What is harder? The revoloutionary or Fantasie impromptue

[bozzyraven]

What is harder? The revoloutionary or Fantasie impromptue

[phil2]

No brainer, The revolutionary etude is harder. Fantasie impromptu is not a hard piece.

[countrymath]

Fantaisie.

I was learning both of them. I finished the revolutionary in 7 weeks, and i'm still learning fantaisie (thats the 8th week). Btw, im justing putting everything togheter. All the song is "learnead"

[musicluvr49]

I think it depends on the person.....

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

[ongaku_oniko]

Well, Fantasie is a PIECE. revolutionary is an ETUDE.


And both are put at the same level. So I would say fantasie is harder, since it's a real piece as opposed to an etude. I tried the revoluationary etude, and it wasn't too too bad. I'm not even gonna attempt fantasie until I master a few more pieces, like arabesque no.1 and black keys etude

[pianisten1989]

No brainer, The revolutionary etude is harder. Fantasie impromptu is not a hard piece.

LOOOOOL!!!!

What if you've got a really great left hand, but a really crappy right? Then revolutionary is easier. And if your coordination is bad, then the revolutionary is easier.
If you have problems playing on black keys, fantasie impromptu is a bit harder.

It's all about what you're strong and weak sides are.

Though, normally, fantasie impromptu is the easier of the two.

[redbaron]

Well, Fantasie is a PIECE.

For crying out loud, when are people gonna stop calling classical piano pieces SONGS. Some of you have really spent far too much time listening to rubbish pop music. THEY AREN'T SONGS, THEY'RE PIECES! GGRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

GET IT RIGHT!

[pianisten1989]

For crying out loud, when are people gonna stop calling classical piano pieces SONGS. Some of you have really spent far too much time listening to rubbish pop music. THEY AREN'T SONGS, THEY'RE PIECES! GGRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

GET IT RIGHT!

Well, he did call it a piece..? Though, why the etude wouldn't be a piece, I do not understand.

[stevebob]

The first response in this thread is correct, and it really is a no-brainer (though I wouldn't describe F-I as "easy").

Sure, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses.  Even so, the technical demands of F-I are of a significantly lower order; the middle section is a big chunk of the piece, and it poses little technical difficulty at all.

The etude, on the other hand, has far more complex and varied patterns of figurations.  The octaves played by both hands in unison, plus the precision and control required for the chords of the right hand's melodic line, require a more advanced technique than anything in F-I.

[pianisten1989]

The first response in this thread is correct, and it really is a no-brainer (though I wouldn't describe F-I as "easy").

How is it possible that one answer is correct, when it's about difficulty? That's just stupid. Most people probably think FI is easier, but that doesn't mean it's the correct answer.

[stevebob]

How is it possible that one answer is correct, when it's about difficulty? That's just stupid. Most people probably think FI is easier, but that doesn't mean it's the correct answer.

This is how it's possible:  some techniques are objectively harder than others, and I specified the elements of the etude that require more advanced technical skill than anything in F-I.

If you want to suggest that no "one answer is correct, when it's about difficulty," you may as well try to argue that Für Elise is as difficult as Islamey.  Now that's just stupid.

[pianisten1989]

Yeah, cause that's the same thing...

FI and the etude has completely different difficulties. One is basically dexterity in left hand, and the other one is dexterity and 3 against 4. There are plenty of people who would take difficulties in the left hand over coordination.

If you think this is like fur elise and islamey... Gah, why do I even waste my time on this?!

[ongaku_oniko]

redbaron, did I say song?

And I don't think it really matters what you call it. as long as people know what you mean, it's all good.

I mean the revolutionary etude is supposed to be a practise piece, a study, where as the fantasie-impromptu is supposed to be like a performance piece. Although you can perform the etude as well.

I'm surprised at the response here. I've always heard that fantasieimpromptu is much harder than the lowerend etudes like revolutionary.

What do you guys think of fantasie vs black keys? black keys has the same difficulty as revolutionary right? so does that mean it's better to do fantasie first? It would be kinda stupid of me to do black keys for the purpose of preparing for fantasie, when it is actually harder...

[stevebob]

Yeah, cause that's the same thing...

