Where do you rate yourself as a Pianist?

[soliloquy]

Obviously it goes from easiest to hardest.  Where do you stand as a technician of the 88?  For instance, if you can play things by Beethoven and easier, vote Beethoven.

[henrah]

Well I'm able to play nearly all of Liszt's Gnomenreigen, and I consider that quite hard, especially when bringing out the top voice at the beginning.

Though I found Beethoven's Pathetique quite hard, especially the part with 5-1-2-1 fingering that goes from the middle outwards with both hands and starts on E. 5-2-1-2 I can do, but not 5-1-2-1 especially at speed. And as usual, the tremelos give me grief.

So I put down Liszt, even though I haven't tried very much music at all.

[gruffalo]

finishing off liszt - jeux d'eau a la villa d'este. learning Ravel Ondine, can play fully Debussy - reflet dans l'eau, jardins sous la pluie, etude no.1.

only learned two chopin etudes, and nothing else from chopin. but i would rate the liszt jeux d'eau the hardest thing i have played. it's so much damn harder than it sounds or looks.

[emmdoubleew]

Hardest pieces im workin on are the harder chopin nocturnes  (levels 7 & 8, not the hardest ones)

[donjuan]

dont agree with the classification.  I find nothing harder than Bach or Mozart, but I manage Liszt and  Rachmaninoff much more easily.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i don't know.. i've played liszt TE no. 10 in fm, and i thought it was hard but i somehow managed to pull it off, not perfectly though. but i chose chopin bcoz i think the most difficult piece i ever studied was the chopin sonata in Bbm. it's long and musically and technically very challenging for me. also, i did bach partita in a minor, which was also a challenge for me.

but generally, i can't say that i can rate myself with this poll. there are some things which are difficult in certain pieces, but there are also some things very difficult in other pieces ive played. it's like a combination of everything..

the schumann concerto's difficult third movement also made me cry, hahaha.

at the same time, i learned this ultra modern piece (Altered Images by a filipino composer, Chino Toledo) which was commissioned for a competition i joined 2 years ago, it was the hardest thing to memorize for me!!!!!!!! i think i even posted it in the audition room...

(EDIT: minutes later, hehe)

if you want to hear this insane piece, here it is:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13777.msg147938.html#msg147938

[thalbergmad]

I rate myself somewhere between Richard Clayderman and Mylene Klass.

[steve jones]

I play the easier Chopin, Bach and Beethoven. Iv not yet reached a level where I can handle the advanced stuff!

SJ

[gruffalo]

dont agree with the classification.  I find nothing harder than Bach or Mozart, but I manage Liszt and  Rachmaninoff much more easily.

yea, i second that.

[henrah]

Danm it! This thread has already been shown to be subjective? And there I was thinking we could get along with our own opinions disregarding musicality and focusing purely on technical aspects...

[steve jones]

I think that Bach is technically difficult. There is so little room for error. Plus, the finger indepence required is hash!

Is it more technically difficult than Chopin?

Dont know, but Id be happy to consider arguments either way.

SJ

[soliloquy]

The four votes for "Xenakis" would make me think we're lacking some honesty here >>

[pianistimo]

why is xenakis the pinnacle?  isn't this highly subjective.  if you like a certain composer, he's on the list.  if he supposedly has music that is very difficult to paly.  but maybe all that means is that you are a good sightreader - or quick learner.  what about integrating the music with what the composer had in mind - spirit. 

when a simple piece is played with spirit (connection) - it's beautiful. no matter. 

what if there was a competition to play a single note the best you could according to how the composer wrote the note to be played.  to me this would be more insightful than a whole entire piece.  from both a classical and modern look - poulenc is my fav. of the 20th century composers.  along with a few others, i guess.  leroy anderson's piano concerto is cool, too.  and amy beach wasn't a slouch.

