What makes a piece "the hardest"

[bflatminor24]

Everyone,

Every now and then someone new to the forum asks 'what is the hardest piece ever written,' and they're given the same sequence of responses, ranging from Rach 3 and Opus Clavicembalisticum to things like English Country Tunes and the piece by Cage that takes 632 years.

Do you all remember 'Soliloquy,' the guy with the fake repertoire and phantom recordings? Well, his list sums up a lot of the hardest pieces, as shown below.

Barlow Cogluotobusletismesi
Barrett Tract
Bussotti Pour Clavier
Cage Etudes Australes
Cognizetti Pentaphonic Etude
Diaz-Infante Solus
Finnissy all.fall.down.
Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4
Flynn Trinity
Fox Twenty-Four Etudes
Fox Sonata No. 2
Hoban When the Panting Starts
Martino Pianississimo
Rzewski "The Road"
Scelsi Action Music
Skalkottas 32 Piano Pieces
Sorabji Sequentia Cyclica Super "Dies Irae" ex Missa pro Defunctis
Sorabji Sonata No. 5 "Opus Archimagicum"
Sorabji Symphonic Variations
Stockhausen Klavierstucke X
Xenakis Evryali
Xenakis Sieben Klavierstucke
Xenakis Synaphai
Yim :[ten]dril
Zimmermann Wunsterwanderung

However I wanted to establish several criteria for writing an impossible piece. There are many avant-garde composers who dare to push the envelope of difficulty and write impossible scores. They need use at least one of the criteria below to make a piece "impossible."

1. Rhythms that are beyond human capacity to count or keep track of (i.e. 17.5/91)
2. Voices that exceed the number of fingers or human capacity to play
3. Tempi that exceed human capacity (i.e. Prestississississimo [half note =416])
4. Lengths that exceed human capacity to endure (i.e. 22 hours, or even 632 years)

What are your thoughts on this?

~Max~

[jre58591]

if any of you wants to piss your pants, er, see some of the scores, look here.

https://pianochat.proboards25.com/index.cgi?board=pianogeneral&action=display&thread=1151250015

[pianiststrongbad]

I think the main thing that generally scares me away from these scores is the rhythms, they are just soo damn complicated, especially some of the Nancarrow stuff.

[jre58591]

I think the main thing that generally scares me away from these scores is the rhythms, they are just soo *** complicated, especially some of the Nancarrow stuff.

yes, nancarrow is extremely complicated, but it doesnt even begin to come close to finnissy's rhythms. this is why nancarrow is not on this list.

[bflatminor24]

yes, nancarrow is extremely complicated, but it doesnt even begin to come close to finnissy's rhythms. this is why nancarrow is not on this list.

I disagree. Nancarrow is not on the list because he didn't write for people. He wrote for machines. The player piano is completely different and takes different compositional skills.

~Max~

[xavierm]

I disagree. Nancarrow is not on the list because he didn't write for people. He wrote for machines. The player piano is completely different and takes different compositional skills.

~Max~

Quoted for emphasis.

[jre58591]

those skalkottas 32 pieces dont even come close to the otehr pieces. they should be taken off the list.

[mephisto]

I am quite sure This Fox person doesn\t exist.

Rythm, voices.

[counterpoint]

I think the main thing that generally scares me away from these scores is the rhythms, they are just soo *** complicated, especially some of the Nancarrow stuff.

That's no problem at all! If a rhythm is complicated to play, it is also complicated to hear. It's even more difficult to hear than to play. Hence the playing will always be good enough 

[ahinton]

those skalkottas 32 pieces dont even come close to the otehr pieces. they should be taken off the list.

Quite right. They do represent quite a challenge - espeially to anyone proposing to perform the entire cycle in one go - but the level of difficulty is, as you imply, nowhere near those of many of the other existent pieces in the list (and for an explanation of my use of the term "existent", see below).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I am quite sure This Fox person doesn\t exist.

You are not alone in this. And what of "Cognizetti"?...

Best,

Alistair

[bflatminor24]

I asked Soliloquy if the "Fox" was indeed Christopher Fox, a well known New Complexity composer, whose works might be found on various Ian Pace albums. However he informed me that this was "a different Fox."

As for "Cognizetti," I've heard this name before, and I wouldn't be surprised if he were just some very obscure composer who wrote very little but his magnum opus made this list. Also, feel free to suggest changes to the list I posted. Perhaps the Skalkotta 32 pieces aren't hard enough? Well I may kindly remove them and replace them with something like Ferneyhough or Sorabji or Finnissy or Alkan.