FI and the etude has completely different difficulties. One is basically dexterity in left hand, and the other one is dexterity and 3 against 4. There are plenty of people who would take difficulties in the left hand over coordination.

If you think this is like fur elise and islamey... Gah, why do I even waste my time on this?!

Even if the issues of dexterity were identical (i.e., 10/12's left hand and F-I's right hand), 10/12's unison octaves and loud-and-fast chords are a higher level of difficulty, and require a more developed technique to execute, than anything in F-I.

The "coordination" of polyrhythm is frankly of no consequence; once it clicks, it clicks.

Anybody who has to ask which of these two pieces is "harder" probably isn't ready for either one.  And if you think that it's a close call or is debatable or is a matter of opinion, you're not thinking critically about the precise techniques involved and their respective magnitudes of difficulty.

[pianisten1989]

Black keys and revolutionary has not the same difficulty..? Black keys is a piece for playing on (here it comes...!) black keys.

And no, revolutionary is not a study-piece, although it is an etude. Chopin wrote etudes that worked just as fine as anything else as a concert piece. Different from Czerny's, that was for study (even though some people play them in concert)

Both black keys and revolutionary will work fine as preparatory for FI, but I don't see the point since none of then deal with 3 against 4

[pianisten1989]

The "coordination" of polyrhythm is frankly of no consequence; once it clicks, it clicks.

Yeah, and once it clicks in op 10/2, it clicks.

Gah!

Whatever you say, you obviously don't see my point, so I wont answer you anymore.

[stevebob]

Both black keys and revolutionary will work fine as preparatory for FI, but I don't see the point since none of then deal with 3 against 4

That's one of the most uninformed statements I've read on this forum, and that's saying a lot.

[pianisten1989]

You learn how to play on black keys, right? And you learn how to play left hand with dexterity, right? And you learn how to play in a brillante touch, right?

And I did say - Normally, people find revolutionary etude more difficult, but not everyone.

And even here, some people say FI are more difficult, but still (!!) you come with some stupid know-it-all statement about what is the correct answer for everyone. That, my friend, is the most uninformed statement on this forum.

The point with chopin etudes is to make everything else easier. If you play these two chopin etudes, FI will get way easier. That is the big no-brainer in this thread.

[vanbeethoven]

The "coordination" of polyrhythm is frankly of no consequence; once it clicks, it clicks.

Yeah, and once it clicks in op 10/12, it clicks.

Rhythm is almost exclusively mental excercise; fluidity, finger dexterity/prestidigitation are to a great extent physical concepts. Once you have understood a rhythmic figure correctly you don't have to learn it again, whereas the physical aspects of playing are much more variable and require constant practice. I do not believe you can say, as an example, once you can play a C-scale perfectly at 208bpm you have mastered finger dexterity. That same concept applies to the two pieces in question. And while right hand dexterity and control receives sufficient attention in pieces such as Mozart's sonatas for example, the left hand is usually neglected somewhat.

Fantasie Impromptu is definitely going to be easier for someone who has received a balanced pianistic education (your technical weak points have been adressed) which includes the playing of the standard repertoire (and pieces like Debussy's first arabesque deal with polyrhythms) up to that level. If you find the polyrhythmic figurations of FI difficult then you are either not yet ready for that piece or you have gaps in your education. This does not apply to the RE, in which particular emphasis has been placed on left hand dexterity, something that is not as commonly done in standard repertoire. Hope I made some sense.

[stevebob]

And even here, some people say FI are more difficult, but still (!!) you come with some stupid know-it-all statement about what is the correct answer for everyone. That, my friend, is the most uninformed statement on this forum.

The point with chopin etudes is to make everything else easier. If you play these two chopin etudes, FI will get way easier. That is the big no-brainer in this thread.

"Stupid know-it-all"?  I'm so sure.

Again, two things:

1.  Unison octaves; and
2.  Swift and incisive chords.

There's nothing whatsoever in F-I of the magnitude of technical difficulty that those two elements pose in 10/12.

[redbaron]

redbaron, did I say song?

No you didn't say 'song'. I was referring to countrymath who most definitely did use the word 'song'.

[vanbeethoven]

No you didn't say 'song'. I was referring to countrymath who most definitely did use the word 'song'.