[soliloquy]

I used Xenakis since he wrote the most TECHNICALLY demanding piece, Synaphai.  Finnissy, Barrett, Barlow, Bussotti, Scelsi and Hoban would all work equally well there though, since they've also written some pieces which are rather impossible.  Most difficult works (that I know of):

Barlow Cogluotobusletmesi
Barrett Tract
Bussotti "Pour Clavier"
Cage Etudes Australes
Dillon Books of Elements
Finnissy all.fall.down.
Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4
Flynn Trinity
Hoban "When the Panting Starts"
Martino Pianississimo
Scelsi "Action Music"
Stockhausen Klavierstucke X
Xenakis Evryali
Xenakis Synaphai


Now, you could always say that to play a Chopin Ballade is harder MUSICALLY, I did specifically state this was based ONLY on technique a couple times.

[pianistimo]

just for argument, i would say technique encompasses more than flitting around in wide leaps and pretending you're hitting all the right notes.  i think it has to do with grace whilst doing this.  if you are grimacing, what's the point?  technique is not merely hitting notes.  i think it is 'skiing down a deathly slope' and enjoying it.

all that said, i am a 'safe' pianist right now.  i do not, on a regular basis, stop people in the hallway with my chopin etudes.  i would rather just quietly surprise them with voicing in brahms.  i am not a piano monkey.  mheep mheep oooh ooh.

[henrah]

You have technique when you make other people think it looks easy.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

true

[stevie]

I used Xenakis since he wrote the most TECHNICALLY demanding piece, Synaphai.  Finnissy, Barrett, Barlow, Bussotti, Scelsi and Hoban would all work equally well there though, since they've also written some pieces which are rather impossible.  Most difficult works (that I know of):

Barlow Cogluotobusletmesi
Barrett Tract
Bussotti "Pour Clavier"
Cage Etudes Australes
Dillon Books of Elements
Finnissy all.fall.down.
Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4
Flynn Trinity
Hoban "When the Panting Starts"
Martino Pianississimo
Scelsi "Action Music"
Stockhausen Klavierstucke X
Xenakis Evryali
Xenakis Synaphai


Now, you could always say that to play a Chopin Ballade is harder MUSICALLY, I did specifically state this was based ONLY on technique a couple times.

hahaha this is all irrelevant

consider a random pianist who plays xenakis - ian pace

compare his technique with hamelin...

now go and *** your grandma

[Motrax]

As much as it pains me to do so, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Stevie, more or less.  Go practice piano instead of making all these pointless, poorly-made polls.

[henrah]

Or go practice piano instead of coming to this forum at all! Lol, I think everyone thinks this now and again. Without this forum, we would be practicing a heck of a lot more

Pointless, poorly-made polls are what make this forum fun!

[Mozartian]

I've seen some pretty stupid polls here, but this takes the cake.

Rating difficulty by composer?! And then putting Bach and Beethoven as the easiest composers (clearly, hanon doesn't count )?

Wow.



I'd feel I was doing extremely well if I could honestly assess myself as being a good Bach player, much less a great one. Sheesh.

[henrah]

Again, this topic is focusing on technique as a basis of comparing against composers. Basically, nearly every single pianist can get Bach under their fingers, yet there are few that can get Sorabji down technically, let alone Xenakis.

We cannot rate ourselves against composers in terms of musicality as every single composer is of equal difficulty, no composer trumping above the others as each merits the same amount of musical insight. Therefore this poll is focusing on technical difficulty.
Henrah

[Motrax]

I think you're wrong on both points, Henrah. First of all, Bach's Goldberg Variations could be considered by some to be more difficult than anything Beethoven wrote, or Chopin's Etudes could be considered of a higher degree of difficulty than Liszt's showy, but pianistic pieces. I don't think anyone would dispute the placing of Xenakis or Sorabji, but besides Ravel's Gaspard, the French composer didn't write anything that reaches the same difficulty of Liszt's or Chopin's most difficult works. It would be much more accurate to use a few specific works as benchmarks, rather than using some randomly-chosen composers.

As far as musicality is concerned, it's wrong to say that all composers are of the same difficulty concerning interperetation. I certainly wouldn't put Wieniawski or Henselt on the same musical pedestal as Brahms or Prokofiev.

Just my two cents. 

[henrah]

Of course all composers are of a different musical difficulty; but the difficulties lie a lot closer together than those of technique as you can't deny a piece of musical insight and what emotion the composer might/might not have put into a piece.

