Hardest piece ever created?

[opus10no2]

I just cant understand how these two can be separated. They are so heavily connected, the fingers will not play a single note without the brain, they will not have any technique, strength, stamina etc. The socalled "fingermemory" is based in the brain, reflexes are based in the spine. With no brain there would be no technique to talk of, so you cant say that something demands more then the other. Playing fast and accurate are the fingers and brain working together, and the reason someone plays faster then others are methods of training and choice.

Yes, the brain is involved in co-ordinating the technique, and the fingers are involved in executing the mechanique.

However, this is divided from 'brain virtuosity' because althought they work in harmony, they are entirely different processes.

Brain virtuosity is like the RAM in a computer, mech-virtuosity is like the processor.
The former stores and deals with the information, the processor brings it into physical form...

I also make this division, because some pianists are obviously better at one than the other..

Eg - those with great technical ability, but smaller repertoire...and vice versa.

Anyone who thinks modern/contemporary music is only complex in brain terms and not digitally has a very small experience of the genre..There are some phenominally difficult pieces to play in terms of finger technique and in particular chords and pianistic geography.

This is primarily brain-virtuosity relevant.

There is a new level of density in notes, , but the note distribution is laid out in such a way that it does not facilitate a smooth running of the mechanism, it involves the brain more.
Theoretically, if these passages were memorised and ingrained in the fingers, they could display technical ability in a comparable way to standard etude repertoire, but this is impractical and technical ability can be displayed much better in music with much more 'streamlined' and pianistic writing.

As I was saying before, comparing the Olympics, to an elaborate obstacle course...the Olympic style of things is much better suited to the practical evaluation and display of technical ability.

And Alistair, I'd agree, that while music of this 'new complexity' style taxes the brain virtuosity aspect in a way that can't be matched, it would be foolish to assume that it is impossible to display an incredible talent for brain virtuosity in more standard repertoire.

[nicco]

Eg - those with great technical ability, but smaller repertoire...and vice versa.

But doesent this depend on the choice of the artist? If he chooses to have a smaller repertoire it doesent necessarily mean he cant expand it. Maybe he wants to focuse more on depth in certain compositions, rather than playing new pieces every week\month or so. Size of repertoire shouldnt be a criteria if you ask me.

[opus10no2]

It's possible in some cases.

But in the vast majority of cases - when people can - they do.

Focussing on a smaller repertoire is a sure way to gain technical perfection.

The advanced brain-virtuoso AND mech-virtuoso pianistis like Hamelin have to decide which pieces to prioritise -

For example, some of his LH Chopin-Godowsky studies are evidently SUB-potential...the fact is that he could have played them faster with the same control, but he spread his butter a little thinly over that repertoire.

On the other hand - his Alkan Concerto was programmed regularly in the 90s, and all of the mechanically demanding passages vere ingrained - like intimate knowledge of a racecourse - and he was able to realise the full potential of his mechanism.

Even at the highest level there is always some kind of trade-off - to perfect pieces and limit repertoire, or so spread your butter thinner over more repertoire, but not with the same level of technical potential fulfilment.

[ahinton]

And Alistair, I'd agree, that while music of this 'new complexity' style taxes the brain virtuosity aspect in a way that can't be matched, it would be foolish to assume that it is impossible to display an incredible talent for brain virtuosity in more standard repertoire.

Indeed - and, of course, I never suggested anything of the sort, as I hope you noticed...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

I'll check your pieces out Alistair.  I know you are not a 'pianist' but you do play the piano very competantly. DO you play your own works? (deja vu - just been talking about Chopin/debussy et al playing their own pieces).

My point is that I believe there are difficult works for each compositional era which are not necessarily topped in each suceeding one in terms of difficulty but are joined like a difficult pieces hall of fame?!

ie Goldberg variations (one of the hardest pieces technically ever - if you dont think so you dont play them well)
Beethoven: Diabelli variations
etc etc etc...

I think the difficulty of modern music is underestimated particularly works which require 'extended' technique.. ie fore arm clusters, interior piano work, tape based effects, amplified piano etc etc.  These DO require skills that traditional repertoire simply dosent cultivate and the coorditnation aspect of these is EXTREME as the pieces often dont compromise on musical and technical dexterity simultaneously.

