Most Difficult Piece in Standard Repertoire

[john11inc]

So anyway, there's another thread that I think is really trying to get at this.  I'm being a bit loose with "standard", but these are all pieces that are getting played a lot, at the moment.  This obviously excludes pieces by Alkan (and other neglected Romantic era composers), as well as some of the outrageously difficult works by Liszt and Busoni.  It also excludes a vast majority of 20th/21st Century works.

I'm only talking about objective, technical difficulty.  I'm talking about playing all the notes, in rhythm, in tempo, as written.  I'm not talking about "oh, but Mozart is so hard because people expect perfection."  I listed solo work on the top, and concerti on the bottom, so be sure to read through the whole list.

You can choose four options.


Edit- I forgot the Ligeti Etudes, so they're at the bottom.

[omar_roy]

Maybe I'm uneducated and don't know any better, but shouldn't Balakirev's "Islamey" be up there as well?

[kitty on the keys]

Mozart or Haydn......any piano composition solo, chamber, or concerto
Bach   any piece

   While your list may include all the flash.....a fine pianst is developed on the classical style and grows from there.

happy new year

kitty on the keys

[john11inc]

Mozart or Haydn

Way to read.

[pianisten1989]

I wouldn't say Mozart or Haydn is the most difficult. Nor would I say Liszt or Barber is.
If you can play all transcendental etudes, doesn't mean you can play any Mozart sonata, in a good way.

[john11inc]

Were you guys having a party when you were supposed to be reading:

I'm only talking about objective, technical difficulty.

Quit talking about "musicality", a word so vile it should be illegal.  Not the point of the thread at all.  Go make another Mozart thread if that's what you want to talk about.  Or better yet, go to the pianoworld forums.

[prometheus]

Everyone has different hands and brains and different types of experience and abilities. So this is silly. People will struggle with different aspects.

[thalbergmad]

I say, there is a name from the past.

Nice to hear from you again old chap.

Thal

[john11inc]

Everyone has different hands and brains and different types of experience and abilities. So this is silly. People will struggle with different aspects.

So you believe a Czerny Study is as easy as one of the above-listed pieces?

Or do you believe that there is a conglomerate of pieces that, given a random selection of specific pianists, would be equally difficult across the set of musicians, as the various techniques required would challenge each pianist more or less, dependent upon their experience and skill set?

If it's the former, then just go away.  If it's the latter, then there is an answer to this question, because some pieces would necessarily be excluded, lest we go back to Czerny.  As such, this is not silly; you just don't feel like taking the time and/or feel unqualified to answer the question.

[pianisten1989]

and if you read our answer, and maybe try to understand, you'll notice that there is no "one" most difficult piece. For example: If you have a hand that barely can reach an octave (which isn't very uncommon) the octave etude will the way harder than winter wind etude, which is considered one of the most difficult.

Though, Paganini/Händel-variations, Symphonic etudes, or All chopin/liszt etudes would probably be considered most difficult (in one of these super-clever topics), since they have very many different difficulties.

[prometheus]

So you believe a Czerny Study is as easy as one of the above-listed pieces?

Again, what a silly question.

Learn what the meaning of 'objective' is. And learn you can't force people to answer a loaded question and then tell them to go away when they point out your question is flawed.

And that doesn't even touch upon what 'standard repertoire' means.

[omar_roy]

Seriously, Balakirev's "Islamey" should be up there.

[john11inc]

Again, what a silly question.

Learn what the meaning of 'objective' is. And learn you can't force people to answer a loaded question and then tell them to go away when they point out your question is flawed.

And that doesn't even touch upon what 'standard repertoire' means.

Oh.  See, you missed the other 85% of my post.  It's right here (bit odd, that, isn't it?  That you would hone in on a single line, and then miss the other 6, that comprise the actual argument):

Or do you believe that there is a conglomerate of pieces that, given a random selection of specific pianists, would be equally difficult across the set of musicians, as the various techniques required would challenge each pianist more or less, dependent upon their experience and skill set?

If it's the former, then just go away.  If it's the latter, then there is an answer to this question, because some pieces would necessarily be excluded, lest we go back to Czerny.  As such, this is not silly; you just don't feel like taking the time and/or feel unqualified to answer the question.

Do feel free to respond to the part that isn't just setting up the premise!  I have a feeling you're the one who's about to learn what "objective" means, assuming you're capable of even trying to answer the question.  Not to mention learn that this question isn't loaded, of course.  Just assume that any even remotely philosophical term you use, you do so incorrectly, so please stop it.  What was it you were saying in that other thread going on atm?

If something is immoral, then there's the burden of proof.

Genius stuff m8.  You kind of did the same thing there, too, didn't you?  Failed to respond to. . . 17 lines of text about that sentence, and then responded to the last, single sentence of my post only, that was obviously an aside.  So which is it?  You can or can't form a real response, or do you just find yourself in an uncomfortable, conspicuously sudden influx of your pseudointellectual BS getting called out?  I mean, usually when a person like you comes along, they at least try.  How else are you going to learn?