~Max~

[stevie]

in the end, ive discovered that these 'superdifficult' pieces prove nothing, its futile to attemt to judge a pianist's ability based on the level of the difficulty of the music they play.

chopin etudes, are in general the best means to compare pianists abilities.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

This thread is very pointless and vapid, no wonder it end up in penitent moods from others. "What makes a piece the hardest". It is possible to write a piece in 5 staves, each containing chordal jumps in 64 note value, over a tempo umimaginable. That would be the hardest piece. A different story would be, "What makes a playable piece the hardest". I think that makes more of a statement.

[jre58591]

all of these pieces are definitely playable. just ask ian pace or jonathan powell. and some of these arent just 10 stave atonal pieces with irregular rhythms, chordal jumps, etc. the barlow, for example, is tonal, has two staves most of the time, and actually sounds good. this thread is far from pointless. if you dont like it, dont post in it.

[bflatminor24]

Greetings.

This thread is very pointless and vapid, no wonder it end up in penitent moods from others. "What makes a piece the hardest". It is possible to write a piece in 5 staves, each containing chordal jumps in 64 note value, over a tempo umimaginable. That would be the hardest piece. A different story would be, "What makes a playable piece the hardest". I think that makes more of a statement.

You're kind of a putz.

As Lawrence said, they're all playable and I think it is insulting for you to assume that they were written with the sole purpose of being impossible to play. I bet you anything if you spoke to the respective composers, they would give you a very informed answer about their work. I doubt any of them would say, "I just wanted to write a piece nobody could play so I made the score ridiculous." How very puerile of you to make such an asinine assumption, especially on a forum that fosters intellectual curiosity and discourse. Feel free to NOT contribute to this thread. We don't need your approval.

Thank you!

Best,

~Max~

[moi_not_toi]

YAY!!
Someone used the word vapid in the correct sense!

[debussy symbolism]

You're kind of a putz.

As Lawrence said, they're all playable and I think it is insulting for you to assume that they were written with the sole purpose of being impossible to play. I bet you anything if you spoke to the respective composers, they would give you a very informed answer about their work. I doubt any of them would say, "I just wanted to write a piece nobody could play so I made the score ridiculous." How very puerile of you to make such an asinine assumption, especially on a forum that fosters intellectual curiosity and discourse. Feel free to NOT contribute to this thread. We don't need your approval.

Thank you!

Best,

~Max~

Before dismissing my threads as incorrect, or perhaps claim them as odious or otherwise repugnant for that matter, perhaps read the post in scrutiny before passing final judgements. I never said that these pieces are unplayable. I merely answered this thread's question "What makes a piece the hardest". If I or anyone else for that matter provides a piece with impossible facts, such as the chordal jumps in super tempo, then the piece would be impossible. I never acclaimed that these pieces stated above are impossible, I merely said that there "could" be much harder pieces.

[debussy symbolism]

I see that we also used the word "puerile" in the correct sense. Encomia to thee.

[debussy symbolism]

Sorry for another post. If you read the ending of my initial statement in this thread, I clearly said that it is better to discuss playable pieces of high difficulty. Did I ever mention the stated above pieces as unplayable?

[bflatminor24]

Sorry for another post. If you read the ending of my initial statement in this thread, I clearly said that it is better to discuss playable pieces of high difficulty. Did I ever mention the stated above pieces as unplayable?

"it is better to discuss playable pieces of high difficulty."

That, my friend, is exactly what we are doing. What is your contention?

Moving along, some claim compositions by Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert are the most difficult because the standards are so high, perfection is expected, whereas if one's Sorabji isn't quite voiced accurately or he misses a few notes, nobody will complain. What say YOU?

~MaX~

[debussy symbolism]

We, "my friend", have not been doing exactly that, but actually were discussing what exactly makes a piece hard.

Concerning Mozart and other stated composers. There is nothing to say. You acclaim that Mozart's music demands a precise execution of notes. You then say that if one misses a note in a Sorabji composition then it wouldn't be as bad. That my friend is ignorant. How do you know that Sorabji's music isn't on the same standart as Mozart's? In truth perhaps, a missed note in the Sorabji score may well ruin the entire composition. When Debussy introduced his music, it was claimed as "bad music". Let's even look at Beethoven. His music counted as hard to understand by it's standarts and people and even musicians didn't always undestand his messages. Now, it is plausible to say that Beethoven is amongst the greatest of composers. Would Sorabji be regarded the same as Beethoven? Would he be regarded as an equal to Beethoven in some time?