FOR ME there is NO hardest piece. There are many hard pieces but none which should be put on an unreachable plateau. A student will naturally gravitate towards a particular genre.. ie a student who enjoys baraoque works may well aspire to the Goldberg or one of the more taxing Handel suites or the Late Bach partitas. A student who loves and excells in classical brilliance may look to take on the Diabelli  and the late Beethoven sonatas. Someone who loves fresh sounds and dosent like picket fences may well be drawn to works like Ives concord sonata or Crumbs makrocosomos as their aspirational works. 

The hardest piece is totally subjective and will be different for each individual. Most rather blandly aspire to play the most difficult works of the Romantic and early 20th and lack the emotional capacity to do so - which is why we have so many half baked performances of these works.

[ahinton]

I'll check your pieces out Alistair.

Thank you.

I know you are not a 'pianist' but you do play the piano very competantly.

Thank you for the assumed compliment, but I really don't you know! I used to play abit but I have no natural talent at it and only ever did what I did at the instrument (a) as a means to help me beome musically literate (in the early stages) and (b) to try to figure out how the real pianist/composers did what they did.

DO you play your own works?

From the above, you will presumably have deduced by now that the answer to that question is a most definite NO!

My point is that I believe there are difficult works for each compositional era which are not necessarily topped in each suceeding one in terms of difficulty but are joined like a difficult pieces hall of fame?!

ie Goldberg variations (one of the hardest pieces technically ever - if you dont think so you dont play them well)
Beethoven: Diabelli variations
etc etc etc...

Subject to the inevitable subjectivity of this whole thing, yes, that's about right, i guess - but what's difficult for one is not for others, as I've been at pains to observe before...

I think the difficulty of modern music is underestimated particularly works which require 'extended' technique.. ie fore arm clusters, interior piano work, tape based effects, amplified piano etc etc.  These DO require skills that traditional repertoire simply dosent cultivate and the coorditnation aspect of these is EXTREME as the pieces often dont compromise on musical and technical dexterity simultaneously.
/

Yes, but most of the "new complexity" piano works use such extended techniques sparingly or not at all, unlike some other "modernistic" pieces that explore  extended playing techniques for other instruments (such as works by Lachenmann, Hespos, etc.); the "problems" associated with the most demanding piano writing of, say, Ferneyhough, Finnissy, etc. are more to do with mental/physical co-ordination and mental alacrity - the physical problems are generally not "new" ones as such, other than in sheer quantitative terms (as I've also said before).

FOR ME there is NO hardest piece. There are many hard pieces but none which should be put on an unreachable plateau. A student will naturally gravitate towards a particular genre.. ie a student who enjoys baraoque works may well aspire to the Goldberg or one of the more taxing Handel suites or the Late Bach partitas. A student who loves and excells in classical brilliance may look to take on the Diabelli  and the late Beethoven sonatas. Someone who loves fresh sounds and dosent like picket fences may well be drawn to works like Ives concord sonata or Crumbs makrocosomos as their aspirational works. 

The hardest piece is totally subjective and will be different for each individual. Most rather blandly aspire to play the most difficult works of the Romantic and early 20th and lack the emotional capacity to do so - which is why we have so many half baked performances of these works.

Can't argue with any of that!

Best,

Alistair

[wesball94]

I've said it on the other one and I'll say it again. THE FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLEBEE BY RIMSKY-KORKOVSKI!!!!!!

[soliloquy]

I've said it on the other one and I'll say it again. THE FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLEBEE BY RIMSKY-KORKOVSKI!!!!!!

Who is Rimsky-Korkovski?  Do you mean Rimsky-Korsakov?  Now, which do you think is harder, vln1 or vln2?  Or did you mean the Rachmaninov transcription for solo piano?  If so, please just immediately leave the forum.

[opus10no2]

I'll check your pieces out Alistair.  I know you are not a 'pianist' but you do play the piano very competantly. DO you play your own works? (deja vu - just been talking about Chopin/debussy et al playing their own pieces).

My point is that I believe there are difficult works for each compositional era which are not necessarily topped in each suceeding one in terms of difficulty but are joined like a difficult pieces hall of fame?!

ie Goldberg variations (one of the hardest pieces technically ever - if you dont think so you dont play them well)
Beethoven: Diabelli variations
etc etc etc...