[john11inc]

Seriously, Balakirev's "Islamey" should be up there.

You can't find four pieces on that list harder than Islamei?

[prometheus]

Ok so not only are you trying to hack away at people who point out the silliness of your question and the contradictions in your posts, but you also hack away at people who try to give a honest answer.

What do you expect? That everyone is going to give a high level answer that can stand up to critical review? Not even you would be able to pull that off. Stop being an angry kid.

[lostinidlewonder]

Personally I think that considering difficulty of pieces puts you at a mental disadvantage (if you are going to attempt to play the pieces). You may think it is harder than it actually is while you practice it and slow yourself down being overly cautious.

Most people cannot play at the highest standard so the difficulty of pieces listed above is arbitrary for these people. If it is impossible for you to throw a javelin 50m, if someone asks you to throw 75m is that any harder? They are both impossible for you thus the same difficulty.

[becky8898]

Wow after reading all these posts its hard for me to realize that im the 12 year old.  Talk about arguing how many angels on the head of a pin. Geez.

Ok here is at least some objective evidence.

1. It seems that piano teachers have been for the longest time giving a pretty good idea as to what are the harder pieces.  They kind of start you off with Clementi Sonatinas, Bach 2 part inventions, go on to Mozart - Haydn Sonatas, then Beethoven Sonata's, Chopin etudes, and I guess we can throw in the big time Concertos at the end of the list.  I have never seen anyone learn Beethoven Sonata's first and then take up Mozart and haydn.

2. I have heard plenty of people kind of fake there way thru  Mozart or Haydn Sonata's. They dont play well but you can kind of recognize them.  You dont fake your way thru a chopin etude. 
You dont  kind of get thru the rach 3, at least not without making yourself look like an Ass.

3. I cant prove this one, but if you where to take a poll of the whole world and compared the number of people who play  mozart sonata k545 and the number of people who can play say The rach 3 i talked about earlier the answer would be pretty obvious.  About a gazillion people can play  the Mozart and about 2 can play the Rach 3. ( im being a little silly here but you get my point. )

4. What pieces are the big time concert artists expected to play.  Im Sure Valantina Lista can play Fur Elise  very nicely , but that is not what packs the concert halls to see her play.

Anyway  - I hope everyone takes what I said in a good way. 

Cheers, Becky

[omar_roy]

You can't find four pieces on that list harder than Islamei?

I certainly can, but there are also pieces on there that are, arguably, "easier" than Islamey as well. 

That aside, I would have to say that to attempt any of the pieces on the list would propose a daunting task for any pianist.

[omar_roy]

Wow after reading all these posts its hard for me to realize that im the 12 year old.  Talk about arguing how many angels on the head of a pin. Geez. 

Either you are not 12 years old, or you are wise beyond your years.  Either way, well said.

[john11inc]

the contradictions in your posts

First, excellent work with not responding to anything I wrote at all.  Third time in a row; I really doubt many people are convinced it's a "won't" as much as "can't"!

So if you please, won't/can't you elaborate on these "contradictions"?

[richard black]

J11" only does it to wind us all up! But as I've read this far I might as well post my 2-penn'orth. Obviously the question is kind of nonsensical anyway because difficulty is such a subjective thing, but it's even more nonsensical with a list like that because I'm prepared to bet that no one here has studied all those pieces - or even a substantial minority of them - in great detail, and you don't find out the true difficulty of a piece until you've pretty much mastered it. Speaking personally, I've not even sat in front of the score of at least half of them, and I can claim acquaintance with a rather large amount of music for, and including, piano.

[ahinton]

J11" only does it to wind us all up! But as I've read this far I might as well post my 2-penn'orth. Obviously the question is kind of nonsensical anyway because difficulty is such a subjective thing, but it's even more nonsensical with a list like that because I'm prepared to bet that no one here has studied all those pieces - or even a substantial minority of them - in great detail, and you don't find out the true difficulty of a piece until you've pretty much mastered it. Speaking personally, I've not even sat in front of the score of at least half of them, and I can claim acquaintance with a rather large amount of music for, and including, piano.

With that welcome injection of common sense I'd like to think that this thread could find its own way to a much needed dénouement, but I suspect that any such assumption would be over-optimistic...

Bestm

Alistair

[scottmcc]

J11" only does it to wind us all up! But as I've read this far I might as well post my 2-penn'orth. Obviously the question is kind of nonsensical anyway because difficulty is such a subjective thing, but it's even more nonsensical with a list like that because I'm prepared to bet that no one here has studied all those pieces - or even a substantial minority of them - in great detail, and you don't find out the true difficulty of a piece until you've pretty much mastered it. Speaking personally, I've not even sat in front of the score of at least half of them, and I can claim acquaintance with a rather large amount of music for, and including, piano.

agreed.  clearly, the silliness of the question is self-evident.  and of course, it begs the question of "what makes a piece difficult?"  is it the sheer number of notes?  the velocity with which they are played?  large reaches/fast jumps?  of is it something more?  furthermore, about the age-old question of technical vs musical difficulty, clearly it is not enough to just hammer out the notes without playing musically, right? 

but I have my own nomination for hardest piece, one that I am quite convinced is unplayable as written:  Beethoven Piano Sonata op 14, nr 1.  Some people will laugh and say that this is one of the "easiest" of the sonatas, which is overall correct, but I would reference measure 62 of the second movement, and challenge any pianist in the audience to play that as written.  I don't think it can be done.

there.  I win. 