I want to see someone sing those two pieces^^

[ongaku_oniko]

"Stupid know-it-all"?  I'm so sure.

Again, two things:

1.  Unison octaves; and
2.  Swift and incisive chords.

There's nothing whatsoever in F-I of the magnitude of technical difficulty that those two elements pose in 10/12.

I, personally find the rhythm of fantasie-impromptu to be much much harder than the two things you said.

Vanbeethoven:
I hum those tunes all the time. Given it's probably offtune and horrible,

[stevebob]

I, personally find the rhythm of fantasie-impromptu to be much much harder than the two things you said.

I think your experience demonstrates the applicability of vanbeethoven's remarks.

[ongaku_oniko]

I do not believe that because you got the rhythm for fantasie impromptu down, you won't have any rhythm problems ever again, involving 3 against 4 beats.

It's not a once you're done with it you're done with it thing either.

[stevebob]

I do not believe that because you got the rhythm for fantasie impromptu down, you won't any any rhythm problems ever again, involving 3 against 4 beats.

It's not a once you're done with it you're done with it thing either.

Again, I think that supports vanbeethoven's statements.

[pianisten1989]

yeah, oniko: Don't try to discuss with him, it will come nothing good out of it. Cause he is god, and knows everything. If he says that something is harder, then it is harder, even if you don't think so yourself...

[countrymath]

No you didn't say 'song'. I was referring to countrymath who most definitely did use the word 'song'.

Oops...sorry, them.

[stevebob]

yeah, oniko: Don't try to discuss with him, it will come nothing good out of it. Cause he is god, and knows everything. If he says that something is harder, then it is harder, even if you don't think so yourself...

Pot kettle black?  Think whatever you like, but it's a shame you have to defend yourself with ad hominem attacks.

[ongaku_oniko]

On the other hand, you've no evidence whatsoever of your statements, other than your own personal experiences. You use your own opinions as facts.

Not much better than ad hominem, I'd say.

[vanbeethoven]

I do not believe that because you got the rhythm for fantasie impromptu down, you won't have any rhythm problems ever again, involving 3 against 4 beats.

It's not a once you're done with it you're done with it thing either.

In my opinion you should have the rhythmic figuration down before even attempting this piece. Heck, I remember having to sight read 4-3 in my grade 8 exam - which is an indication of what is expected at that level of well rounded piano tuition. I think the reason that polyrhythms are often being mentioned as FI's difficulty is that most people attempting this piece are not on that level yet.

Anyways, I tend to disagree with your statement. Once you grasp a rhythmic figuration the difficulty lies in applying it to a certain context in music and not in relearning it every time you play it in a different piece.

[vanbeethoven]

Vanbeethoven:
I hum those tunes all the time. Given it's probably offtune and horrible,

You have amazing humming skills, considering the speed of the pieces. lol. On a sidenote, a
teacher who has quite a respectable reputation locally insists that if you can't hum or sing your pieces, you should not play them. Figure that out!

[stevebob]

On the other hand, you've no evidence whatsoever of your statements, other than your own personal experiences. You use your own opinions as facts.

Not much better than ad hominem, I'd say.

More pot-kettle-black.  

Whatever.

[pianisten1989]

yeah poor stevebob... But seriously, if some people here, (and people I know, and people I've just randomly heard somewhere) say that FI are more difficult, why can't you just accept that there isn't a correct answer?

Most people would probably say that FI is easier, but not everyone.

[stevebob]

yeah poor stevebob... But seriously, if some people here, (and people I know, and people I've just randomly heard somewhere) say that FI are more difficult, why can't you just accept that there isn't a correct answer?

Most people would probably say that FI is easier, but not everyone.

I’ve already made my case, but here’s a recap:

1.  The respective “dexterity” issues (i.e., right hand for F-I and left hand for 10/12) aren't analogous; the patterns of the figuration are more varied and more complex in 10/12.

2.  Polyrhythm isn’t in the equation as a technical difficulty except for someone with limited pianistic development overall or who has gaps in pianistic training, which is admittedly the “personal experience” of ongaku_oniko as revealed in previous postings to the forum.

3.  10/12 has unison octaves and fast chords that require agility, vigor and accuracy; F-I has neither (nor any other technical element of comparable difficulty).