But you not putting Wieniawski or Henselt (no idea who they are) on the same 'musical pedestal' as Brahms or Prokoviev, I think, is quite wrong. Don't take this in an accusing tone, but who are you to deny one composer the same level of emotional playing than another? Without talking to/reading about a composer and their certain compositions, you can never know how much emotion, and of what type, they put into their piece and how they wanted it to be expressed. Of course there are some compositions that don't have an emotional level at all (these may include those written to just show off technique), but you can't deny all compositions from any one composer the right to an emotional expression.

I agree with you on the need for benchmarks. Therefore, may I suggest some? Let's choose the most popular, and those that will keep the current poll list intact or fairly close to what it is already. As you said, Bach's Goldberg Variations may well be more technically difficult than many of Chopin's or Liszt's compositions. So let's take some popular pieces.

Hanon - No need really!
Bach - Well Tempered Clavier (either book)
Beethoven - Any of the named sonatas. I'd prefer to choose Pathetique or Moonlight, as they won't skew him over Chopin.
Chopin - Etudes?
Liszt - Etudes??
Ravel - As you said, Scarbo.

And I don't know enough of the others. In fact I don't know enough piano literature anyway, so this list is up for changing.
Henrah

[houseofblackleaves]

Wheres Rachmaninoff?

Okay.... first of all, despite what you may have thought before, Bach is actually the most difficult composer to play effectivly, and heres why.

In Bach's time period (Late Baroque) the piano wasn't even around, only the Harpsichord, placing limitations on how much can be done. Both hands must play off equal importance, so the emphasis isn't ever on one hand.  You must also ajust your pitch and touch to match that which is expected from the peice.

And the hardest thing of all is, the fact that there aren't many notes there anyways, so if you make a mistake, it is very very very apparent.

Second, wheres Rachmaninoff?

[Motrax]

Rachmaninoff is difficult to guage, in my opinion. Of course, he wrote a few monstrous pieces (Piano/Cello Sonata, 3rd/2nd concertos, Correli Variations, blah blah blah), but much of what sounds difficult is really quite easy after a bit of practice, and much of what sounds simple is unbelievably difficult (for me, anyway - I've had some fair amount of experience with Rachmaninoff).

I would say the same about Liszt, though - much of his writing is much easier than it sounds, although I guess Mazeppa or Feux Follets are as difficult (or moreso) than they sound.

Henrah, I'm not sure whether Chopin's or Liszt's etudes are more difficult - I've heard arguments for both, and as I've only played some of Chopin's etudes, I can't really say one way or the other.

As for Wieniawski, he was a violin composer - sort of like the Moszkowski of the violin, but I like Moszkowski's piano concerto, so I didn't want to use him as an example.  Henselt was a German (?) composer/pianist during the romantic era who lived a large portion of his life in Russia. Both of these composers wrote a couple nice pieces, but for the most part their music suffers from the left-hand-arpeggio-right-hand-melody syndrome, if that makes any sense.

Benchmarks are silly, but whatever, here's my list (adapted from yours):

Bach - WTC
Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata
Chopin - Etude Op. 25 No. 11 (Winterwind)
Liszt - Mazeppa
Ravel - Gaspard (Scarbo or Ondine - there are a few who find Ondine more difficult)
Alkan - Who cares? 
Sorabji - Opus Crazystuff
Xenakis - Evryali

[pianiststrongbad]

Heh, I think this is silly too, but I still want to know who voted for Xenakis.  Heh, and post some recordings while you are at it!

[etudes]

Bach - WTC
Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata
Chopin - Etude Op. 25 No. 11 (Winterwind)
Liszt - Mazeppa
Ravel - Gaspard (Scarbo or Ondine - there are a few who find Ondine more difficult)
Alkan - Who cares? 
Sorabji - Opus Crazystuff
Xenakis - Evryali

shouldnt be
Bach Goldberg
Chopin Op.10 no.2
Beethoven Hammerklavier
Alkan - Concerto for solo piano

[gyzzzmo]

lol why use composers? like chopin only wrote grade 4 pieces.... 

