Piano Forum

Since I need an exucse to procrastinate on studying eco, I'm going to respond to this.

What you said there is effectively the same as me saying:

1. Revoluationary Etude is harder than Fantasie impromptu

2. Stevebob and Vanbeethoven are the same person

3. Stevebob fails at life.

If you think that the existence of these factors is just my opinion, then, for you, stevebob is not a jerk.

If you accept them as statements of truth, then a different conclusion is unavoidable.

The problem with this is, why should we accept your statements as truth? What objective evidence have you provided to prove your points?

Now, my personal experience is just my personal experience, of course, but your statements are just as your personal opinion as my personal experience is my personal experience. You have no statistics, nothing objective to back up your claims. It's no different than the little example I gave above, which, by the way, is just an example to prove how silly your statements are, and not meant to be my "argument", so don't try to red herring your way out of this by saying that I'm using ad hominem attacks.

Point 1:
I can equally say that The patterns are much more varied in fantasie impromptu. Not only is the piece much longer in length, requiring more endurance, but the piece also varies a lot in speed and dynamics, much more so than Revoluationary. Furthermore, how varied is revoluationary? If you can play the left hand of the beginning 2 bars, you can basically play almost half of the left hand of the revolutionary etude.

Point 2:
If you know how to do integration by parts, does that mean you can do every single question involving integration by parts? And at any speed? I doubt it. In fact, I bet I can give you math questions that require no more than elementary mathematical knowledge that would take you hours to solve, if you're smart enough to solve them. And I'm not belittling your intelligence, the fact is, there are many elementary problems most people cannot solve.

So why do you think that just because getting the rhythms is a "mental excercise", which in itself is debateable and unproven, but even assuming that it's true, why do you think that that makes it easy? As both you and Vanbeethoven has convieniently avoided to address, I will say it again: knowing how to play 3-4 is completely different from 4-3, or 5-4 and 4-5. And knowing how to play it fast is completely different from knowing how to play it slowly. Can you argue against that? Or do you think that everyone with adequate musical training can do any rhythmic combination without a problem, and that every mathematician who learned integration by parts should be able to solve any integral involving integration by parts (without any more advanced techniques involved)?

Point 3:
I don't see any way of addressing this, because this is so obviously your own opinion. I can equally assert that FI requires finger agility way beyond any technical difficulty op10 no12 has.

I agree, if 99% of the world thinks that Fantasie impromptu is easier, then "objectively" speaking, it is. But do you have statistics to support this? There weren't many voters on this thread, so you can argue that it is statistically insignificant, but still, from the few votes we have here, clearly it is not the case where an overwhelming majority thinks Fantasie impromptu is easier.
More pot-kettle-black.

Whatever.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this? Instead of backing up your claims with hard evidence, you choose to red herring away from the argument and use ad hominem against me. Now THAT'S "pot-kettle-black".

I find it appalling that instead of engaging in an intelligent debate, you choose to use red herrings to avoid discussions, and ad hominem against people with opposing opinions (as evident in this particular post I'm quoting), even though you are clearly guilty of all the logical fallacies you pointed out yourself. Regarding your first paragraph, I've addressed it earlier.

Instead of answering his questions, you choose to attack his intelligence. Attacking a person without addressing the topic at hand... hmm... I wonder which logical fallacy that is?

I'm not saying that the revolutionary etude is easier than the fantasie impromptu. I personally thought so, but my musical knowledge is limited and I could very well be wrong. However, I have to say your arguments for revolutionary etude being harder is completely bogus. You have nothing to back up your claims, other than personal opinions disguised as facts, and red herrings and ad hominem to avoid the discussion.

You imply that pianist1989's posts are not intelligent? Well, I wouldn't call your posts intelligent either. Perhaps sneaky, crafty and deceptive, but not intelligent. When you say something, back it up with real, hard evidence. Show us statistics. Show us proof of your claims. Simply saying that "if you don't believe my statements are true, it's the same as thinking 2 + 2 = 5" doesn't cut it.
I look forward to whatever ad hominem and red herrings you will throw at me.