If you think the existence of these factors is just my opinion, then, for you, “there’s no correct answer.”

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

When someone disregards objective evidence and opines that the sky is red and 2+2=5, is there still “no correct answer”?

[cygnusdei]

If you give credence to the ABRSM folks, they list Chopin Op. 10 and 25 as LRSM standard. Op. 66 is not listed in the syllabus (that I know of), but these folks think it's Dip ABRSM standard:

https://www.abrsm.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t23335.html

BTW, the diplomas go DipABRSM < LRSM < FRSM, I think.

Anyway, this gives me an idea - why not have an Op. 10 #12 and Op. 66 competition! Each participant has to post his/her own performance of both pieces and based on the performance we'll judge the difficulties.

Anyone interested? I haven't played Op. 10 #12 but I think I can learn in a week or two. Op. 66 I played looong ago.

[ongaku_oniko]

In my opinion you should have the rhythmic figuration down before even attempting this piece. Heck, I remember having to sight read 4-3 in my grade 8 exam - which is an indication of what is expected at that level of well rounded piano tuition. I think the reason that polyrhythms are often being mentioned as FI's difficulty is that most people attempting this piece are not on that level yet.

Anyways, I tend to disagree with your statement. Once you grasp a rhythmic figuration the difficulty lies in applying it to a certain context in music and not in relearning it every time you play it in a different piece.

From personal experience, I've played quite a few pieces with uneven rhythm for both hands (none are anywhere near the length of fantasie impromptu though, most are only a few bars long), and they weren't that hard for me.

Since I first started piano, my piano teacher asked me to tap 3 with the left hand and 4 with the rght hand, and I did it easily. (after about 30 seconds trying to get the rhythm right)

I think that having 3-4 is completely different from 4-3, and even more different from 45 or 5-4 etc. And different speeds is very important too. I could tap 3-4, but not very fast. It's a lot harder when it's faster (it's easier to "cheat" through it, so that it "sounds" right, but the notes in the middle are not usually even)

1.  The respective “dexterity” issues (i.e., right hand for F-I and left hand for 10/12) aren't analogous; the patterns of the figuration are more varied and more complex in 10/12.

2.  Polyrhythm isn’t in the equation as a technical difficulty except for someone with limited pianistic development overall or who has gaps in pianistic training, which is admittedly the “personal experience” of ongaku_oniko as revealed in previous postings to the forum.

3.  10/12 has unison octaves and fast chords that require agility, vigor and accuracy; F-I has neither (nor any other technical element of comparable difficulty).

You call this objective evidence? Do you not know the meaning of objective?

[pianisten1989]

I’ve already made my case, but here’s a recap:

1.  The respective “dexterity” issues (i.e., right hand for F-I and left hand for 10/12) aren't analogous; the patterns of the figuration are more varied and more complex in 10/12.

2.  Polyrhythm isn’t in the equation as a technical difficulty except for someone with limited pianistic development overall or who has gaps in pianistic training, which is admittedly the “personal experience” of ongaku_oniko as revealed in previous postings to the forum.

3.  10/12 has unison octaves and fast chords that require agility, vigor and accuracy; F-I has neither (nor any other technical element of comparable difficulty).

If you think the existence of these factors is just my opinion, then, for you, “there’s no correct answer.”

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

When someone disregards objective evidence and opines that the sky is red and 2+2=5, is there still “no correct answer”?

Dude, are you stupid, or what?
 
And what is unison octaves? Unison is the same note, octave is the octave.
And what the hell?! Comparing music with maths?
...
That's it. Bye.

[stevebob]

Dude, are you stupid, or what?
 
And what is unison octaves? Unison is the same note, octave is the octave.
And what the hell?! Comparing music with maths?
...
That's it. Bye.

What passes you ain't for you, but your intellect, knowledge and communication style make this forum the kind of place it is. 

[pianisten1989]

Mhm

[vanbeethoven]

yeah poor stevebob... But seriously, if some people here, (and people I know, and people I've just randomly heard somewhere) say that FI are more difficult, why can't you just accept that there isn't a correct answer?

Most people would probably say that FI is easier, but not everyone.