[kriskicksass]

Why would you list those composers most monstrous works as a way of ranking? Of course they're all so ridiculously difficult and different that it makes the poll pointless.

Of course, ranking by composers is pretty ridiculous in itself, but at least...wait, I've forgotten my point.

Anyways, listing your current rep is probably a better way of rating your level, but rating yourself against other pianists is kinda pointless anyways. Deciding that you're better/worse than someone won't make you a better musician.

[henrah]

Deciding that you're better/worse than someone won't make you a better musician.

Of course. But we're not looking to become better musicians through polls like these: we are simply gathering information about each other.

[gorbee natcase]

I judge each piece as it comes and how long it takes to get a grasp of. So how do I compare myself..  Capable of learning most of which I undertake, however long it takes.

Once you can read music notation, half the battle is won as theory is less of a challenge and you use what you know for the rep only which is the fun bit    At this point you are less likely to give piano up due to the serious investment you have made to it

Generaly If you can learn to live with and controll frustration for the abillity to play a couple of lines of difficult music then you are simply suited to sitting at a piano hour after hour 

[steveie986]

Stupidest poll ever. Hmm, so the Hammerklavier would rank as grade 3, and the Goldberg Variations as grade 2...

[Waldszenen]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous polls I've ever seen.


Bach, easiest after Hanon? What a joke.

[pianote]

lol...so the earlier in time period the piece is, the easier... 

ahh, this poll makes me laugh.

[Waldszenen]

lol...so the earlier in time period the piece is, the easier... 

ahh, this poll makes me laugh.

So true, so true....

Xenakis' piano music was a joke anyway.

[ahinton]

I rate myself somewhere between Richard Clayderman and Mylene Klass.

What a desperately uncomfortable position to occupy! Worse than between a pair of brackets, I'd say...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

I find it odd to list these people in increasing order of difficulty. There exist many works by beethoven which are harder than bach and vice versa. The same is true for most of the composers on that list...

except for the most modern ones. I generally find the more modern a composer gets, the less concerned he is with writing pieces for children. When children are not a part of someone's worldview, I typically am mildly suspicious of them. This is true for individuals, politicians, authors, and even musicians.

having not mastered hanon, bach or beethoven the only one I could possibly select is "I do not play," which isn't true---so...I guess that means I suck! 

[ahinton]

I find it odd to list these people in increasing order of difficulty. There exist many works by beethoven which are harder than bach and vice versa. The same is true for most of the composers on that list...

except for the most modern ones. I generally find the more modern a composer gets, the less concerned he is with writing pieces for children. When children are not a part of someone's worldview, I typically am mildly suspicious of them. This is true for individuals, politicians, authors, and even musicians.

having not mastered hanon, bach or beethoven the only one I could possibly select is "I do not play," which isn't true---so...I guess that means I suck! 

Your first paragraph is entirely pertinent. The second sentence of your second is misplaced, thereby invalidating the relevance of its remainder. Your third cannot be argued with.

The real point here - and not only yours but that of many other contributors to this thread - is that the entire premise of the thread is simply untenable, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the immense range of technical difficulty in the piano output of each composer mentioned in the list (as well as those of all the composers whose absence from it has been questioned by certain contributors) renders the list largely meaningless; this is true even in the case of Xenakis, at least in relative terms (try, for example, comparing the difficulties in "à R" with, say, those of the solo part of "Synaphai"). Secondly, whilst the thread originator has indeed been clear that he is asking "voters" to consider only those aspects of technical mastery that loosely come under the scope of the term "mécanique" rather than "the whole pianist", he has had to make a point of clarifying this, since the thread title does not itself make it clear; this fact alone serves to undermine any validity and usefulness it might otherwise have had. Thirdly (and lastly, for now - although I'm sure there are more), how would one expect to compare - in the present context of "rating" - say, two pianists equally competent in Xenakis, only one of whom happens to be able to manage to be convincing in Bach, Liszt, etc.? - a hypothetical instance, I admit, though not necessarily impossible - yet even hypothesis alone seems to be of an order above the likelihood of valuable answers being given or "votes" being cast in this thread.