What say you?

[bflatminor24]

We, "my friend", have not been doing exactly that, but actually were discussing what exactly makes a piece hard.

Concerning Mozart and other stated composers. There is nothing to say. You acclaim that Mozart's music demands a precise execution of notes. You then say that if one misses a note in a Sorabji composition then it wouldn't be as bad. That my friend is ignorant. How do you know that Sorabji's music isn't on the same standart as Mozart's? In truth perhaps, a missed note in the Sorabji score may well ruin the entire composition. When Debussy introduced his music, it was claimed as "bad music". Let's even look at Beethoven. His music counted as hard to understand by it's standarts and people and even musicians didn't always undestand his messages. Now, it is plausible to say that Beethoven is amongst the greatest of composers. Would Sorabji be regarded the same as Beethoven?

What say you?

I disagree, I think the standards of difficulty were entirely pertinent to the discussion about the aforementioned most difficult pieces.

Secondly, I never purported to believe that the standards SHOULD be higher with Mozart, I said that they ARE higher, whether that is good or bad. And I'm entirely correct in mentioning that. This is because of a few simple reasons.

1. Many people record Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert, so there is more competition striving to make a perfect recording.
2. The clarity of these composers works reveal wrong notes and rhythms much easier than Sorabji's works lend themselves to.
3. Only a handful of pianists record Sorabji's music, and their interpretations may or may not be correct, whereas since many more pianists record Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert, it is easier to distinguish between "better" and "worse" interpretations.

You know how certain pianists, such as Perahia, Goode, Kovacevich and Aimard are revered for their Mozart and Beethoven? They set the standard very high because they "rose above their competition" and made recordings considered by many critics to be near perfection.

Sorabji's music doesn't have that kind of luxury. There are less definitive (if any) recordings because there are so few pianists who play them, thus lowering the standard we have come to expect. I hope this answers your concern. Bear in mind I'm not exactly opining here, this is all based on observation.

~Max~

[debussy symbolism]

Of course, this is largely of opinion, but the most commonly recorded composers have been around for some time now. Sorabji is relatively recent. I never did say that the quality of Sorabji is more or less then the quality of other composers. Perhaps Sorabji will be recorded just as much as the other composers in due time.

Unfortunately, your observation isn't complete. You are oblivious to the standart of time. Time will only tell. What we are also ignoring is that Sorabji's music is different to that of more recorded composers. This discussion that we are having is pointless, because it will get us nowhere. It is highly subjective and personal, and most importantly, Sorabji is relatively new. With time, more pianists will record his work.

[mike_lang]

Will one of you please make a point?  Heated personal attacks do not make this discussion any less "pointless" or "vapid."  I, for one, am interested in watching some intelligent discussion of this.  What is the point of contributing to a "pointless" thread, by the way?

Best,
ML

[debussy symbolism]

Will one of you please make a point?  Heated personal attacks do not make this discussion any less "pointless" or "vapid."  I, for one, am interested in watching some intelligent discussion of this.  What is the point of contributing to a "pointless" thread, by the way?

Best,
ML

That's the point. There is no point in this thread. The thread asks for guidance concerning deciphering just what makes the hardest piece the hardest. The answer: it depends. We don't know what the hardest piece is. If someone "writes" an impossible piece, then that will be the hardest. That's what makes it "hard". Concerning the meaning of the pieces, it depends on the person, as one may interpret one way and one the other.

[debussy symbolism]

The point in to contributing to a thread is to give opinion, which may elucidate the answer. However the answer varies from person to person and that is why arguments arise. This might have been one "vapid" post now heh?

[debussy symbolism]

Did anyone notice that threads that deal with the "hardest pieces" are the threads that deal out more consternation amoungst points made?

[mike_lang]

The point in to contributing to a thread is to give opinion, which may elucidate the answer. However the answer varies from person to person and that is why arguments arise. This might have been one "vapid" post now heh?

I'll ignore the condescension with which you respond.

I do not ask what the point is in contributing to a thread - I am indeed asking what the point is of your response to this thread which you deem pointless.  If the issue raised is pointless, senseless, or without purpose, then there in fact cannot be a valuable answer.  In other words, the answer to a nonsensical question is only more nonsense.

Best,
ML

[debussy symbolism]

I really do not intend to be condescending on anyone, just to let you know. Concerning the pointlessness of my later posts in this thread, I really do not read much into it, as this is a forum and not necessarily a revelation of truth for that matter. There are alot of pointless threads in here. Talk about adding in to a "pointless" discussion, isn't your later post of the same quality as mine, that is, pointless, letting me know of the "pointlessness" of my posts whilst your posts aren't exactly contributing to discussion either?

