

You misunderstood.  If you play in order to produce music, then you are using using the piano in the pursuit of art.  If you are simply trying to push buttons as fast as you can, then you should perhaps pursue another hobby.

But why >.<, it's not like you're hurting anyone

[daniel patschan]

Oh, and in my experience, basing on not only comparison of 10/4 and 10/2, in general, Richter is one with greater finger dexterity, FWIW.

How true !

[stevie]

Despite the whole silliness of such comparisons, let's for a second adopt such an approach to see what it shows.

First, in formula 1 (as any other sport) the rule is--came first--got the medal (and money prize). In sport nobody really cares how much the performer has been practicing to get it. Nobody really cares about POSSIBILITY of the performer of getting it. Moreover, in sport nobody cares what potential the performer has. Only final result matters, i.e. not what you are ABLE to do, but what you actually DO.

Oh, and in my experience, basing on not only comparison of 10/4 and 10/2, in general, Richter is one with greater finger dexterity, FWIW.

there is truth in your sports comparison, and because piano playing is alot more complicated, it isnt quite as simple as that, but i take it you assume my analogy, that someone who has the best technique in the world can be 'beaten' in a piece by someone else with great technique, but that has worked on the individual piece much harder.

ive witnessed alot of richter videos and recordings, to me cziffra is clearly the leader in terms of dexterity(and musically, but thats besides the point).

this is of course hard say with facts and figures of raw timings of pianists, because it is well known richter was often a 'rapist', wheras cziffra would chill and release speeds only in spurts and at climatic moments, but at these climatic moments cziffra would be the one achieving greater speeds.

[lostinidlewonder]

All music is hard if it isn't practiced, all music is easy when practiced well. Enough said. We cannot go into counting number of notes, or types of intervals used or speed of notes to determine difficulty, what is easy for me is hard for you and what is easy for you might be hard for me! It all depends on how much time we have had to practice what's in question.

What is the point to do a backflip for instance? It is a tough physical movement to try and do, and doesn't actually improve our life if we manage to do it. But doing it is satisfying, because you can. Same with learning "tough" music, it doesn't make our life any better but it is nice to be able to do it because you can. What else do we need to say with anything we do in life? We do it because we can, not because if we do it we will gain access to immortality, or knowledge special only to yourself, a door that only special people can access which will improve their life. Arrogant musicians are like that, they need a slap in the face and brought back to reality. In 200 years if this world is still around people will be laughing at how we played the piano so we have nothing to boast about.

If you teach a dog how to do a backflip does that make it a better dog? If a pianist can play the hardest piece in the world does that make him a better pianist? No a backflipping dog still bites you if you step on it because it is still a dog despite its backflipping talents, a pianist will still make mistakes in life even if he can manage perfection in the worlds hardest piece. What it does prove is that the person has taken time to train something people normally wouldn't try and do. This requires disipline and a desire to achieve something, of course we find these instances in many more things than just the art of creating sound. I think the results of anything in life which requires hard work and disipline is always admirable and enjoyable to observe it shows what the human can create if they focus their energy.

But learning the "hardest piece" in the world does that mean you are more disiplined and talented than the other person? Of course not! It simply means your interests where in that area, you are interested to study this part of music but you neglect the other, it is always like this, we cannot study everything. If you study the "hardest" music in the world you will definatly neglect the easier music out there. There is no way to play everything with even interest.

We never choose music based on difficulty but on our own musical interest. If something sounds amazing (despite its difficultly) we will be inspired to learn it. If you want something really tough try to play Mozart of Bach with perfection, this is in my opinion as hard as Sorabji who sounds brilliant played by an emotionless computer, put Bach or Mozart on a computer and you will laugh at how stupid it sounds. So difficulty is a very subjective. I personally think all music is at the same difficulty, because to express the "perfect" sound is always very difficult.

[ahinton]

If you want something really tough try to play Mozart of Bach with perfection, this is in my opinion as hard as Sorabji who sounds brilliant played by an emotionless computer, put Bach or Mozart on a computer and you will laugh at how stupid it sounds.

Since all the remainder of the points that you make in your post are eminently valid and sensible and are accordingly v ery much appreciated, it is a pity that you drop your standard of presentation, albeit briefly, in your gratuitous remark about Sorabji. Have you heard Sorabji played through a computer? I doubt it very much. If you had, I suspect that you'd almost certainly find that it sounds far from "brilliant" but more or less as "stupid" as Bach or Mozart does via the same medium - this would be especially true if you had to hand a fine performance by a human being with which immediately to compare it. Sorabji's music was no more intended to be performed other than by human beings than was Bach's or Mozart's. To play Bach or Sorabji well is indeed challenging - just ask Ashkenazy, whose recording of WTK has recently been released, why he won't play it in public...

