I'm confused. You start out by mentioning pieces that aren't too bad, Moonlight First and Second, Fur Elise, and then you tell us you've mastered the Revolutionary Etude. Are you playing it at quarter note = 144 (may be 168, not sure)? I find that a little incredible after only a year. Honestly, it seems to me your pieces are all over the place. I myself do not believe in level ratings, or the idea of "advanced" as we see it. The word "advanced" implies being nearer to expert, which many of us are far from. It seems we pass through the beginner stage at a decent pace, but I would say we spend most of our time in the intermediate level. They publish silly, easy pieces as "Intermediate", but if you look at the whole of classical piano repertoire there is so much to go after that, so I would be willing to say the intermediate stage lasts far longer. Also, if you look at your pieces, they focus on different techniques, as they should. If there are all these different techniques (jumps, passagework in either hand, voicing issues, chords) to worry about, how can we label our level overall when we may be extremely deficient in one or extremely advanced in another?
I'm not familiar with all of your pieces, but I would put Moonlight as the easiest (of those I know)
technically. Musically you will have to work to make the melody sing and make the piece worth listening to. The Chopin differs from person to person. Some (people who definitely have more than a year of practice, though) are gifted with mobility in the left hand and say it is "easy". Some, like me, have lead left hands and would be seriously challenged to learn it. I'm baffled at you trying the Hungarian Dance. The F# minor arpeggios in octaves in the RH are something you have to seriously train the body to do for months. First of all, they're not even scalar, so you have to train your arm to move the correct distance while playing fast octaves (not easy by any standards). Second, Brahms puts some serious demands on your jumping ability in the second theme. Do I think you can learn it? Yes. Do I think you can learn it before you get tired and frustrated because your body refuses to do what your mind wants it to? Not so sure. Clair de Lune is not too bad except for those left hand arpeggios, and the first Arabesque and Alla Turca may be about the same level, but the Mozart has a much greater focus on the right hand. My main point is, technique, to me, is a very complex thing, and there are a great amount of movements we must do at the piano. It is an individual process, though there are things like scales and arpeggios that appear so many times that we must practice them daily. Don't look at grade level to decide your pieces. Rather, I would say you should look at a piece you like, figure out what technique you need to play it and see if you can learn that technique over the course of learning the piece, or if it might take too long. If the latter, find other pieces that address the same issue either for shorter duration or with less complexity or breadth and learn those as a pathway to the other pieces.
Remember, composers put tempo markings (andante, allegro, all that are still tempo markings, though broad) because they intend their pieces to be played at that tempo. Also remember that piano pieces typically have more than a melody and a bass, but the listener needs to hear the melody first and foremost, and then the bass before the accompaniment. With the above, I'm not saying you shouldn't challenge yourself with difficult pieces, but be smart and make sure the pieces that require big leaps are few while the pieces that require manageable steps are many. I can tell you the thing that annoys most of the freshman at my college is that, even though they've played all of this cool stuff, they've got nothing they could just sit down and perform impromptu. It is good to study and work to claim great pieces, but it is also good to have some repertoire you can play whenever somebody asks you to play for them. Lastly, realize that, as my professor says, technique is a means to music. It is what we do to achieve the sound we want. It is not an end in itself. But it is also essential. I agree with nanabush: scales and arpeggios are a must and at your level I'd say you should know all of them, four octaves, major and and minor. You'll also want basic theory, not just to understand the music, but also to help make performance decisions such as where to use rubato. If a composer does something unusual, the listener will need more time to hear it, and you must give that time. You must also be able to recognize where phrases are and make them sound like phrases (typically, tapering off at the end in both dynamics and tempo).
You want piece ideas, I'll recommend some (for fun
):
Bach Two-Part Invention No. 4 in D minor (this is to work on contrapuntal music, as well as ornaments and trills in both hands)
Grieg March of the Dwarves (This will give you a real challenge with jumps in the left hand, but that's the hardest thing in this piece, and it doesn't last long. Besides, kids love it.)
Debussy La Fille Aux Cheveux du Lin (You can play it, and it's simply gorgeous)
Prokofiev Visions Fugitives (Some of these will be at your level, some won't. Luckily, all of them are short, and a good playground for experimenting with various techniques. I'm looking at No. 4 right now to really challenge my R.H. passagework.)
Topic: What does it mean to be advanced in piano?