Godowsky chopin works vs. Transcendental by liszt

[semme]

since i did discover the etudes by godowsky not long ago, it urges me to know how difficult they really are, for example compared to the trans. etudes by liszt. are they compareable?

[practicingnow]

since i did discover the etudes by godowsky not long ago, it urges me to know how difficult they really are, for example compared to the trans. etudes by liszt. are they compareable?

Unfortunately, sight reading through both sets will not give you a clear idea, since the Godowsky studies are far more difficult to sight read, but not necessarily more difficult to actually play once you learn them.  I have found that the Liszt etudes are quite treacherous to perform, in addition to being physically difficult to play.  The Godowsky-Chopin Etudes are physically difficult and also mentally difficult, since there are all those fingerings and voices to master, but not quite so treacherous (dangerous) to perform. 
Both sets require opposing kinds of technique. The Godowsky Etudes requires one to play closer to the keys, with more economy of finger and hand movement in order to cover all those notes and thick textures, while the Liszt Etudes require a more free (perhaps wilder) approach, requiring a looser, higher action from the fingers and hand and arms (Mazeppa, Wilde Jagd, Eroica, etc.)  Also, the Godowsky Etudes are generally more difficult to memorize than the Liszt, but again, this is a mental challenge, not a physical one. 
On a technical (physical) level, they are of comparable difficulty, but for different reasons.

[dnephi]

Thank you very much, to the above. 

About the Liszt etudes, I know someone who had only played with the Godowsky Study Style technique who found that learning a Liszt Etude completely changed his approach to the keyboard and gave him more freedom.  Perhaps one needs to study both kinds of technique.

Daniel

[gruffalo]

Thank you very much, to the above. 

About the Liszt etudes, I know someone who had only played with the Godowsky Study Style technique who found that learning a Liszt Etude completely changed his approach to the keyboard and gave him more freedom.  Perhaps one needs to study both kinds of technique.

Daniel

yea i think its important not to stick to one particular type of study or techinque. variation is just as important a factor in finding a good technical grounding.

[dnephi]

Yea, I just learned that you need to play with a light touch if you want to play Bach, without the full weight of the arm, at my last lesson. 
The idea of finger-action technique needs to be developed felt weird, but it's really good to have a variety of techniques (finger, wrist, arm, triceps, etc .) for varying technical difficulties and characters.

[opus10no2]

Unfortunately, sight reading through both sets will not give you a clear idea, since the Godowsky studies are far more difficult to sight read, but not necessarily more difficult to actually play once you learn them.  I have found that the Liszt etudes are quite treacherous to perform, in addition to being physically difficult to play.  The Godowsky-Chopin Etudes are physically difficult and also mentally difficult, since there are all those fingerings and voices to master, but not quite so treacherous (dangerous) to perform. 
Both sets require opposing kinds of technique. The Godowsky Etudes requires one to play closer to the keys, with more economy of finger and hand movement in order to cover all those notes and thick textures, while the Liszt Etudes require a more free (perhaps wilder) approach, requiring a looser, higher action from the fingers and hand and arms (Mazeppa, Wilde Jagd, Eroica, etc.)  Also, the Godowsky Etudes are generally more difficult to memorize than the Liszt, but again, this is a mental challenge, not a physical one. 
On a technical (physical) level, they are of comparable difficulty, but for different reasons.

There is alot of truth in this, but on a complete sense, I think its in minimal doubt that the Godowsky etudes require more effort to play at performance level.

The Godowskys are simply alot more complex and demanding on finger dexterity - feux follets is the closest  Liszt got to comparing with Godowsky in refined finger technique.

However, Liszt's etudes are about a different kind of virtuosity, a bravura with endurance and speed of wrists and arms, and opposed to the concentration on the fingers in the Godowsky.

But even so, aftar all is said and done, a remarkably played Liszt etude is alot more impressive than an 'average' performance of a Godowsky

[maxy]

I would say that the Godowsky is significantly harder than the TEs.  To be honest I also consider that the 24 Chopin études as a set is harder than the 12 TEs.

I don't know why, but I do not consider that the Godowsky studies were ever meant to be performed.  It is interesting to work on them, what Godowsky did is quite fascinating, but to perform? 

[opus10no2]

Because they are great pieces of music?

[brewtality]

Because they are great pieces of music?

Indeed, and in certain cases, sacrilegious as it may be, I prefer them to Chopin's originals. Like for example the 6th (or is it 7th?) version of 10/5 (reverse) is better than the Chopin.

[opus10no2]

I initially only l liked maybe half of them, and the others didn't jump out to me as much, but this was the fault of the interpreter.