There is an objective answer. If someone finds FI harder, they have had an inconsistent pianistic education or are not yet on the right level. I believe is an objective statement supported by an objective evaluation of the technical material. Obviously we are speaking in general terms; there is always the odd one out, but that still does not invalidate the statement.

I find it appaling that instead of engaging in a constructive discussion, pointing out why you disagree with that evaluation (and providing reasonable evidence for doing so,) you revert to insults and name-calling like this. The intellectual level of the post speaks for itself.

Dude, are you stupid, or what?
 
And what is unison octaves? Unison is the same note, octave is the octave.
And what the hell?! Comparing music with maths?
...
That's it. Bye.

[pianisten1989]

There is an objective answer. If someone finds FI harder, they have had an inconsistent pianistic education or are not yet on the right level. I believe is an objective statement supported by an objective evaluation of the technical material. Obviously we are speaking in general terms; there is always the odd one out, but that still does not invalidate the statement.

I find it appaling that instead of engaging in a constructive discussion, pointing out why you disagree with that evaluation (and providing reasonable evidence for doing so,) you revert to insults and name-calling like this. The intellectual level of the post speaks for itself.

'

yeah, cause I didn't even once try to tell my point. Darn, stupid me!

[ongaku_oniko]

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

I’ve already made my case, but here’s a recap:

1. The respective “dexterity” issues (i.e., right hand for F-I and left hand for 10/12) aren't analogous; the patterns of the figuration are more varied and more complex in 10/12.

2. Polyrhythm isn’t in the equation as a technical difficulty except for someone with limited pianistic development overall or who has gaps in pianistic training, which is admittedly the “personal experience” of ongaku_oniko as revealed in previous postings to the forum.

3. 10/12 has unison octaves and fast chords that require agility, vigor and accuracy; F-I has neither (nor any other technical element of comparable difficulty).

If you think the existence of these factors is just my opinion, then, for you, “there’s no correct answer.”

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

When someone disregards objective evidence and opines that the sky is red and 2+2=5, is there still “no correct answer”?

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.

Pot kettle black? Think whatever you like, but it's a shame you have to defend yourself with ad hominem attacks.

On the other hand, you've no evidence whatsoever of your statements, other than your own personal experiences. You use your own opinions as facts.

Not much better than ad hominem, I'd say.

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".

There is an objective answer. If someone finds FI harder, they have had an inconsistent pianistic education or are not yet on the right level. I believe is an objective statement supported by an objective evaluation of the technical material. Obviously we are speaking in general terms; there is always the odd one out, but that still does not invalidate the statement.

I find it appaling that instead of engaging in a constructive discussion, pointing out why you disagree with that evaluation (and providing reasonable evidence for doing so,) you revert to insults and name-calling like this. The intellectual level of the post speaks for itself.

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.

What passes you ain't for you, but your intellect, knowledge and communication style make this forum the kind of place it is.

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.

[thalbergmad]

How some gifted and intelligent members can spend so long arguing over two of the biggest piles of crap in pianistic history, is beyond me.

Thal

[stevebob]

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.

tl; dr (but it looks suspiciously like a big load of sophistry to me).

[ongaku_oniko]

I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a more challenging and well hidden logical fallacy. But I guess my point is clearly proven; you've got nothing more than personal opinions, and buckets full of red herrings and ad hominem.

[stevebob]

I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a more challenging and well hidden logical fallacy. But I guess my point is clearly proven; you've got nothing more than personal opinions, and buckets full of red herrings and ad hominem.

       

I wonder if Messrs. Dunning and Kruger live on Piano Street. 

[ahinton]

How some gifted and intelligent members can spend so long arguing over two of the biggest piles of crap in pianistic history, is beyond me.

It's beyond me, too - but what is it that you have against Chopin? OK, the Fantaisie-Impromptu is hardly Chopin at his best - very far from it, indeed - but 10/12 a "big pile of crap"? Words fail me...

Best,

Alistair

[edubia]

Fantaisie.

I was learning both of them. I finished the revolutionary in 7 weeks, and i'm still learning fantaisie (thats the 8th week). Btw, im justing putting everything togheter. All the song is "learnead"

That is probably because the Fantasie is is almost twice as long as the Etude...

[stevebob]

Hmmm, isn't Fuer Elise longer than either of them?