All that said, what seems to count most is the substantial proportion of generally negative and unsympathetic responses that this thread has so far generated.


Best,

Alistair

[steveie986]

I generally find the more modern a composer gets, the less concerned he is with writing pieces for children. When children are not a part of someone's worldview, I typically am mildly suspicious of them. This is true for individuals, politicians, authors, and even musicians.

This is not true. Two of the most famous children's pieces were written in the twentieth century. Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf" (among others) and Britten's "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra."

[Derek]

I stand corrected. How could I forget...I've learned some kid's pieces by Bartok as well.

[ramseytheii]

This is not true. Two of the most famous children's pieces were written in the twentieth century. Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf" (among others) and Britten's "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra."

It is true, because he said "generally."  Of the major composers of the last century, how many contributed piano repertoire for children or for players of amateur abilities?  Virtually zero.  The pieces you mentioned are not piano pieces, and Bartok and Kodaly did write for children, but think of other major piano composers.  Schoenberg, nothing; Messiaen, nothing; Stravinsky, a few pieces that don't even seem to relate to his more serious music; Rachmaninoff, nothing; Ravel, perhaps one or two for amateur, but nothing for children; any avant-garde composer, nothing.  As far as "classic" music for children or amateurs is concerned, the twentieth century is a barren ice field.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Thirdly (and lastly, for now - although I'm sure there are more), how would one expect to compare - in the present context of "rating" - say, two pianists equally competent in Xenakis, only one of whom happens to be able to manage to be convincing in Bach, Liszt, etc.? - a hypothetical instance, I admit, though not necessarily impossible -

Best,

Alistair

I agree that it is very hypothetical to find a pianist who plays Xenakis who will excel in the classics.  More often than not it seems that pianists turn to cryptic modern music to conceal their shortcomings in the true test of pianism and musicianship, the classics, the true bread, water, and air of musicians: Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, et cetera.   I cannot think of any pianist who has managed this so far, but I am curious to see if I stand corrected.  Of course it's all subjective - I definitely do not consider Marc-Andre Hamelin to have "excelled" in the classics, as in his live recitals it seems the only thing that he is interested in is the obscure and impossibly challenging...

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

I agree that it is very hypothetical to find a pianist who plays Xenakis who will excel in the classics.  More often than not it seems that pianists turn to cryptic modern music to conceal their shortcomings in the true test of pianism and musicianship, the classics, the true bread, water, and air of musicians: Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, et cetera.   I cannot think of any pianist who has managed this so far, but I am curious to see if I stand corrected.  Of course it's all subjective - I definitely do not consider Marc-Andre Hamelin to have "excelled" in the classics, as in his live recitals it seems the only thing that he is interested in is the obscure and impossibly challenging...

Walter Ramsey

Whilst I'm not necessarily dissagreeing with you, I think that you've missed part of my point here. I was not thinking about pianists who play, say, Xenakis being unable to excel in much earlier repertoire but considering the possibility that one pianist who plays Xenakis well may no excel in that earlier repertoire whereas another might do so - thus further undermining the premise upon which this entire thread appears to be based.

Best,

Alistair

[nanabush]

So 1 guy here can play Sorabji and 7 others can play Xenakis? hmmmmmm...

[Derek]

It is true, because he said "generally."  Of the major composers of the last century, how many contributed piano repertoire for children or for players of amateur abilities?  Virtually zero.  The pieces you mentioned are not piano pieces, and Bartok and Kodaly did write for children, but think of other major piano composers.  Schoenberg, nothing; Messiaen, nothing; Stravinsky, a few pieces that don't even seem to relate to his more serious music; Rachmaninoff, nothing; Ravel, perhaps one or two for amateur, but nothing for children; any avant-garde composer, nothing.  As far as "classic" music for children or amateurs is concerned, the twentieth century is a barren ice field.

Walter Ramsey

Why do you suspect that is? Personally I think it may be due to the decline of improvisation in the Classical music world---individuals like Ravel, Rachmaninov, and others you've mentioned probably all played and composed for themselves. There wasn't a community of people all actively involved in composition.  In the past, even members of royalty dabbled with it so they could better appreciate what the court composer was doing.

