This segment from Opus Clavicembalisicum doesn't look too pleasant...
The hardest song I've ever played is Rachmaninoff's first concerto (though I've heard the other two are more difficult)
Cut and paste from Ian Pace's website.
again!!!! this has been discussed
Rakhmaninov's concerti are not "songs" and there are four, not three, numbered ones (+ the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini)Nor does it come from page 60 of the publication of Opus Clicembalisticum (sp.) which, in any case has no bar numbers in it as this image does. Perhaps you might like to check your sources. The typesettting is appalling, so no wonder it looks so unpleasant. Its actual source is from Sorabji's very first known work for piano solo, a sonata now given the number "0" dating from 1917 and which he did not see fit to publish; the bar number concerned is 199, not 201, according to the excellent new typeset edition by Frazer Jarvis which The Sorabji Archive will shortly be issuing (and from which this extract assuredly does not come). The work's ms. disappeared for many years and in fact became split into two (which doubtless it remains to this day); it took a lot of detective work and fortuitous serendipity finally to acquire the entire work and assemble it into a complete copy (from which Mr Jarvis's edition has been prepared). The first performance of the piece took place in New York in September 2002 and was given by Soheil Nasseri.Best,Alistair
w/e might as well
I've seen this list before and I was wondering if you have in fact studied all of these scores? I'm not trying to revert to previous arguments that have plagued this forum (which I am certainly guilty of participating in) but I'm really just flat out curious what would lead someone to develop such a list. I mean, none of those Sorabji pieces are even typeset/performed. It'd be impressive if you actually ordered the m.s. xeroxes on the Symphonic Variations, which must be over 400 sheets.Would you mind giving the full names of those composers. I tried Googling a lot of them and many of the names didn't yield any results (save for the obvious ones that have considerable fame like Cage and Scelsi)
"proper" is one of those words that makes me roll my eyes.
haydn sonata no.52 mozart sonata no.8 these 2? for sure no!
What's is the hardest piano piece in your opinion?
so soliloquy do you prefer modern music to what i would call proper music?
Good god, enough already. It's all good. It's all bad. There's no right or wrong to any type of music. There's no proper or improper unless you're an insufferable boor who has to divvy everything in the world up into a good pile and an evil pile. Enough of this nonsense. There are plenty of AOL chat-rooms that are supposed to be a catch-basin for that sort of solution-less rubbish
jesus honestly all i wanted to know was if he preferred it.as for the "what i would call proper music" part, well i couldnt think of a better way of phrasing it. if i'd said old music someone would have said "oh, bla bla define old" etc. i was just trying to avoid a fuss but look how that turned out.
I believe postmodernism has rendered any discussions of 'proper' music futile...
It is a reaction against modernism - so in musical terms it would be a reaction against a 'modernist' school of composition such as serialism... like John Cage or someone like La Monte Young or Terry Riley.
Okay, but any reaction to a modern concept is still technically occuring in the present. Therefore, anything would be modern. "Postmodern" would mean that a concept is still to occur.
You like being annoying, don't you?
producing annoyance
I had no intension of producing annoyance to you or anyone else, and am sorry if my post was perceived as such. I was merely opting for clarification. You claimed that "postmodernism" was any movement that is a reaction to "modern" approaches. I claimed however, that despite those new claims being geared towards new concepts, they are still occuring at the present time, and so cannot possibly be post-modern. In effect, post-modernism may only refer to hypothetical trends that have not yet taken place. If however something takes place, it is modern.
Not theoretically. Not hypothetically. By this twisted (lack of) logic, you're still incorrect. A piece written in 2006 is modern. Therefore, a piece written in 2007 is post-modern. Post-modern doesn't have anything to do with a period of time. Don't derail an already-derailed topic any more.
In response to the links, which I admit I haven't yet fully read, I can still speculate that taken literally, "post-modern" means something that is occuring after now. Physically, that is impossible. If that something is indeed occuring, it is then in the "now" and is therefore modern. We could have no conception as to what post modern is, simply because it hasn't occured yet. If one was to say of a post modern idea, unless that someone doesn't really know what the idea is, he is still brandishing the idea. As "soliloquy" has pointed out, something can be called "post modern" if it is viewed from past, and only if that past is still in the notion of being modern. Obviously, we have a contradiction. Past cannot ever be modern, and modern can never be post modern.
You don't understand. Just like New Complexity or Romantic is a school of music, Post-Modern is also a school of music. You're getting caught up in the semantics of the name.
No I understand that "Post-modernism" is a school of music. I don't contradict to it. I just am merely stating that the usage of the term "post-modern" is incorrect and ambiguous. There is no way that an occuring concept can be post modern. If the school is existing, it is modern, despite being called post modern.
It's not ambiguous at all if you take art history and music history terms with a grain of salt and actually, *gasp*, try to contextualize the term based on what its originators were trying to define with it. It doesn't have anything to do with the consistency the term has in terms of the Oxford Unabridged English Dictionary or whatever other needless semantic wellspring you're drawing from. The same base level of pedantic pissing and moaning could be applied to all sorts of terms, like neo-classicalism ("How could something be new AND classical all at the same time!!! or some b.s.) but what would be the point. Terminologies can still be useful even if they're unable to pass through the psuedo-intellectual gauntlet of etymological logic.Now, can this crapola please end! I feel like I'm sitting in Philo 101 again, where I heard plenty of this kind of pithy verbal excrement!
Now, can this crapola please end! I feel like I'm sitting in Philo 101 again, where I heard plenty of this kind of pithy verbal excrement!
If you wish to communicate something please use words.
Otherwise, our system of cronology and temporal classification is wrong. Post-modern is impossible because it hasn't occured yet. If you wish to refer to something from the past as modern, you may, but that is unnecessary and stupid.
Topic: Hardest Classical Piece? 