I think the difficulty of modern music is underestimated particularly works which require 'extended' technique.. ie fore arm clusters, interior piano work, tape based effects, amplified piano etc etc.  These DO require skills that traditional repertoire simply dosent cultivate and the coorditnation aspect of these is EXTREME as the pieces often dont compromise on musical and technical dexterity simultaneously.

Those skills involve little dexterity...

And the Diabelli and Goldberg variations are nowhere near the 'brain' difficulty of Alkan, Godowsky, Sorabji, and Finnissy..

Whether they are of the same 'mechanical' difficulty would depend on their speed, which would have to be extreme to compare with the mechanical ability required to play Chopin etudes at standard competition tempo.

And please do not speak of 'musical' difficulty, because this is irrelevant and subjective

[pianowelsh]

Do you play the Goldberg and Diabelli op10/2 in fact do you play Godowsky or Alkan??? The Goldberg is FAR more challenging than most people realise. It has subtle complexities which frankly Godowsky and Alkan dont. There is nowher near the levelof interpretive difficulty in the works of Liszt, Godowsky, Alkan that there is in the mature work of Bach and Beethoven and Mozart.. I have the word of distinguished professors who would testify to that.
I think we would be in agreement on this one Alistair - that difficulty rather like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Each person finds certain technical/musical aspects a real challenge - this dosent mean everyone will be challenged by it. eg I have no problem to sit down and sightread a Schumann-Liszt transcription BUT to sit down and sightread a page of Barber or Ravel is much more problematic form me much less Ferneyhough or Carter, Boulez et al. Its about where your natural strengths lie. Sightreading of a range of contemporary music is something actually I believe should have a regular class devoted to it in college level studies as a number in my piano class struggled initially reading contemporary scores - as I said for me it still isnt natural.

[opus10no2]

Do you play the Goldberg and Diabelli op10/2 in fact do you play Godowsky or Alkan??? The Goldberg is FAR more challenging than most people realise. It has subtle complexities which frankly Godowsky and Alkan dont. There is nowher near the levelof interpretive difficulty in the works of Liszt, Godowsky, Alkan that there is in the mature work of Bach and Beethoven and Mozart.. I have the word of distinguished professors who would testify to that.

Intervreptive difficulty is subjective.

I'm talking about the 2 very tangible and quantifiable difficulties of brain stress and mechanism stress.

Quite frankly, the Goldbergs are a piece of piss compared to something like the Winterwind at tempo.

[pianowelsh]

I play both the Goldberg and the ww etude - at a reasonable performance tempo and the Goldberg is infinitely harder, technically and musically.
Brain stress will vary person to person, mechanical stress with also be dependant upon hand shape and fingering choices so they are most definately not quanifiable with any degree of accuracy.
WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE HARDEST PIECE IS ANYWAY? What is the point! so you can learn it and brag - I can play the hardest piece in the world or something?!?!? You could have learnt a dozen by the time youve conducted the survey.

[opus10no2]

Of course it will be more demanding on the brain, it's a longer piece....but it's nothing like Godowsky or anything of that level of complexity.

You say you play the WW at - a reasonable performance tempo.

Reasonable would be Chopin's intended tempo, and this is below 2 minutes and 40 seconds excluding the slow intro.

Please do not make yourself look a fool any longer and concede that playing the WW - AT TEMPO - is more mechanically difficult that anything and everything in the Goldbergs combined.

[pianowelsh]

Chopins metronome markings are ridiculous for the winterwind barely a few people in the world would entertain playing it at taht tempo. I do it in 3"15..which is quite fast enough to give the necessary wow factor. The Goldberg is one example but yes I do believe that if you play this work as it is meant to be played it is mechanically more difficult that the winterwind not to mention it is a compendium of Baroque technique whereas the ww is merely one main technical goal for all of 3 mins.
The only reason I look a fool is that I have botered to maintain dialogue with you this long - Good bye!

[opus10no2]

Chopins metronome markings are ridiculous for the winterwind barely a few people in the world would entertain playing it at taht tempo. I do it in 3"15..which is quite fast enough to give the necessary wow factor.

The same people who would be 'wowed' by your Goldberg, I'd imagine.