[richard black]

op 14, nr 1.  Some people will laugh and say that this is one of the "easiest" of the sonatas, which is overall correct, but I would reference measure 62 of the second movement

The two-octave jump? Why's that tricky? Have I misunderstood?

[scottmcc]

the crescendo on a held note.  can't be done on a piano.  violin, trumpet, or any number of other instruments yes.

[prometheus]

First, excellent work with not responding to anything I wrote at all.  Third time in a row; I really doubt many people are convinced it's a "won't" as much as "can't"!

So if you please, won't/can't you elaborate on these "contradictions"?

Paypal me 15 euro and I'll explain to you why it is a contradiction.

[mephisto]

This kind of question should be banned on here.

The question it self i inherently stupid. Let us assume that I can play Chopin etude op. 10 No. 2 without any mistake. But if I play it slower and less even than someone else, the way I play it would require less technic.

It is not difficult to claim that you play a piece, you have to play it in a good way. That's what require technic.

Case in point: A couple of years ago I learned Marc-André Hamelin's Scarlatti etude -  I played it for a couple of my friends and familly. Some parts of the etude was very difficult for me so I often had to play those passages slower than the rest of the piece. I wouldn't be lying if I said that I still could play the piece. But obviously the way Marc-André Hamelin plays it requires A LOT more technic.

[richard black]

the crescendo on a held note

Ah, I think the editor removed that from the copy I have then!

[djealnla]

Deleted

[thalbergmad]

Deleted

Is this another Boulez work??

Possibly from his early period.

Thal

[ahinton]

Is this another Boulez work??

Possibly from his early period.

No it is not, although Boulez has indeed "deleted" quit a lot of what he has done so that we cannot hear it. It is sad that Boulez seems still to be reviled for what some feel to be the autocratically procedure-driven nature of certain of his relatively early works written during a period when his inflexibly dictatorial polemic appeared to peak, as though this is all that we should ever have to bother to think about Boulez, regardless of what he has written or conducted far more recently; those who subscribe to such views appear to have little or no cognisance of Boulez's immense respect and love for Ravel, Debussy, Mahler and Wagner, to say nothing of his attitude towards Chopin.

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Obviously the question is kind of nonsensical anyway because difficulty is such a subjective thing

Not really.  Your faulty logic presents a false dichotomy, which in and of itself is based on a lack of comprehension of the situation.  "Objective" or "subjective".  You say that it is subjective, (one assumes) because it is not 100% objective.  However, your argument is based on a false premise.  There are degrees (not degrees, but it is easier to put it this way, for sake of comprehensibility) of objectivity and subjectivity; gauging the difficulty of a work is a complex task, not a basic one (in that it has many aspects).  Some of the criteria by which we would gauge the difficulty of a work are objective, and some are subjective.  Thirty notes played per second is objectively difficult; one note played per minute is objectively easy (within the context of technical capability of execution, over a reasonable period of time), or at the very least, their difficulties can be compared to each other.  If we can compare, then there is variance on objective difficulty, and the question can be answered therefor.  Because it is a complex task to compare the works, and we assume that there exists the possibility that one criterion we shall consider objective may be present in one piece, and not in another, but that in the second piece, another such criterion may be present that is not in the former (for instance, speed of executing notes and, say, large leaps; it doesn't matter what the two are, in this example), the dichotomy is disproven.  As such, to answer the question involves a complex system of objective criteria.

The constraints of the question I proposed eliminate notions of interpretative, phrasing, voicing or "musical" difficulties.  They also eliminate the notion of previous, applicable experience, which will effect the valuation of the criteria by which we compare the works.  One cannot logically assume that the question I am asking is, "are real, human pianist X and real, human pianist Y going to say the same thing?"  That is a syllogistic recategorization of the primary complaint to this type of question, made bare.  The hermeneutic distance between such a question (one that I have not proposed) and the one that I asked is far too great to assume you would still be answering my question if you answered in such a way as to address this addendum. To disregard these things is to not answer the question I have asked; you can tell me that there isn't an answer to some question, but you're not actually talking about my question.

but it's even more nonsensical with a list like that because I'm prepared to bet that no one here has studied all those pieces.

