Article: What are the Easiest Chopin Etudes?

[matthew from florida]

Since the answer to this question is really scattered in bits and pieces all over the internet, I decided to answer this question in one place by writing an article at Gather.com. I read a lot of old posts at various piano forums, including this one, in doing my research. Any critiques for the article or the rankings would be appreciated!

What are the Easiest Chopin Etudes?
https://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978767733

[stevebob]

From the second paragraph of the article:

Likely you have heard at least some of them. The Waterfall, Tristesse, Torrent, Revolutionary, Winter Wind, and Ocean etudes are some of the most popular and recognizable.

Chopin didn't give nicknames to his compositions, and serious musicians are, by and large, loath to use them.  While that group of etudes may indeed be “some of the most popular and recognizable,” the cloying titles are less so—which, in my opinion, is a good thing.. 

We're probably stuck with that small number of shopworn monikers that have been around for many generations and are indeed well known, but I'm convinced that the invention and propagation of the recent ones is entirely due to pseudo-information from Wikipedia.  As these pieces aren’t intended to have any extramusical associations or convey specific imagery, tags such as waterfall, torrent, sunshine, bees and horseman are especially unwarranted.

[matthew from florida]

Chopin didn't give nicknames to his compositions, and serious musicians are, by and large, loath to use them.

That's right; perhaps I should change that. Though I do find it a lot easier to say Waterfall than Opus 10 No. 1, though

Are there any changes you would make to the rankings?

[stevebob]

Oh, I dunno.  I have increasingly little faith in the value of such rankings, even when the items are broadly placed into groups rather than in a linear order. 

To start with, I’m thinking of the Fats Waller quote in my own sig line (“It’s easy when you knows how”), because people who already have facility in one or more of the techniques drilled in a specific etude will surely find it easier going than those who do not.  The skill set one brings to the table will determine how the technical difficulties are perceived, and it’s also likely that having learned a number of the etudes already will make the remaining ones seem less taxing than if they had been learned first.

Then there’s the whole matter of musical or interpretive difficulty vs. technical difficulty, which you don’t seem to touch upon in the article.

And then there’s still the question of the standard to which they’re learned.  How polished?  At what tempo?  A reasonably skilled amateur may find that learning the notes of even 25/6 isn’t so hard; performing it in a truly finished manner and at the speed of a professional performance is another matter entirely.

All that said, I guess I would move 10/1, 10/11, 25/3, 25/4, 25/8 and 25/10 from Harder to Even Harder.  I think many people would even place 10/1 and 25/10 in the Hardest group.  Otherwise, your rankings seem in accord with what people say (for what it’s worth).

By the way, you might be interested to know that G. Schirmer once published a two-volume set for students called Introduction to Chopin, edited by Alfred Mirovitch.  Each volume comprised selected pieces from the usual genres; the etudes presented in Volume I were 25/2, 25/1, 10/2, 10/3 and 10/12 (in that order), and Volume II contained 10/5, 10/7, 25/4, 25/7 and 25/9.  I wonder how many people learned 10/2 as one of their first etudes (as I did), blissfully unaware that it’s “supposed” to be one of the very hardest.

[pianist1976]

I wonder how many people learned 10/2 as one of their first etudes (as I did), blissfully unaware that it’s “supposed” to be one of the very hardest.

I once met a physician who specialized in musicians injuries. Op 10 no. 2 was one of the reasons  why many young pianists came to his office...

[sashaco]

I have to wonder with Stevebob what exactly the value of ranking "difficulty" is.  Sometimes the densest material, which for many people takes the longest to learn, is not necessarily the hardest to perform once it is learned.  More "naked" material, like Mozart sonatas, for example, leaves the player nowhere to hide.  An uneven line sticks out painfully.  Large crashing chords can take a long time to learn, but the pedal and "wall of sound" effect cover up uneven playing.  I think there's some truth to this even at the most profficient levels of playing. Although to the most sophisticated listeners all carelessness is revealed, guys like me are always more impressed with the player who takes our breath away with a Bach Fugue than the one who dazzles with some apparently impossible chunk of Liszt or Rachmaninoff.    How about Brahms 117 no 1?  A profficient player can sight-read it, but how many can really play it?

(This may just be personal- I'm the same about literature- a story about ordinary people leading ordinary lives that somehow effortlessly plumbs the human soul or stuns me with the author's understanding of my own secret psyche impresses me more than epics. Wordworth convinces me utterly that the glory and the dream are present even in a violet by a mossy stone.  Movies love "complex" or "damaged" or wildly offbeat characters who give actors a chance to show off their range, but how much harder is it to inhabit the skin of a guy just trying to do his best?)

At my own very modest level of play (I could not sight-read 117 no 1) I'm increasingly surprised to find how often "difficult " pieces seem to stick in my fingers once learned (a la Fats) and  "easier" ones never seem to sound polished.  Last year I was working on the Chopin Barcarolle and the Pathetique.  While the Chopin seemed far too challenging, I now enjoy playing it, whereas the third movement of the Pathetique always has horrible uneveness in it I can't seem to eradicate since it keeps jumping to different spots. 

What then is the meaning of "harder"?


Cheers, Sasha

[pianist1976]

Don't be too much worried about that. Difficulty is very relative. While been a student I had a classmate for whom Op 10 no. 2 wasn't very difficult, he had a natural ability that I never understood because for me that etude is still these days a torture to play. But it took a huge effort for him to play Op 25 no. 6 (thirds) while for me wasn't specially problematic (difficult, hard work but naturally solved, not an experience like climbing the Himalaya).

[xtraheat]

Easiest imo: Op.10 no.12, Op.25 no.1, Op.25 no.2, Op.25 no.9, Op. 10 no.6, Op.25 no.12

[xtraheat]

In regards to that list, op.25 no.7 is excruciatingly difficult to voice and balance well, which is the point of the etude; I would put it in group 3. 10/1, 10/7, 25/8 and 10/11 are much more difficult than anything in group 3. I really don't think this person has played any of these etudes, because this list seems like it is based solely off of how hard the sheet music looks

[matthew from florida]

I have increasingly little faith in the value of such rankings, even when the items are broadly placed into groups rather than in a linear order.

I have to wonder with Stevebob what exactly the value of ranking "difficulty" is.

Very good point; I would agree it may not be a worthwhile question in the end- but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people still ask the question.

I appreciate all the comments here and will probably make a few changes to the article soon.