Chopin's metronome markings aren't ridiculous, they're demanding, and for a reason - they sound best that way as music.

The Goldberg variations are a difficult baroque work, they deal with quite a variety of baroque techniques, but it is MORE mechnically difficult to play similar figurations for 3 minutes than it is to vary figurations.

[ahinton]

Do you play the Goldberg and Diabelli op10/2 in fact do you play Godowsky or Alkan??? The Goldberg is FAR more challenging than most people realise. It has subtle complexities which frankly Godowsky and Alkan dont. There is nowher near the levelof interpretive difficulty in the works of Liszt, Godowsky, Alkan that there is in the mature work of Bach and Beethoven and Mozart.. I have the word of distinguished professors who would testify to that.
I think we would be in agreement on this one Alistair - that difficulty rather like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Each person finds certain technical/musical aspects a real challenge - this dosent mean everyone will be challenged by it. eg I have no problem to sit down and sightread a Schumann-Liszt transcription BUT to sit down and sightread a page of Barber or Ravel is much more problematic form me much less Ferneyhough or Carter, Boulez et al. Its about where your natural strengths lie. Sightreading of a range of contemporary music is something actually I believe should have a regular class devoted to it in college level studies as a number in my piano class struggled initially reading contemporary scores - as I said for me it still isnt natural.

I don't fully agree with your remarks about Godowsky and Alkan - and I cannot help but wonder how well versed in Godowsky and Alkan in particular are those "distinguished professors" that you mention - i.e. have they performed Alkan's Opp. 35 & 39, the Chopin/Godowsky Studies, etc.?  I am, however, pretty much in sympathy with the principal thrust of the remainder of what you write here, in that what is "difficult" to one pianist will be less so to another, as I have observed so many times now that I may as well go make a CD of it; this is the main reason why this entire "hardest piece" business is largely a waste of time - because it can and will never arrive at any universally applicable conclusions. All that one can and should do in considering the whole panoply of pianistic difficulties is take each piece of Bach, Ferneyhough, Chopin, Finnissy, Alkan, Busoni, etc. on its own merits in terms of the particular technical and interpretative problems that it presents to one as a pianist propoosing to learn it. Of course one can then go farther and consider, examine and discuss the specific kinds of technical and interpretative difficulties encountered in each of these composers' piano writing, but that's by no means the same thing as getting on a "hardest piece" trip.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Actually one of my teachers had studied the complete works of Godowsky. as for Alkan my classmate on degree learnt the concerto for solo piano and other bits and bobs on his own because his teacher refused to teach him the stuff saying it was meaningless and a waste of time.  Im not sure I would quite go to those same lengths but I think with regard to some of the works he wasnt far wrong.
Hardest piece is still totally subjective so no answer will be forth coming.

[opus10no2]

his teacher refused to teach him the stuff saying it was meaningless and a waste of time. 

His ignorance and stupidity is blatantly obvious.

[ahinton]

Actually one of my teachers had studied the complete works of Godowsky.

OK, fair comment - so, in that instance, a mere difference of opinion, then, albeit a diametric one - but were this professor's remarks confined to what he/she considered to be the value of Godowsky's work as music or did they also extend to a view on its value as piano writing per se?

as for Alkan my classmate on degree learnt the concerto for solo piano and other bits and bobs on his own because his teacher refused to teach him the stuff saying it was meaningless and a waste of time.  Im not sure I would quite go to those same lengths but I think with regard to some of the works he wasnt far wrong.

I have to agree with "opus10no2" here; whatever personal feelings that your classmate's professor may have about Alkan, the notion that a composer whose work earned high praise from Chopin and Liszt in his own day and that of such luminaries of composition, pianism and letters as Busoni, Petri, Philipp, Arrau, Ogdon, Lewenthal, (Sacheverell) Sitwell, Searle, (Ronald) Smith and Hamelin in more recent times wrote music that was "meaningless and a waste of time" is beyond fatuous and, as such, a wholly unworthy and dangerous one for a professor of music to hold, let alone to sell to his/her students.

Hardest piece is still totally subjective so no answer will be forth coming.

Already agreed; it is surely that subject that is truly "meaningless and a waste of time" here...

Best,

Alistair

[tuufy]

Hexameron