Slippery slope.  Who is qualified?  Also, for this complaint to have validity, you must immediately rescind your previous complaint; if it is impossible to gauge the difficulty of works in the first place, then this objection has no value, as its merits are based on a proposition you yourself have discredited (or, more aptly, failed to discredit); therefore, this is not an additional "point", but instead pointless.  Take away the first objection and this goes, too; it does not linger, as it would no longer refer to anything germane.  So, who is qualified?  What if I say Ian Pace is the only person whose technique is good enough to make him qualified to answer such a question?  What if I say that only someone with a Ph. D. in performance history is qualified?  You say that it is someone who has played all of these works.  That is silly.  Surely you do not actually think that; I'm sure you don't.  Pointless rhetoric; would you really need something like that if you were correct?  Can't you logically amplify on your statements, if they are correct?  There are plenty of pieces I have never played, but I can look at an easy piece and a difficult piece and tell which one is the difficult one.  Anyone who is qualified to answer this question possesses such an ability.

Let me prove both of your objections wrong with each other, now.  If there exists a way to qualify someone to be able to answer the question, then the question can be answered.  It is as simple as that.  If Ian Pace is more qualified to answer this question than a four year old, then this question can be answered, within a certain degree of objectivity.  If there are varying degrees of objective verisimilitude in the possible answers to a proposition, then it is not entirely subjective.  Therefore, it is possible to answer the question objectively, at least partially.  If necessary components of the question can be answered objectively (assigning criteria), and the question itself constrains the answerer to an objective answer, then an answer to the question can be given solely on the objective criteria, which will constitute (obviously) an answer to the question, an objective answer to the question, and a complete answer to the question.  If a Czerny Study is easier than Xenakis' Synaphai, this question can be answered.  The terms of this question have been defined, primarily what "play" means (refer to the original post, and the comment about Mozart).  If you think there is a greater degree of subjectivity than objectivity in attempting to answer which is harder - Czerny or Xenakis - then you are not qualified to answer this question.  Obviously, plenty of people aren't qualified to answer this question; when a question is proposed, it's assumed that people who are completely unqualified will not attempt to answer.  Obviously, this isn't really the case, but there is no validity in the answer of someone who is unqualified; it does not invalidate the question itself.  As such, and to pretend such a thing doesn't exist is a waste of time, there is a minimum expectation of an answer, and a maximum expectation of an answer, in terms of validity.  Anyone who is not even familiar with these works would not, logically, meet a minimum expectation for a person who is qualified to answer the question, and likewise nobody is expecting anybody to give a massively detailed report, comparing each measure of each piece to the other, with some horrifyingly complex weighted system of criteria.  Again, this does not say anything about the question itself.

agreed.  clearly, the silliness of the question is self-evident.

Clearly.  Hence why nobody has been able to explain why this question is "silly" beyond people misinterpreting it and/or being incapable, themselves, of adequately answering it.  But because it is so clear, you can certainly tell us all why it's silly.

and of course, it begs the question of "what makes a piece difficult?"  is it the sheer number of notes?  the velocity with which they are played?  large reaches/fast jumps?  of is it something more?

Clearly, it is any number of things that express difficulty in the technical execution of the music, as written.  It is not the question's fault if someone forgets a criteria, nor is it the question's fault if someone over/undervalues a certain criteria.  The question has made it clear what does and does not constitute a criteria, in regard to answering the question, as proposed.

furthermore, about the age-old question of technical vs musical difficulty, clearly it is not enough to just hammer out the notes without playing musically, right?

Clearly, you are trying to answer a question that isn't the one I asked.

there.  I win.  

Clearly, you don't.

[richard black]

Blimey, someone with too much time on his hands? 

[mephisto]

Not really.  Your faulty logic presents a false dichotomy, which in and of itself is based on a lack of comprehension of the situation.  "Objective" or "subjective".  You say that it is subjective, (one assumes) because it is not 100% objective.  However, your argument is based on a false premise.  There are degrees (not degrees, but it is easier to put it this way, for sake of comprehensibility) of objectivity and subjectivity; gauging the difficulty of a work is a complex task, not a basic one (in that it has many aspects).  Some of the criteria by which we would gauge the difficulty of a work are objective, and some are subjective.  Thirty notes played per second is objectively difficult; one note played per minute is objectively easy (within the context of technical capability of execution, over a reasonable period of time), or at the very least, their difficulties can be compared to each other.  If we can compare, then there is variance on objective difficulty, and the question can be answered therefor.  Because it is a complex task to compare the works, and we assume that there exists the possibility that one criterion we shall consider objective may be present in one piece, and not in another, but that in the second piece, another such criterion may be present that is not in the former (for instance, speed of executing notes and, say, large leaps; it doesn't matter what the two are, in this example), the dichotomy is disproven.  As such, to answer the question involves a complex system of objective criteria.

The constraints of the question I proposed eliminate notions of interpretative, phrasing, voicing or "musical" difficulties.  They also eliminate the notion of previous, applicable experience, which will effect the valuation of the criteria by which we compare the works.  One cannot logically assume that the question I am asking is, "are real, human pianist X and real, human pianist Y going to say the same thing?"  That is a syllogistic recategorization of the primary complaint to this type of question, made bare.  The hermeneutic distance between such a question (one that I have not proposed) and the one that I asked is far too great to assume you would still be answering my question if you answered in such a way as to address this addendum. To disregard these things is to not answer the question I have asked; you can tell me that there isn't an answer to some question, but you're not actually talking about my question.


