Hardest Classical Piece?

[drdl1001]

What's is the hardest piano piece in your opinion?

[thalbergmad]

Piano Sonata by David Diamond.

Thal

[forzaitalia250]

Well the not-so-obvious answer is the one being learned  

Once you learn a song it really isn't that difficult anymore is it?


It's hard to really say something is THE hardest because everyone has different strengths and opinions on what makes a song difficult.

The hardest song I've ever played is Rachmaninoff's first concerto (though I've heard the other two are more difficult)

This segment from Opus Clavicembalisicum doesn't look too pleasant...

[thalbergmad]

Cut and paste from Ian Pace's website.

If you use the search function, you might find this has been discussed before.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

This segment from Opus Clavicembalisicum doesn't look too pleasant...

Don't sound it either.

[ahinton]

The hardest song I've ever played is Rachmaninoff's first concerto (though I've heard the other two are more difficult)

Rakhmaninov's concerti are not "songs" and there are four, not three, numbered ones (+ the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini)

This segment from Opus Clavicembalisicum doesn't look too pleasant...

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

[amelialw]

again!!!! this has been discussed

[soliloquy]

w/e might as well


Barlow Cogluotobusletismesi
Barlow Ludus Ragalus
Barrett Tract
Bussotti Pour Clavier
Cage Etudes Australes
Diaz-Infante Solus
Dillon The Books of Elements
Ferneyhough Opus-Contra-Naturam
Finnissy all.fall.down.
Finnissy Folklore
Finnissy History of Photography in Sound
Finnissy Solo Concerto No. 4
Flynn Trinity
Furrer Phasma
Globokar Notes
Heyn "203"
Hoban When the Panting STARTS
Kampela Nosturnos
Martino Pianississimo
Otte Das Buch der Klange
Rzewski The Road
Scelsi Action Music
Skalkottas 32 Piano Pieces
Sorabji Opus Archimagicum
Sorabji Sequentia Cyclica Super "Dies Irae" ex Missa pro Defunctis
Sorabji Symphonic Variations
Stockhausen Klavierstuck VI
Stockhausen Klavierstuck X
Xenakis Eonta
Xenakis Erikhthon
Xenakis Evryali
Xenakis "Herma"- Musique Symbolique
Xenakis Synaphai
Yim :[ten]dril
Zimmermann Wustenwanderung

[ahinton]

Cut and paste from Ian Pace's website.

Is that meant to be an instruction or an observation? Just curious...Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

again!!!! this has been discussed

Hasn't it just! Nils will move it soon. Yawn...

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

That selection actually looks awesome.

On subject, I proffer Beethoven's Slow movement from the Op. 106 Sonata.

[forzaitalia250]

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

Apologies on the misinformation, I just remember seeing this on a similar thread on another forum and figured I'd post it.

About the Rach concerti... umm I guess all I can say is it was early when I posted? Brain fart I suppose

[indutrial]

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)

[soliloquy]

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)

I have hard copies of most of those scores, and have seen but do not own a couple of them.  They're just pieces that I personally feel are the most technically difficult.  There is undoubtably a ton of obscure stuff out there that could be equally are hard though.  As for the Sorabji, I have never actually... "purchased" a Sorabji score.  Most of them I copy from the music library or get from some of my friends.  For names:


Clarence Barlow
Richard Barrett
Sylvano Bussotti
John Cage
Ernesto Diaz-Infante
James Dillon
Brian Ferneyhough
Michael Finnissy
George Flynn
Beat Furrer
Vinko Globokar
Volker Heyn
Wieland Hoban
Arthur Kampela
Donald Martino
Hans Otte
Frederic Rzewski
Giacinto Scelsi
Nikos Skalkottas
Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Iannis Xenakis
Jay Allan Yim
Walter Zimmermann

Also recently came across this piece: Dary Jonn Mizelle "Transforms"  There's also Otte's Book of Hours which is even longer.  They're really exacting weird, minimalist-ish stuff.  Hard to explain.  Oh, also Rolf Ghelhaar's Suite for Piano (Fractal Pieces) should be on there.

[elevateme_returns]

so... do you actualy prefer this modern stuff to proper music ? like beethoven sonatas etc

[soliloquy]

Modern music is also "proper" music.  I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing its merits, which narrows your tastes.

[elevateme_returns]

but do you prefer it?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

Yes, any kind of music is proper. What is not proper however are anyone's attempts at belittling others claiming that those people are not capable of understanding such arts.

Also, the topic is about the hardest Classical piece and not the hardest "Modern piece" , to say nothing of Romantic, Impressionistic, and other music.

[Nightscape]

"proper" is one of those words that makes me roll my eyes.

[elevateme_returns]

"proper" is one of those words that makes me roll my eyes.

lucky you don't live in newcastle then lol

[elevateme_returns]

so soliloquy do you prefer modern music to what i would call proper music?