Really, why is there so much distress over a thread?

[debussy symbolism]

I do not ask what the point is in contributing to a thread - I am indeed asking what the point is of your response to this thread which you deem pointless.  If the issue raised is pointless, senseless, or without purpose, then there in fact cannot be a valuable answer.  In other words, the answer to a nonsensical question is only more nonsense.

Best,
ML

Umm, actually, my posts in this thread aren't pointless in my opinion because I think that it is pointless to discuss such things as "what makes a piece the hardest"(I am assuming that the technique is in question, not interpretation). I clearly stated the obvious answer, that purely technically, you can make a piece hard, with a super fast tempo, that is unplayable. This adheres to the point of the thread, which in itself isn't pointless as it raises a question.

[bflatminor24]

This is hilarious. Reading ML and Debussy Symbolism's posts cracked me up - never before have I read such bombastic, verbose banter. I don't even know where to begin. Both of you childish kids posting on my thread, wasting everyone's time. If you think this thread is "pointless," then don't post on it, nobody gives two shits whether you approve the validity of the thread or not. Please save your inanities for a chatroom.

 I started this thread to read people's opinions about qualities of music that increase difficulty - and I never restricted it to technical difficulties. I think Scriabin's music is much harder than Liszt's as a whole because it is so much more musically difficult. There is so much poetic expression in Scriabin, and even some of his technically "less challenging" pieces, most notably the late sonatas, are incredibly difficult.

If people want to discuss the issues, I more than welcome their opinions. Keep the "vapid" and "pointless" posts to yourselves. It doesn't contribute anything to a thread.

~Max~

[debussy symbolism]

Okay, enough exsufflicate and puerile posts.

You are completely right, the emotion and spirituality involved in much of composers is far more difficult to accomplish than to just bang out the keys. To convey emotions in a piece is much harder than to just bang it out.

Call this a "childish" thread? You, "bflatminor24" need to take it easy. This reminds me of how Othello kept on demanding the special handkerchief that he gave to Desdemona and she didn't have it.

[pianiststrongbad]

Well I was kinda interested in what other people thought made these pieces next to impossible.  It is rather disappointing to see people just calling this thread worthless.

[mike_lang]

Greetings.

This thread is very pointless and vapid, no wonder it end up in penitent moods from others.

This is what I point out.  I am not labeling your posts as pointless.  I am citing your statement that the thread is pointless, and therefore questioning why you would immerse yourself in it.  At the risk of repeating myself, you have essentially labeled the question nonsensical, and therefore, by your logic, there can be no sense in an answer to the question.

Enough.  I do not view this thread as pointless.  Please proceed with the arguments for the requisite elements of a "hardest piece," which I look forward to reading.

Best,
ML

[mike_lang]

I think Scriabin's music is much harder than Liszt's as a whole because it is so much more musically difficult. There is so much poetic expression in Scriabin, and even some of his technically "less challenging" pieces, most notably the late sonatas, are incredibly difficult.

Yes - I would like to affirm this point.  In addition to the musical difficulty characteristic of Scriabin's music, I find that his textures can be much more difficult to dissect than those of Liszt.  This textural difficulty, I think, is a key element of the "hardest pieces."  I wonder if after a point, a certain physical technique is a prerequisite, after which the true difficulties are intellectual...?

Best,
ML

[bflatminor24]

I find Scriabin very hard to interpret myself, because he is texturally complex. Unlike his counterpart Rachmaninoff, whose melodies are able to breathe safely above the more salient texture, Scriabin's melodies are interwoven with his texture, making his works very difficult for me.

I have pretty good technical abilities; I've played Rachmaninoff preludes 23/2, 23/5, 23/7, Moment Musicaux 4, Liszt Mazeppa, Campanella, etc, but nothing comes close to Scriabin in my opinion. Right now I'm working on his Sonata-Fantaisie in G sharp minor, Op. 19 and this seems like a huge break from his other more demanding works. Thank God I'm starting with this sonata. I've only done a few etudes of his, namely 8/2, 8/3, and 8/12.

That's just one example from personal experience. But certain composers have other styles I find very difficult. Ravel for instance, has incredible textures, but his rhythms are even harder for me than Scriabin's. In Ondine, for instance, I can never play the climax correctly because I have such a hard time counting those rhythms. It is also very technically hard, and I think the sheer speed and rhythm alone is enough, even if there aren't any awkward jumps, and the length isn't so bad.