Slippery slope.  Who is qualified?  Also, for this complaint to have validity, you must immediately rescind your previous complaint; if it is impossible to gauge the difficulty of works in the first place, then this objection has no value, as its merits are based on a proposition you yourself have discredited (or, more aptly, failed to discredit); therefore, this is not an additional "point", but instead pointless.  Take away the first objection and this goes, too; it does not linger, as it would no longer refer to anything germane.  So, who is qualified?  What if I say Ian Pace is the only person whose technique is good enough to make him qualified to answer such a question?  What if I say that only someone with a Ph. D. in performance history is qualified?  You say that it is someone who has played all of these works.  That is silly.  Surely you do not actually think that; I'm sure you don't.  Pointless rhetoric; would you really need something like that if you were correct?  Can't you logically amplify on your statements, if they are correct?  There are plenty of pieces I have never played, but I can look at an easy piece and a difficult piece and tell which one is the difficult one.  Anyone who is qualified to answer this question possesses such an ability.

Let me prove both of your objections wrong with each other, now.  If there exists a way to qualify someone to be able to answer the question, then the question can be answered.  It is as simple as that.  If Ian Pace is more qualified to answer this question than a four year old, then this question can be answered, within a certain degree of objectivity.  If there are varying degrees of objective verisimilitude in the possible answers to a proposition, then it is not entirely subjective.  Therefore, it is possible to answer the question objectively, at least partially.  If necessary components of the question can be answered objectively (assigning criteria), and the question itself constrains the answerer to an objective answer, then an answer to the question can be given solely on the objective criteria, which will constitute (obviously) an answer to the question, an objective answer to the question, and a complete answer to the question.  If a Czerny Study is easier than Xenakis' Synaphai, this question can be answered.  The terms of this question have been defined, primarily what "play" means (refer to the original post, and the comment about Mozart).  If you think there is a greater degree of subjectivity than objectivity in attempting to answer which is harder - Czerny or Xenakis - then you are not qualified to answer this question.  Obviously, plenty of people aren't qualified to answer this question; when a question is proposed, it's assumed that people who are completely unqualified will not attempt to answer.  Obviously, this isn't really the case, but there is no validity in the answer of someone who is unqualified; it does not invalidate the question itself.  As such, and to pretend such a thing doesn't exist is a waste of time, there is a minimum expectation of an answer, and a maximum expectation of an answer, in terms of validity.  Anyone who is not even familiar with these works would not, logically, meet a minimum expectation for a person who is qualified to answer the question, and likewise nobody is expecting anybody to give a massively detailed report, comparing each measure of each piece to the other, with some horrifyingly complex weighted system of criteria.  Again, this does not say anything about the question itself.


Clearly.  Hence why nobody has been able to explain why this question is "silly" beyond people misinterpreting it and/or being incapable, themselves, of adequately answering it.  But because it is so clear, you can certainly tell us all why it's silly.


Clearly, it is any number of things that express difficulty in the technical execution of the music, as written.  It is not the question's fault if someone forgets a criteria, nor is it the question's fault if someone over/undervalues a certain criteria.  The question has made it clear what does and does not constitute a criteria, in regard to answering the question, as proposed.


Clearly, you are trying to answer a question that isn't the one I asked.


Clearly, you don't.

HAHAHAHA!

[djealnla]

Difficulty is somewhat subjective. However, the different elements that make a piece difficult are not. It's obvious that playing the C major scale at 120 BPM is harder than playing it at 20 BPM. However, it's hard to say whether it's harder to play the C major scale at the speed of 20 notes per second or to trill with 4-5 at the speed of 14 notes per second.

What about the term "pianist with a well-rounded technique"? What kind of pianist is that? One who can perform an Urtext-like rendition of Chopin's Etudes?

On another note, left-handedness is possibly an important factor.

[general disarray]

Well, I'm confused. 

I mean, our beloved poster, "john11inch," is clearly height-challenged at less than one-foot tall, so I'm assuming his hands are just teeny little things.  How could he play anything on his list?  Aren't all of these compositions, then, equally difficult, if not impossible, for him?  Should we giants (comparatively speaking) even engage in this debate with him?

[myr]

The most difficult piece in standard repertoire is whichever piece in standard repertoire you play when it's Winter and you forgot to turn the heating on so the house is like super cold and your hands get really rigid and unresponsive and you can't play anything and stuff.

[furiouzpianist]

I think the most difficult thing in standard rep is to do ALL the Chopin etudes.

other than that,
lets see.......

I would have to say:

Ravel: Scarbo (from Gaspard)
Schubert-Liszt: Erlkonig
Liszt: Feux Follets
Schumann: Tocatta
Chopin: Etude Op. 25/6
Beethoven: Waldstein

and some not-so-standard things:

Chopin-Godowsky Etudes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liapunov: Transcedental Etudes

and this: https://www.mediafire.com/?y1mzjgzytmg

[eminemvsrach]

Corigliano's Etude Fantasy certainly isn't very well-known, but it is arguably the hardest piece among all the choices given. The fourth Etude is a hell of a piece......