Hamelin's set is very good, but too many of them are way too slow.

More recently he has actually been playing them better, when he has concentrated on a select few and worked at them musically and technically- faster, crisper, and more colourful.

[practicingnow]

I also consider that the 24 Chopin études as a set is harder than the 12 TEs.
I don't know why, but I do not consider that the Godowsky studies were ever meant to be performed.  It is interesting to work on them, what Godowsky did is quite fascinating, but to perform? 

I agree - To me the Chopin Etudes are harder than the Liszt TE's.

As far as performing the Godowsky Etudes go, Godowsky himself used to perform many of them in concerts.  In addition, he wrote in the preface that they are for "a future generation of pianists."  So they were definitely intended to be performed.

[brewtality]

More recently he has actually been playing them better, when he has concentrated on a select few and worked at them musically and technically- faster, crisper, and more colourful.

yeah? have there been broadcasts of him playing them recently?

[mephisto]

There are quite a few people sitting with small tape-recorders under every Hamelin concert

[bflatminor24]

I respect your opinions on this, but I respectfully disagree.

There is little comparison of overall difficulty between the Godowsky and Liszt etudes.

The Liszt etudes are comparable to the Chopin Etudes, with some Chopin etudes dwarfing the difficulty of the Liszt etudes. The Liszt etudes take endurance and power, but in terms of technique, Chopin etudes like 25/6, 10/2, 10/1, 25/11, and 10/4 outrival the Liszt.

The Godowsky etudes are in another league. I'm not sure if they were meant to be performed, but they pose technical difficulties that far outweigh anything Chopin and Liszt had to offer. Thick textures, contrapuntally complex structure, and ultimate finger dexterity are some of the prerequisites for a solid rendition of a Godowsky etude. These are warhorses of etudes, written to strengthen the weak fingers as well as the left hand.

Liszt sounds impressive because he produces an enormous sonority, but a more subtle piece like 25/6 outranks Mazeppa in thirds difficulty.

I've finished Mazeppa and am now learning Wild Jagd, and believe me, these DO NOT compare to anything Godowsky wrote.

This is also coming from a person who can't play 25/6 so maybe some of you disagree, but I found 25/6 to be a lot harder than Mazeppa. I can't even begin to touch Godowsky yet. I've dabbled into his 25/12 for the left hand alone in C sharp minor, and that is quite a difficult piece.

~Max~

[mephisto]

Joyce Hatto who have recorded the complete Transcendental etudes, the complete Chopin etudes and the complete Chopin/Godowsky etudes(many faster than Hamelin) played some of the Godowsky etudes when she was 13. Some people say that if you could play the hardest Chopin etudes then you can start to play the some of the Godowsky etudes.

But the Godowsky etudes are probably harder, but o my god they do NOT sound very hard.

[bflatminor24]

Joyce Hatto who have recorded the complete Transcendental etudes, the complete Chopin etudes and the complete Chopin/Godowsky etudes(many faster than Hamelin) played some of the Godowsky etudes when she was 13. Some people say that if you could play the hardest Chopin etudes then you can start to play the some of the Godowsky etudes.

But the Godowsky etudes are probably harder, but o my god they do NOT sound very hard.

The Godowsky etudes are underrated in terms of difficulty. They sound "easier" than Liszt's because none of them produce gargantuan sound. The Godowsky etudes revolve more around texture and dexterity, while Liszt relies more on force and large spread of the piano, such as playing repeated loud chords.

If any of you aren't sure of the difficulty of the Godowsky etudes, purchase a book from Carl Fisher (Vol 3 is the etudes), or msg me on AIM (bflatminor24) and I'll send you a PDF of all of them.

Then you can see for yourself how incredibly difficult these etudes are by looking at the score.

~Max~

[mephisto]

They are not underrated. everybody talks about how they are the most difficult romantic pieces ever written. And I agree. I have seen some of the scores, and indeed there's pretty much going on at the same time to say the least

But they do not sound as hard as they are, for the reasons you mentioned.

[opus10no2]

Not only romantic, bbut possibly the most difficult works in all the piano literature to perform, including 20th century works.

I believe this because of the contrapuntal complexity of Godowsky's works, they demand much more refined voicing and control than Xenakis, Sorabji, or Finnissy.


Also, due to Godowsky's music being much more pianistic than the works of those composers, one might think that Godowsky is easier...
Not so...when music is less pianistic it is simply more awkward to perform, like randomness. But when music IS pianistic, it may be easier to produce a 'streamlined' performance, but this also allows for much more competitive and logical comparison between pianists.

