Is Alkan's Sonata Op. 33 more difficult or Godowsky's Passacaglia?

[forgottenbooks]

I know people hate this kind of threads, but anyway.

[mephisto]

Depens on how fast you play them.

[john11inc]

The Alkan, by a rather substantial margin.  There are, I would say, maybe 2 or 3 variations in the Passacaglia that are going to do a total dead-stop on most pianists (toward the middle of the work before the interlude of extremely slow variations; not looking at the score this very second, so can't be more specific), and maybe one or two towards the end of the piece, but they are still much more pianistic than Alkan's writing.  They are difficult in much more understandable and overcomeable ways.  Obviously, the very last, few moments of the Godowsky are incredibly difficult, but that's the sort of writing you'll be dealing with the entire time in the Alkan.

[mephisto]

Hamelin and Ronald Smith have both recorded the Alkan Sonata. Do any of you think that playing the piece like Smith requires the same kind of technic as playing it like Hamelin (or is as difficult)?

This question cannot be answered in general terms. Just stop it.

[john11inc]

Hamelin and Ronald Smith have both recorded the Alkan Sonata. Do any of you think that playing the piece like Smith requires the same kind of technic as playing it like Hamelin (or is as difficult)?

This question cannot be answered in general terms. Just stop it.

Dumbest post I've seen all day!  Congratulations.

Do you ever think about these things you say?  I mean, actually think about it.  If such a train of thought is applicable to this question, then think of the absolutely ludicrous conclusions we will draw by using it in other situations.  Your post has so many problems I don't even know where to start, really.

Define: playing.
Define: performance.
Tell how you know what the question-poser defines as playing.
Tell how you know what the question-poser defines as a performance.
Prove your definition of playing is the same.
Prove your definition of performance is the same.
Prove your definition of playing is correct.
Prove your definition of performance is correct.
Wait for him to prove his definition of playing is correct.
Wait for him to prove his definition of performance is correct.
If there is a discrepancy, draw the argument out to a conclusion.
Then completely disregard difference of opinion and continue stating things as fact.
Do so in concrete, objective terms. (all of the above)
Elaborate on the differences between Smith's and Hamelin's performances in objective terms.
Somehow draw the conclusion that the question-poser plans to emulate exactly Hamelin's or Smith's performance.
Correct your spelling from "technic" to "technique".
Define Technique.
Objectively prove your definition is correct.
Wait for the question-poser to describe his technique.
Enter upon a way to amplify on this in objective terms.
Draw all disagreements out to their logical conclusion.
Disregard the fourth categorical syllogistic contradiction regarding difficulty being subjective in pieces, yet difficulty in performances being objective.
Disregard the fourth categorical syllogistic contradiction that you place intervals at which difficulty becomes objective in so much as you make the claim that the Godowsky is easier than the Alkan when played in Smith's manner.
Disregard circular logic in such a proposition.
Disregard that even your contradictions contradict one another.
Define such intervals and elaborate on them.
Draw all disagreements out to their logical conclusion.
If disagreements can not be resolved to a solution that meets epistemological laws regarding knowledge, continue disregarding different opinions and go back to simply stating things.
Then do all that for the specific context of the Alkan.
Do all that for the Godowsky, as well, considering we don't know how "fast" he wants to play that one, either.
Prove that all definitions used in the case of Alkan are the same as those used for the Godowsky.
Address all issues that implicitly arise from this.
If they are different, explain why.
Explain how.
Explain how your logic is still valid.
Explain the differences objectively.
Put in ear plugs and go "na na na na na na na!" when people point out the idiotic conclusions such "logic" draws when used in other situations.

And that's not how many times you are wrong in your tiny, little post.  Do you know how many additional fallacies I can draw out of that enormous list?  And that's formal.  I see about eight informal ones I can whip up right now, and that's without thinking about it at all.  How is it that you're so, insanely wrong, when stating such simple things?  The irony is how indignant you are when you do it.

Alternatively, skip all that, use your brain and assume the person is asking about playing the pieces as written (i.e. Hamelin).  Do you really think the question he's asking is:

"Which is harder?  To give a perfect performance of the Godowsky Passacaglia, or a shitty performance of Alkan's Sonate?"

Where the hell do you read that, exactly?

[mephisto]

Dumbest post I've seen all day!  Congratulations.

Do you ever think about these things you say?  I mean, actually think about it.  If such a train of thought is applicable to this question, then think of the absolutely ludicrous conclusions we will draw by using it in other situations.  Your post has so many problems I don't even know where to start, really.

Define: playing.
Define: performance.
Tell how you know what the question-poser defines as playing.
Tell how you know what the question-poser defines as a performance.
Prove your definition of playing is the same.
Prove your definition of performance is the same.
Prove your definition of playing is correct.
Prove your definition of performance is correct.
Wait for him to prove his definition of playing is correct.
Wait for him to prove his definition of performance is correct.
If there is a discrepancy, draw the argument out to a conclusion.
Then completely disregard difference of opinion and continue stating things as fact.
Do so in concrete, objective terms. (all of the above)
Elaborate on the differences between Smith's and Hamelin's performances in objective terms.
Somehow draw the conclusion that the question-poser plans to emulate exactly Hamelin's or Smith's performance.
Correct your spelling from "technic" to "technique".
Define Technique.
Objectively prove your definition is correct.
Wait for the question-poser to describe his technique.
Enter upon a way to amplify on this in objective terms.
Draw all disagreements out to their logical conclusion.
Disregard the fourth categorical syllogistic contradiction regarding difficulty being subjective in pieces, yet difficulty in performances being objective.
Disregard the fourth categorical syllogistic contradiction that you place intervals at which difficulty becomes objective in so much as you make the claim that the Godowsky is easier than the Alkan when played in Smith's manner.
Disregard circular logic in such a proposition.
Disregard that even your contradictions contradict one another.
Define such intervals and elaborate on them.
Draw all disagreements out to their logical conclusion.
If disagreements can not be resolved to a solution that meets epistemological laws regarding knowledge, continue disregarding different opinions and go back to simply stating things.
Then do all that for the specific context of the Alkan.
Do all that for the Godowsky, as well, considering we don't know how "fast" he wants to play that one, either.
Prove that all definitions used in the case of Alkan are the same as those used for the Godowsky.
Address all issues that implicitly arise from this.
If they are different, explain why.
Explain how.
Explain how your logic is still valid.
Explain the differences objectively.
Put in ear plugs and go "na na na na na na na!" when people point out the idiotic conclusions such "logic" draws when used in other situations.

And that's not how many times you are wrong in your tiny, little post.  Do you know how many additional fallacies I can draw out of that enormous list?  And that's formal.  I see about eight informal ones I can whip up right now, and that's without thinking about it at all.  How is it that you're so, insanely wrong, when stating such simple things?  The irony is how indignant you are when you do it.

Alternatively, skip all that, use your brain and assume the person is asking about playing the pieces as written (i.e. Hamelin).  Do you really think the question he's asking is:

"Which is harder?  To give a perfect performance of the Godowsky Passacaglia, or a shitty performance of Alkan's Sonate?"

Where the hell do you read that, exactly?

HAHAHA