~Max~

[mike_lang]

What are your opinions on the music of Ligeti?  I've only recently begun to listen to his etudes for the piano, which seem to be quite dense texturally.

Or in a similar, though tonally remote vein, the Berg Sonata?

Best,
ML

[bflatminor24]

Yes - I would like to affirm this point.  In addition to the musical difficulty characteristic of Scriabin's music, I find that his textures can be much more difficult to dissect than those of Liszt.  This textural difficulty, I think, is a key element of the "hardest pieces."  I wonder if after a point, a certain physical technique is a prerequisite, after which the true difficulties are intellectual...?

Best,
ML

ML, I completely agree with you. The difficulties become almost ENTIRELY intellectual after a point.

For example, we all know pianists like Ian Pace, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Jonathan Powell, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Boris Berezovsky and Francesco Libetta have incredible techniques. Hamelin, Pace and Powell alone can play pretty much anything ever written. Yet they still struggle with intellectual obstacles of interpretation and texture. Hamelin will tell you this himself. A lot of the music he plays doesn't present much of a technical challenge, but an intellectual one. He told me he found Sorabji "exhausting" intellectually because it takes so much concentration and so much time to play.

~Max~

[bflatminor24]

What are your opinions on the music of Ligeti?  I've only recently begun to listen to his etudes for the piano, which seem to be quite dense texturally.

Or in a similar, though tonally remote vein, the Berg Sonata?

Best,
ML

The Berg sonata is incredible on so many levels. After five revisions, Alban presented his work to Shöenberg and received venerable feedback. I think Ligeti's etudes and the Berg sonata present ENORMOUS technical as well as textural and intellectual difficulties. Are there any recordings of these you might recommend? I have Aimard doing the Berg sonata and Ullen doing the Ligeti etudes.

~Max~

[mike_lang]

The Berg sonata is incredible on so many levels. After five revisions, Alban presented his work to Shöenberg and received venerable feedback. I think Ligeti's etudes and the Berg sonata present ENORMOUS technical as well as textural and intellectual difficulties. Are there any recordings of these you might recommend? I have Aimard doing the Berg sonata and Ullen doing the Ligeti etudes.

~Max~

I also have Ullman's Ligeti.  For Berg, I have Pollini's, which comes on the same disc as the Debussy Etudes.  It's a good recording - I don't know whether I would recommend it in particular, though, since I haven't heard any others with which to compare it.

Best,
ML

[jre58591]

What are your opinions on the music of Ligeti?  I've only recently begun to listen to his etudes for the piano, which seem to be quite dense texturally.

if you want to see some ligeti, here is a video of libetta playing his "l'escalier du diable etude":

. ligeti's music really appeals to me because of its uniqueness and because of its textures. if only his music wasnt so difficult, i would take a stab at it expect to see more videos of ligeti on youtube, as soon as i figure out how to split a video file.

[pianistimo]

ecoima to you?  what does that mean?  have to look it up.

environmental managment control? 

ingagroznya - this is not a good topic, is it?  i mean, u wouldn't exactly ask this to a student. 

[stevie]

ecoima to you?  what does that mean?  have to look it up.

environmental managment control? 

ingagroznya - this is not a good topic, is it?  i mean, u wouldn't exactly ask this to a student. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA clazzic

[cfortunato]

I can't stand this concept of "hard" pieces, because I get the feeling that the POINT is how hard they, and composer's goal was to right something hard - not something GOOD.  A composer should be trying right good music - the difficulty should be a completely secondary consideration.

[burstroman]

But, is it music?

[jre58591]

But, is it music?

everything is music.

[debussy symbolism]

ecoima to you?  what does that mean?  have to look it up.

Uh, encomia?

[bflatminor24]

John Cage said that "music is an organization of sound." I think that is only half-true - music is more than just an organization. I think music must inspire human emotion or thought. I can organize the sound of a ticking metronome...I wouldn't consider a ticking metronome "music."

And now begins the perpetual (and inevitably unintellectual) debate over "what is music," where I get to read a bunch of hippies tell me everything is subjective...

~Max~

[pianiststrongbad]

I actually took a composition lessons at my conservatory for a semester.  The first thing the professor asked me was what I thought music was.  I responded with it is sound that has been organised in some sense.  I said I also thought music was something that brought was emotional to a certain extent.  The professor then told me I should have left the last half out of it.  He thought it was just organization of sound- I knew from that point on it was going to be a long semester.