Difficulty ranking of piano concertos please

[dannwebb]

How would rate these, difficulty-wise (and yes, I know it's highly subjective):

Brahms 2nd
Rach 3rd
Prokofiev 2nd

cheers.

[redbaron]

Prokofiev is the least difficult of the three, Rachmaninov is the hardest of the three and the Brahms sits somewhere in the middle although Rach 3 is more idiomatically suited to the keyboard than the Brahms, which is written is his typically awkward style...

[49410enrique]

Brahms 2nd->8+
Rach 3rd->8+
Prokofiev 2nd->8+

[perfect_pitch]

How would rate these, difficulty-wise (and yes, I know it's highly subjective):

Brahms 2nd
Rach 3rd
Prokofiev 2nd

*** HARD
REALLY *** HARD
HARD

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Brahms 2nd->8+
Rach 3rd->8+
Prokofiev 2nd->8+

PRECICELY the reason why I don't like grades!

[dannwebb]

PRECICELY the reason why I don't like grades!

Indeed.

I wasn't interested in a grading, per se, just other opinions on difficulty.

Someone asked me, I answered with my own opinion (in ascending order: Brahms, Rach, Prokofiev) and was interested in the opinions of others.

[fftransform]

Bartok 2 is harder than Prokofiev 2 is harder than Brahms 2 is harder than Rachmaninov 3.  The Brahms vs. Rachmaninov is the only one where I see there being any sort of discussion to actually be had.

[davidjosepha]

I'm surprised when I hear Prokofiev 2 put in the same category as Brahms 2 and Rach 3...I mean, I know it's difficult, but I never got the impression it was that difficult from listening and following along in the score...Rach 3 sounds tons harder to me (like not even in the same ballpark), but I guess that just goes to show that sounding hard and being hard are very different things.

[fftransform]

I'm surprised when I hear Prokofiev 2 put in the same category as Brahms 2 and Rach 3.

The only exceptionally difficult sections of the Rach 3 take place in the 1st movement, up to the cadenza.  The original cadenza itself is quite difficult, but the ossia cadenza (which is typically played) is definitely not in the top echelon of difficulty, with respect to the standard repertoire.  The Rachmaninov would be much more difficult if the tough passages were not constantly being alleviated by easy ones every minute or two; the primary difficulty in the Rach is just the sheer exhaustion one endures during the 1st movement.  There are also a couple of sincerely nasty bits in the 2nd movement, but the 3rd movement is by in large not especially difficult at all.  Honestly, the 2nd concerto is much more "tricky" and unpianistic, but it is just not as mammoth and physically taxing as the 3rd.  The Rachmaninov takes much more time to learn or relearn than the Prokofiev 2, at least for me, but it just isn't as bad as its reputation.  The Prokofiev 2's 1st and 4th movements are both complete disaster zones: The orchestra gives almost no coverage to the pianist throughout the whole piece, and the toughest sections of the Prokofiev are definitely nastier than the toughest sections in the Rach, albeit fewer and farther between.  However, performances of the Prokofiev are much, much more likely to have a serious mess-up in a few places than the Rachmaninov due to this.  It is far more "risky" than the Rach 3 to perform.

But as I quasi-mentioned, neither have anything on the Bartok 2.  Bartok 2 is definitely the most difficult concerto in the standard repertoire, along with the Ginastera No. 1, due to the 4th movement.  The 2nd/3rd movements of the Ginastera are very, very playable, though.  However, I think that performance standards for the 4th movement of the Ginastera are extremely lax, comparatively, hence why I didn't mention it.

[davidjosepha]

Thanks for the overview of those concertos. That was helpful.

But as I quasi-mentioned, neither have anything on the Bartok 2.  Bartok 2 is definitely the most difficult concerto in the standard repertoire, along with the Ginastera No. 1, due to the 4th movement.  The 2nd/3rd movements of the Ginastera are very, very playable, though.  However, I think that performance standards for the 4th movement of the Ginastera are extremely lax, comparatively, hence why I didn't mention it.

I'll look up both of those. It's funny--my dad mentioned Ginastera last Saturday and ever since, I've been seeing his name everywhere. I'll look into him more.

[fftransform]

Thanks for the overview of those concertos. That was helpful.

I'll look up both of those. It's funny--my dad mentioned Ginastera last Saturday and ever since, I've been seeing his name everywhere. I'll look into him more.

[vitruvius]

I'm surprised when I hear Prokofiev 2 put in the same category as Brahms 2 and Rach 3...I mean, I know it's difficult, but I never got the impression it was that difficult from listening and following along in the score...Rach 3 sounds tons harder to me (like not even in the same ballpark), but I guess that just goes to show that sounding hard and being hard are very different things.

Try play it. Or don't just look at the score. Look at a pianist play it.