Best,

Alistair

[tompilk]

do you think an organist would find teh OC less challenging than a pianist?

[lostinidlewonder]

Since all the remainder of the points that you make in your post are eminently valid and sensible and are accordingly v ery much appreciated, it is a pity that you drop your standard of presentation..............

An online piano forum does not demand a standard of a Harvard university article. If so I would probably take much longer in what i write, I just write what comes into my head, I am not so careful since I dont care if people disagree with my uncarefully constructed sentences. Thankyou for pointing out your disaproval, something I notice you do to a lot of posts on this forum.

Have you heard Sorabji played through a computer? I doubt it very much.....

I actually sequenced many parts of the Opus Clavicembalisticum before anyone thought it was interesting on here, and also because I found a big difference to what Madge, Ogdon play to what is written, so with my own efforts I set off to listen to what it should be like.

In my mind a lot of the difficulty in Sorabji is in the ability to play everything without stopping or slowing down. This is something we have to act against when studying Sorabji as well, how to maintain the flow of notes without disrupting our hands, doing things inefficiently. I have studied Sorabji for over 5 years now and do put a lot of his music into computer for academic purposes because a computer can play everything evenly and notewise perfect.

If you had, I suspect that you'd almost certainly find that it sounds far from "brilliant" but more or less as "stupid" as Bach or Mozart does via the same medium - this would be especially true if you had to hand a fine performance by a human being with which immediately to compare it.

Actually I find ideas of Sorabji composition very computeristic. What I mean is that the sound sounds good if it is evenly played and without flexibility to tempo or volume. I don't want to start knocking off examples because the discussion will go too long. Sorabji's change in volume sometimes is very gradual, so you might play over 200 notes before you start getting louder, this means that the notes you play must be controlled, you cannot make changes in sound too quick otherwise you lose the expression. Thus changes in dynamics in Sorabji are much more gradual in comparision to "normal music" because the increased amount of notes needed to present a cresendo or decresendo. Thus I find it very effective if the playing is more even, something a computer can do exceptionally.

[chopinfan_22]

What does it prove if you can play the world's hardest piece?

It proves that you can play the world's hardest piece.

Fine.

[ahinton]

An online piano forum does not demand a standard of a Harvard university article. If so I would probably take much longer in what i write, I just write what comes into my head, I am not so careful since I dont care if people disagree with my uncarefully constructed sentences.

Upon reflection, I agree with what you imply here in that my word "presentation" was not the most appropriate in the circumstances, for which misuse I apologise. Far from expecting any kid of Ivy League approvable response, I merely felt that what you had to say about Sorabji here - as small a part of the overall content of your post as it was - let it down rather - and not just because I happen to disagree with what you wrote about his work.

Thankyou for pointing out your disaproval, something I notice you do to a lot of posts on this forum.

It was disagreement rather than disapproval - and I am quite sure that I am far from being alone in expressing disagreement on this forum when there are things with which to be disagreed; furthermore, I draw your attention to the fact that, at the same time, I made it quite clear that I agreed very much with all the rest of what you wrote in your post, so your reaction here seems to me to come across as a little selective...

I actually sequenced many parts of the Opus Clavicembalisticum before anyone thought it was interesting on here, and also because I found a big difference to what Madge, Ogdon play to what is written, so with my own efforts I set off to listen to what it should be like.

OK - so you have indeed listened to computerised versions of parts of OC; fair enough. You hadn't previously made it clear that you had created these yourself so that you could do this, so as there are no publicly available computerised recorded versions to listen to, I'm sure you will understand the doubt that I expressed, which you have now assuaged by what you have told us.

In my mind a lot of the difficulty in Sorabji is in the ability to play everything without stopping or slowing down. This is something we have to act against when studying Sorabji as well, how to maintain the flow of notes without disrupting our hands, doing things inefficiently.

That's a good point. Jonathan Powell himself has also said that what he sees as the only major difficulty in preparing performances of Sorabji's works is the sheer quantity of events on which one has to concentrate at any one time and the length of time that one sometimes has to maintain those high levels of concentration. That said, it obviously doesn't discourage him as a committed interpreter of this repertoire.

I have studied Sorabji for over 5 years now and do put a lot of his music into computer for academic purposes because a computer can play everything evenly and notewise perfect.

Do you still find, however, that listening to it via this means is in every sense preferable to - and more profitable than - listening to well-prepared, finely wrought and textually accurate performances of it on CD or in the concert hall? (I'm referring here more to other works of Sorabji than to OC).