[djealnla]

As I said previously, the real issue is that of comparing different aspects of technique. Which of the following to you find more impressive?

&feature=related

 

I'd vote for the first, but I find it hard to compare the two.

[pies]

Skep's wall of gibberish coupled with the Derrida quote is hilarious.  How can he still troll in the same dumb manner on the same forum after all of these years?  Pathetic.

edit: Anyone else see the many parallels between him and the AZ shooter?  I'm scared.

[retrouvailles]

edit: Anyone else see the many parallels between him and the AZ shooter?  I'm scared.

Yeah, I noticed that too. It sort of freaked me out. Those of you who don't know what he looks like are fortunate.

[john11inc]

edit: Anyone else see the many parallels between him and the AZ shooter?  I'm scared.

I can't.  Please elaborate!  If you can, please do so in a more thorough manner than calling something "gibberish" with absolutely no explanation.  If you'd like, I could give you the mathematical analyses of their statements and mine, at which point you'd be arguing with math.  I think you'd have about the same degree of success though, honestly, but then again, I suppose we won't know until you actually say something in the first place.  It's entirely possible that the question proposed in this thread cannot be answered, even within the constraints I issued, but if that's the case, nobody has even come close to proposing an argument for such that holds any value.  Because you are so smart, and because you believe they are correct, and because their particular arguments are wrong, surely you can give us the correct one.

[john11inc]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It sort of freaked me out. Those of you who don't know what he looks like are fortunate.

We look nothing alike.  There are photos of me on this forum in the pictures thread.  Talk about a skewed reality. . .

[pies]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It sort of freaked me out. Those of you who don't know what he looks like are fortunate.

I'm curious now.  Does anyone have any pictures?  I'm expecting something like Daniele Fiorenza/Joker Kid, so don't disappoint.

[john11inc]

Difficulty is somewhat subjective. However, the different elements that make a piece difficult are not. It's obvious that playing the C major scale at 120 BPM is harder than playing it at 20 BPM. However, it's hard to say whether it's harder to play the C major scale at the speed of 20 notes per second or to trill with 4-5 at the speed of 14 notes per second.

See.  That's the difficulty in answering the question.  It does not render the question impossible to answer.  At least not from a theoretical standpoint.  I'll make an analogy.  Let's suppose that, instead of this question, I asked the following question:

"How many grains of sand are there on the beaches of California?"

Immediately, the overwhelming response would be a combination of two things.  1- "it is not useful to know how many grains of sand there are on the beaches of California."  That's going to be true in the case of the vast, vast majority of people.  The question does not lead to an answer that would be useful to most people.  However, there are certainly people who the information could be useful to, if even in a purely mathematical framework.  They might be interested in knowing how to come to the correct answer.  They might just be interested in thinking about the question***.  Many questions are like this.  In fact, some philosophical ideologies would tell you that all questions fall into this category.  Using nothing but basic intuition, we can recognize that there are an infinite number of questions, but that there are a finite number of questions which apply to every person's existence and their interest.  Therefore, the average usefulness of a question approaches 0.  It would be inappropriate to deem the question "useless" on such grounds, obviously, as that presents a vast array of problems, one that has just been expounded upon in the previous sentence, and several that have been expounded upon elsewhere in this thread.  People can say that this question is "useless to me", but that's not what's been said here.  It's all in the details.

The second issue that people would have with the California question is, "there is no way to answer it."  Again, even the most basic level of intuition tells us that, of course, there is a number value of the grains of sand on the beaches of California.  Again, we come to an impasse of poorly constructed statements vs. implication.  There are certainly mathematical formulas that can be applied to guess, with varying degrees of success, how many grains of sand there are on the beaches of California.  At this point a multitude of issues arise, in many variations.  The first issue is fairly simple; this one is not.  First, if there are varying degrees of success, then an answer can be more or less incorrect (verisimilitude).  Verisimilitude is defined (as simply as possible) as such:

If a question has a non-binary (meaning that the answer is not yes/no, or this/that), distinct value for an answer (not necessarily a "number" value), then incorrect answers can be more or less correct (varying degrees of verisimilitude; or, exhibiting x degree of verisimilitude).  Verisimilitude is described as an a posteriori "truth-likeness" or "the degree of appearance of truth" or "proximity to the truth".  For instance, I want to know a specific color.  Let's go with "magenta".  We must disregard the linguistic truism that people may synonymously use "pink" and "magenta"; we will assume that the terms of the question, in the way I proposed it, were exceptionally defined.  One person says the color I am thinking of is "blue", while the other says the color I am thinking of is "red" (or pink, but I am trying to avoid getting into that issue, as it's not germane to the pianistic question).  There is a greater degree of verisimilitude in the answer "red" than in the answer "blue".  Therefore, "red" is a truer answer than "blue".  Because there is a degree of verisimilitude, there is a correct answer.  The degree of verisimilitude moves toward the correct answer in a direct relationship to its truth-likeness; as it moves towards something, this "something" must be the correct answer.  The sequence holds an infinite number of variables, but because it is linear, we can use a Dedekind cut on the equation of the line (as all variables will be accounted for).  If a Dedekind cut can be used, the equation leads to a value, instead of an infinite geometric sequence, meaning that one can not simply get close to the answer, but that one can achieve its limit (the limit of degree of verisimilitude: 1, for absolute truth).  Whether a person is likely to come to the answer, either by accident or incredible rigor, is not related to the statement that there is, in fact, an answer to the question.  [A Dedekind cut is a mathematical term: basically, it allows us to dissect a number line at any value, including an irrational value, and its axioms prove that that in the case of an equation that does not extend infinitely (obviously, if it did, there would be an infinite number of correct answers to the sand question; in fact, it would render all answers correct), then it has a limit, as opposed to an asymptote (a number it approaches, but never reaches)]