[hodi]

ummm.. hardest classical pieces?

 haydn sonata no.52
mozart sonata no.8

[amelialw]

haydn sonata no.52
mozart sonata no.8

these 2? for sure no!

[maxreger]

I "prefer" modern music.

Though, I dont see how liking a Ligeti work makes Beethoven less or more "proper".

I can listen to a Penderecki early work, and then a Beethoven sonata, and enjoy both for different reasons. I dont get why you cant seem to grasp that people can like more than 1 thing. You play Ravel, does it kill your taste for Bach? or Beethoven?

You seem to want to become a performer, full time musician... I dont see why you would hurt your own career by being so close minded to everything, you are after all a kid. You have a long ways to go before you are even close to being a mature musician and you act like you have people with years of experience ahead of you all figured out. I think you will learn with time that you dont have to hate something to validate something else, Ligeti and Beethoven had their own times to say what they felt was valid to them as people. You will be lucky if you dont end up being having a mediocre career as a concert pianist, so, try to be open minded and give yourself a chance. Because you will probably never achieve anything like the people you are so quick to knock down, and you are getting off on the wrong foot in regards to how a concert pianist should act.

Have your tastes, but stop pushing your ideas on other people who frankly are smarter than you at this given moment in time and this moment in each career. 

[hodi]

haydn sonata no.52
mozart sonata no.8

these 2? for sure no!

i meant from the classical period
and yes, THEY ARE DIFFICULT
maybe they do not contain any super-fast-ultra-jump octaves and arpeggios..
but playing them good is absolutely a difficult task !

[soliloquy]

Classical Era?


surely Hammerklavier.  Maybe Schubert D850

[chidi]

What's is the hardest piano piece in your opinion?

That's easy. minuet in g by Litopinthovenoffievubert

[indutrial]

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

[elevateme_returns]

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.

[hayasaka]

Hardest classical piece that i've ever played, still in progress though. you can try.

- Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit - Scarbo

Hardest classical piece in my own opinion but never played

- Hindemith piano sonatas
- Messiean's ile de feu no.1 no.2
- Schoenberg's Suite for Piano op.25

Hardest classical piece in 'classical period' .

- i would like to say Beethoven's piano sonata op.2 no.3 last movement ( you would probably reply : "hell no!" (but i bet only lousy pianist would say that.) and this is my reply "hell yea why don't u try to playing like the standard of glenn gould jeno jando or whoever famous pianist?' lol 

[indutrial]

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.

You're introducing a line of inquiry that's completely unrelated (and extremely tiresome) to the thread's subject matter - difficulty and all of its facets. Proper-ness and preference are two qualities that are not even close to relevant to this discussion (and probably don't really belong anywhere, because they are entirely subjective, hence...meaningless, solutionless, and immature to dwell upon). Difficulty can at least be discussed with a palpable level of objectivity, even if different people come at the problem from a variety of standpoints, backgrounds, preferences, etc...

[Nightscape]

I believe postmodernism has rendered any discussions of 'proper' music futile...

[debussy symbolism]

I believe postmodernism has rendered any discussions of 'proper' music futile...

I have a sense as to what "premodern" is, but could you explain please what "postmodernism" could be?

[Nightscape]

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.

[debussy symbolism]

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.

[pita bread]

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?

[debussy symbolism]

You like being annoying, don't you?

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.

[indutrial]

A couple links that may help those of us who want to play semantic kickball with the word 'modern.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_art

It doesn't get much simpler than that. Whether you support or decry the use of post-modernism or modernism as terms, it's pretty apparent that, despite anyone's measly individual views, the artistic world as a whole has lent them some level of credibility.

[elevateme_returns]

producing annoyance

 

[soliloquy]

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.

[debussy symbolism]

If you wish to communicate something please use words.

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.

Okay, that works, but that method of reasoning is very unnecessary. That would denote that only the first ever musical work recorded would be counted as modern, and everything else post-modern. As you can see, that is very contrary to how musical works are classified. That would mean that there would be no such terms as "romantic," "classical," etc. No doubt, that during those classical times their work was called "modern" and not classical, but it definately wasn't called post modern. And no, a piece written from an earlier date can no longer be called "modern" for obvious reasons. It is called "past." 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.

[debussy symbolism]

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.

[soliloquy]

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. 

[debussy symbolism]

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.

[indutrial]

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!

[debussy symbolism]

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!

After reading more information from the links provided, I can more or less agree with the claims here concerning the meaning of the term. Post-modernism applies to ideas initiated by modern ideas. Such logic could be applied to many things such as post-romanticism, or neo-romanticism respectively.

[pita bread]

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!

I know, seriously!

[elevateme_returns]

If you wish to communicate something please use words.

i didnt wish to communicate anything, only to pull that face at what you said, "producing annoyance"

 

[elevateme_returns]

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.

i think you have a good point there actually .  but cronology is missing an h.

[opus10no2]

You'll be missing an I if you don't please