Actually I find ideas of Sorabji composition very computeristic. What I mean is that the sound sounds good if it is evenly played and without flexibility to tempo or volume. I don't want to start knocking off examples because the discussion will go too long. Sorabji's change in volume sometimes is very gradual, so you might play over 200 notes before you start getting louder, this means that the notes you play must be controlled, you cannot make changes in sound too quick otherwise you lose the expression. Thus changes in dynamics in Sorabji are much more gradual in comparision to "normal music" because the increased amount of notes needed to present a cresendo or decresendo. Thus I find it very effective if the playing is more even, something a computer can do exceptionally.

Again, you make some interesting and considered points here. In the end, I have, however, to disagree with your view that his work is best represented by some kind of largely inhuman (i.e. computerised) presentation just beause such presentation is expected to be more reliable than even the best of humans can achieve in terms of textual accuracy; the principal reason that I do so is that Sorabji's instrumental music was simply not thought out for the purpose of presentation other than by humans playing instruments -  the challenges that it has presented to performers are in the process of being well overcome, so we have increasingly less need to have recourse to the computer to help us wonder what the text, as written, might sound like.

One more, I stress that I write this in disagreement with your stance rather than in "disapproval" of it...

Best,

Alistair

[cloches_de_geneve]

Interesting, interesting .... Much has been said here about 10/2 as the ultimate test of finger dexterity. However, I believe that the dexterity requirements of 10/2 tend to be overrated. The reason is very simple: Some sections of the etude require near acrobatic dexterity, but these sections boil down to 20 seconds of music: Bars 19 to 29, and for me expecially bars 25 to 29. Admittedly, there are a few additional tricky passages, but they are not that impossible in the end. Thus, I just wonder to what extent an etude requiring only 10 to 20 seconds of phenomenal dexterity deserves this mythical status as the most difficult of the chopin etudes and possibiliy one of the most difficult pieces of the entire piano literature.

I apologize in advance for the heresy.

[letters]

surely a brilliant pianist is able. not to play chopin 10/12 in under a minute, but play pieces as close to how the composer wanted them to sound, WHILE bringing their own interpretation to this. Pieces like cleavagewotsit are so difficult and challenging that it would be extremely difficult to get it how the composer wanted, because lets face it no one could quite know what was going through his brain when he wrote that.

and why do people seem to think that the faster you play a fast piece, the better you are? ok you have robot fingers but does it sound nice?? no. take miss texas for example she played whatever that was really fast and it sounds like total crap.

[tompilk]

What does it prove if you can play the world's hardest piece?

It proves that you can play the world's hardest piece.

Fine.

beat me to it...

[stevie]

Interesting, interesting .... Much has been said here about 10/2 as the ultimate test of finger dexterity. However, I believe that the dexterity requirements of 10/2 tend to be overrated. The reason is very simple: Some sections of the etude require near acrobatic dexterity, but these sections boil down to 20 seconds of music: Bars 19 to 29, and for me expecially bars 25 to 29. Admittedly, there are a few additional tricky passages, but they are not that impossible in the end. Thus, I just wonder to what extent an etude requiring only 10 to 20 seconds of phenomenal dexterity deserves this mythical status as the most difficult of the chopin etudes and possibiliy one of the most difficult pieces of the entire piano literature.

I apologize in advance for the heresy.

it is difficult to bring to speed, but its not meant to be thought of as one of the hardest pieces ever, just the ideal 'batling ground' through which to compare the dexterity of the greatest pianists.

we not only compare overall speed, but sectional speed too.

plus it is also possible to tell whom has the best dexterity even when comparing 2 performances of exactly the same timing and exactly the same level of accuracy.

how?

2 main things - evenness of tone, the 'bumpier' it is, the less control and dexterity of the pianist.....AND something less obvious to some, evenness of the spaces between the notes, just like performances of 10/1 generally group 4 notes together then a larger gap between this and the next 4, the less even the spaces = lesser dexterity in most cases.

[bartolomeo_]

What does it prove?  I should imagine that it proves that someone is (a) unwise enough to believe that there is a hardest piece, (b) arrogant enough to think that they are able to determine which piece that is, (c) misguided enough to believe that being able to play it is a worthwhile use of their practice time and skill.

I believe that most of this thinking originates in the mistaken belief that once the most difficult piece is mastered, all else will be easy by comparison.  This is not true for many reasons, not the least of which is that various things make pieces difficult.  And not the least of which is that there is far more to musicianship than being able to play technically demanding material.

[super5james]

Now thats a hard  question but really no one piecie is well there a couple of piecies that are level to that mesaure like Liszt's Spanish Rhapsody and his Sonata in B minor or Beethoven's Op. 110 111. I think it will prove that your level as a pianist has reached your true potential as a pianist.