As such, were I to propose the sand question, given the incredible complexity and technical requirements necessary to give the "correct answer", obviously I would not require "the" answer.  It is possible to answer, but nobody ever would.  It is too complex and tedious.  Here we must redefine the incorrect statement of, "the question cannot be answered."  We shall redefine it to the following (as has just been proven necessary) to, "I cannot answer the question."  if we do so, statements regarding the validity and form of the question are not challenged within this wording.  Because this wording does not challenge the validity of the question, it is no longer an issue.  However, there is an issue with the original train of thought.  It presupposes, as in it is not implied by the question (and thus can not be used to dismerit the question; only those people's understanding) that the person who proposed the question is only interested in the absolute truth.  Obviously, that is not the case.  I use the word "obviously" for a number of reasons.  It is simply so, patently clear.  Obviously, as in, for someone to misunderstand how to answer a question so egregiously, their opinions ain't exactly worth a whole lot, if that's the extent, or at least basis, of reasoning.  Again, we can look at the wording of the question.  "What is your opinion. . ."  "What is your guess. . ."  "What do you think. . ."  If these are apparent, the complaint is formally defeated.  If they are unapparent, then the complaint is informally defeated.

It is the latter that is the issue.  A formal error can be proven incorrect using basic analysis of the propositions.  An informal error is much more complex.  Many fallacies that are, or were, categorized as "informal" are actually formal; newer set theories and logical axioms (fuzzy logic, for instance) can disprove them.  Basically, an informal error presents a non-binary variable, and if one attempts to define the variable so that it can be replicated in a formal construction, one is only addressing one of the possible variables, or a set of the possible variables.  0 and infinity don't play nice in logic, which necessarily arise in an informal fallacy.  Even worse, they often operate outside the actual constructs of the argument.  You'll often get a -> p, where "a" represents the error and p represents the proposition, a -> p meaning "a" proves p (or, p from a; if a, then p).  You can't just shove "a" into p.  Informal fallacies, in a more technical way, deal with indefinite terms and/or the lingual (rhetorical) aspects of proposing an argument, as opposed to the propositions themselves.  Loki's Wager is a favorite example, because it is extremely simple:

The Norse god Loki promises to give his head to a group of dwarves.  There's more story than that, but let's skip straight to the important part.  He shows up, they sharpen their axes, he bends over the block.  But before they swing, he asks where they are going to cut.  They say neck, and he says that he only promised them his "head", not part of his neck.  They say they'll start at the chin, and he says that's still part of his neck.  This goes on ad infinitum, until they end up getting nothing, and Loki walks away unharmed.

That is informal.  One cannot retroactively define a term.  There isn't an actual error in argument, which is why it is not a formal fallacy.  So, back to California.  "I cannot answer the question."  The specific names of the informal fallacies that can be used to a priori deride the question, on the basis that it's likely that nobody can answer the question, are the fallacy of distribution, and the suppression of the correlative.  "Because I can't answer it, it can't be answered." - and - "Because I can't answer it, other people can't answer it."  Those look very similar, but they're slightly different.  The first states that the question can't be answered at all.  The second states that other people are also incapable of answering it; however, hermeneutic analysis shows that the question may still have an answer, regardless.  An example: is M theory correct?  Nobody can answer that right now, but it's possible that it's correct.  The second is more problematic, as it will necessary attempt to apply itself to the gauging of the verisimilitude of an answer.  As it does so, it necessarily implicates verisimilitude, thus circularly proving itself incorrect.

We can further place this into the framework of a Sorites Paradox.  As we verify the validity of terms working toward an objectively derived answer (so-as to conform to the rules of empirical epistemology), one can only keep saying that we're no closer to the truth so many times until their statements are meaningless.  Think of it as counting the grains of sand, one by one (let's disregard the fact that, in reality, the number would change by the time we finished; anachronistic issues don't apply to the real question in this thread).  We keep counting them and asking if we're closer to the answer.  Each grain of sand only brings us infinitesimally closer, but eventually, when there's only one grain left, if you're still saying no, then you're just plain dumb, sorry to say (not saying you are).