Randomness shouldn't be the benchmark for 'difficulty'

[mephisto]

Finnissy, Xenakis, Boulez etc can be described as randomness and is certainly not very pianistic, but Sorabji appears pretty pianistic to me. Don't you agree? I admit that I haven't played any of his pieces yet.

[opus10no2]

Actually, yes, Sorabji is pianistic, and obviously written by a man with great knowledge of the piano.

Primarily the only new difficulties, aside from the different style of harmony which one has to become accustomed to, are -

Huge leaps exploring great sonorous range, involving dense chords.

New polyrhythmic difficulties.

And of course in his most famous works - the extreme length.


The thing is, also, that I admittedly don't like the music very much, and don't think the OC is particularly worth playing other than to prove how great a sightreader you are.


Even with these difficulties considered, none of them have extended concentrated demands on dexterity that , in particular, the Left-Hand Godowsky studies pose.

And anyone with a good grounding in the Godowsky studies should be able to adapt much quicker to the dense fast chords, leaps, and polyrhythmic elements in the Sorabji than it would take a Sorabji specialist to develop the new levels of digital dexterity to master, in particular, the left-hand difficulty in Godowsky works.


In the end, even if they are around the same level of difficulty, the Godowsky studies are great music to listen to and will always appeal to a much wider audience than music with less tonality, and will also always be a more competitive arena in which to compare pianist's techniques.

[mephisto]

I think you should have saved us from the last paragraph.

Don't you even think the little Sorabji piece that Hamelin plays in the composer-pianist cd is a good piece?

As for Godowsky the Passacaglia seams extremely difficult.

On a program on bbc there was an amateur who played the Godowsky etude for the left hand alone on op.10.6.

And a bit off topic, how difficult would it be to play a Volodos transcription? At least they sound extremely hard, do you think he would face problems in a Godowsky/Chopin etude?

[opus10no2]

Yes, but I just think Godowsky was the greater composer and pianist of the 2.

I think Sorabji wrote some great music, I was just stating that Godowsky's music is much more appealing to a typical audience, and will be more popular.

I know popularity has nothing to do with the intrinsic difficulty of a piece...but when a piece is more popular - more people play it, and it's more difficult to play it in a way that will stand out because of the competition.

This is why, odd as it may seem, it is more difficult to nowadays record a technically stand-out Chopin etudes album than a Chopin-Godowsky album.

[mephisto]

You can listen to a very talented pianist play some Godowsky etudes here:

https://www.roberthenry.org/

Some are even live.

[mephisto]

By the way who was the first person to record any the Godowsky etudes?

[thierry13]

Finnissy, Xenakis, Boulez etc can be described as randomness and is certainly not very pianistic, but Sorabji appears pretty pianistic to me. Don't you agree? I admit that I haven't played any of his pieces yet.

Nothing is random in their music. Even finissy, xenakis and boulez are pianistic, simply incredibly hard. Indeed, Sorabji's music is very pianistic.

[mephisto]

I know the music isn't random(it is extremely organized). But from a pianistic point of wiew it can easily be described as random.

It goes away from the pianistic tradition started by Chopin and perfected by the likes of Godowsky.

Ornstein's who died in 2001 did also compose pianistic music.

Why do you consider Xenakis and Boulez pianistic?

[bflatminor24]

Typically, composers who were not pianists themselves wrote more unpianistic music.

Xenakis and Ferneyhough are/were not pianists, where as Sorabji and Finnissy were. It is evident which composers play the piano and which don't. A lot of New Complexity music is written by composers who are less familiar with the piano than say, Godowsky or Rachmaninoff.

As for difficulty, I disagree with John (Soliloquy). He thinks I can't judge difficulty because I overrate awkward rhythms and leaps and chord clusters. Not true. Any technique can be difficult if written properly. All I said was that some pieces are musically difficult (which means it is hard to replicate what is on the score), which makes pieces by Scriabin and Barraque and Finnissy more difficult than people realize.

Some music is musically easy because the composer just writes a ridiculous amount of notes with very little substance to the notes, like some kind of experiment. Thus if one can play the notes, he has achieved musicality. This does not apply to composers with great musical depth in their compositions. Consider Beethoven, who wrote his sonatas with great depth of music, making them harder to learn than other pieces with similar technical challenges.

~Max~

[mephisto]

Typically, composers who were not pianists themselves wrote more unpianistic music.

Xenakis and BOULEZ are/were not pianists .



~Max~

Boulez is/was certainly a pianist!

[bflatminor24]

Boulez is/was certainly a pianist!

I meant Ferneyhough. (and thank God he isn't a pianist)