So I'm saying---in the past since so many people were interested in learning improvisation and composition---composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann etc. were probably either commissioned or just felt it was a good idea to write some compositions that would be good for these people to learn. In Bach's case of course he was writing FOR his own children (and probably for anyone else who wanted to learn, too...speaking of the inventions and sinfonias and WTC here).

But now---since virtually nobody does this anymore---there's just no market for music written for children.

Actually---I know what it is. There are hundreds of people writing insufferably boring method books for children so all the ART composers don't feel the need to "stoop" to the level of writing for children perhaps?

I think if you were to make a child try to learn Schoenberg, Sorabji, or Xenakis, that would be tantamount to child abuse.

[ramseytheii]

Why do you suspect that is? Personally I think it may be due to the decline of improvisation in the Classical music world---individuals like Ravel, Rachmaninov, and others you've mentioned probably all played and composed for themselves. There wasn't a community of people all actively involved in composition.  In the past, even members of royalty dabbled with it so they could better appreciate what the court composer was doing.

So I'm saying---in the past since so many people were interested in learning improvisation and composition---composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann etc. were probably either commissioned or just felt it was a good idea to write some compositions that would be good for these people to learn. In Bach's case of course he was writing FOR his own children (and probably for anyone else who wanted to learn, too...speaking of the inventions and sinfonias and WTC here).

But now---since virtually nobody does this anymore---there's just no market for music written for children.

Actually---I know what it is. There are hundreds of people writing insufferably boring method books for children so all the ART composers don't feel the need to "stoop" to the level of writing for children perhaps?

I think if you were to make a child try to learn Schoenberg, Sorabji, or Xenakis, that would be tantamount to child abuse.

It's hard to say, and there are probably a lot of reasons why many composers did not write for children, as your post suggests.  In the early 20th century there must have been a market for it, because Brahms' Liebeslieder waltzes were "best-sellers" among amateurs just a few years before.   At some point it must hav echanged so a child would rather pick up drumsticks or an electric guitar rather than sit at the piano, and the market must influence to some degree what kind of music composers write (or more important, is getting published). 

It even seems illogical that such composers as Schoenberg or Scriabin or even Rachmaninoff would not have written pieces for the amateur; in the first two cases their music is not always immediately accessible, and surely a "stepping-stone" approach would have helped their music attain more widespread popularity.  For Rachmaninoff, his music is for many people so unapproachable in its pianism that easier pieces in his style would have also been great.  But maybe they didn't want that.  Wagner deliberately conceived of the "Ring" as a drama that would be impossible to stage in local, provincial theaters, in order to avoid the lowest commen denominator of standards.  Perhaps it was the same with these other men.

Schoenberg though was very interested in pedagogy, but not from a performance standpoint.  His texts on music theory take a person from the very beginning, from notating major and minor chords, to the very end of western musical thought.  It is dense reading but definitely accessible to amateurs in music theory.

It would be interesting to see a composer, well versed in the style of the twentieth century piano Masters, to composer music in their style, but easy enough for a child to play.

Walter Ramsey

[captain cook]

Stupidest poll ever. Hmm, so the Hammerklavier would rank as grade 3, and the Goldberg Variations as grade 2...

Gold!! 

[johnny-boy]

"Obviously it goes from easiest to hardest.  Where do you stand as a technician of the 88?  For instance, if you can play things by Beethoven and easier, vote Beethoven"- Soliloquy

Personally, I don’t think any piano music is more difficult than the Beethoven Sonatas.

John

[jspen12]

I think it is all relative to the audience you play for or to the mood you are trying to convey. If you are trying to impress someone, I would probably lean to maybe the third movement of Beethoven's Moonlight or The flight of the Bumblebee. You know ... something fast and seemingly difficult. If I was trying to make the ladies swoon, then obviously a slower pieces that it tough to make sound like the piano is crying. Then for overall impression I would play a concerto or something, I'm currently working on Rachmoninoff's 2nd and 3rd concertos, they are not exactly easy by any means.