So, back to piano.  As we locate and define difficulties, we move closer to the truth.  Answers can be closer or further from the truth.  Therefore, there is a truth.  I would think this would be patently obvious.  Your question, specifically, refers to valuing one criterion to the other.  Here's my answer: I don't know.  Which is harder: octaves at these intervals, or scales at this tempo?  I don't personally know the answer to every single one of such examples you could bring up.  However, there are answers to those questions.  The proof is as follows: please remember the constraint of the question.  You again fall into the convenient trap of talking about someone who is "left-handed" vs. "right-handed".  Immediately, you must see that you are no longer answering the question proposed.  The question to which you refer is not mine, as I made clear that I understand the reality of the situation: one piece might be harder for one pianist, and vice-versa.  However, "well-rounded pianist" is a term I used, as well as mentioning this issue in the comment about Mozart.  Perhaps the term is not completely defined, I will admit that.  It's simply that I did not think excessive explanation was necessary; I understood the way I used the term to be rather self-evident, although I suppose it's not (unless you're just playing devil's advocate, which is actually the feeling I get).  Let's change it to "the average pianist".  Amplified as, "a single pianist, whose technique is composed of the average abilities of all pianists who possess the capability to perform these works to an adequate degree."  The phrase "perform to an adequate degree" has been well-defined.  Therefore, for that "pianist", there will be an answer to your examples.  And that is the question.

[thalbergmad]

Well, stuff my old boots.

Thal

[djealnla]

So, back to piano.  As we locate and define difficulties, we move closer to the truth.  Answers can be closer or further from the truth.  Therefore, there is a truth.  I would think this would be patently obvious.  Your question, specifically, refers to valuing one criterion to the other.  Here's my answer: I don't know.  Which is harder: octaves at these intervals, or scales at this tempo?  I don't personally know the answer to every single one of such examples you could bring up.  However, there are answers to those questions.  The proof is as follows: please remember the constraint of the question.  You again fall into the convenient trap of talking about someone who is "left-handed" vs. "right-handed".  Immediately, you must see that you are no longer answering the question proposed.  The question to which you refer is not mine, as I made clear that I understand the reality of the situation: one piece might be harder for one pianist, and vice-versa.  However, "well-rounded pianist" is a term I used, as well as mentioning this issue in the comment about Mozart.  Perhaps the term is not completely defined, I will admit that.  It's simply that I did not think excessive explanation was necessary; I understood the way I used the term to be rather self-evident, although I suppose it's not (unless you're just playing devil's advocate, which is actually the feeling I get).  Let's change it to "the average pianist".  Amplified as, "a single pianist, whose technique is composed of the average abilities of all pianists who possess the capability to perform these works to an adequate degree."  The phrase "perform to an adequate degree" has been well-defined.  Therefore, for that "pianist", there will be an answer to your examples.  And that is the question.

I shortened your post a bit. Yesterday I was listening to a very famous and respected radio station (granted, the guy on it may not have been the most informed person on our planet), and I heard it claim that according to many famous pianists Brahms' Op. 35 is the hardest Romantic-era piano piece. I know you severely disagree with this claim, but doesn't it shed some light on the concept of standard repertoire? I doubt that the pianists who made that statement didn't know about Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven's Symphonies or Reger's works. How standard, for instance, is the Hammerklavier Sonata by Beethoven? Does it get played with the same frequency as Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto, or even Ligeti's Etudes, for that matter (probably yes, but I don't know)?

Anyway, perhaps someone could direct a few world-class pianists at this discussion and ask them what they think.

[ahinton]

Well, stuff my old boots.

With what? Californian beach sand? If not - and if the answer to that question is instead your own two feet - then do try to ensure that you don't piss into your pants while wearing them, otherwise it might result in flooding of eastern Australian proportions especially if you've had a few beers beforehand.

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

I shortened your post a bit.

You did not shorten it as one might typically use the word.  You omitted the majority of it, including its explanation.

I was listening to a very famous and respected radio station and I heard it claimed that, according to many famous pianists, Brahms' Op. 35 is the hardest Romantic-era piano piece.  Doesn't [that claim] shed some light on the concept of standard repertoire?

I don't believe it does.  It sheds light on the breadth of knowledge of some pianists, who are unknown, as are their number and class, and more-so as it is sieved through the knowledge (the breadth of which we must subsequently be even more dubious thereof) of a radio host.  Psychological factors must be taken into account as to why someone would say this: perhaps it is the hardest piece that pianist is familiar with, or those pianists, or perhaps this information comes from a random google search, likely done by the radio host.  Google + [insert famously difficult piece] will inherently = a pianist said it is the hardest.  For all we know, the pianist(s) might have been members of this forum (doesn't it even seem somewhat likely, when you think about it?) who, as you can see, occasionally (as is the case in this thread) don't believe there is such a thing.  It is self-evident that the Brahms is not the most difficult piece in the whole of Romantic Era repertoire when one extends beyond the more common pieces and composers, so the statement, as is, is factually inaccurate.  We should take it as such.  Not more.  An incorrect statement tells us only that people can be wrong.