Share pictures of ridiculous sheet music

[rachmaninoff_forever]

These is probably the most difficult two measures I have in my library.  (The bottom two)

It's still an investment though!

[49410enrique]

out of what i'm learning right now these measures are giving me the most grief (at least in the first half of the piece, there's a very close '2nd place' a few minutes later...omg this has taken me so much work just to get through, 'read' and barely  now starting to commit to memory....


note that junk in the 2nd system is designated 2 octaves up.   it's been nice trying to even out the wear on my hammers in my piano at that end f the keyboard drilling that  stuff.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Scriabin is a freaking idiot!

Learn how to compose!  That's why Rachmaninoff is better than you!

Loser...

[davidjosepha]

What's the piece?

Scriabin is a freaking idiot!

Learn how to compose!  That's why Rachmaninoff is better than you!

Loser...

Sorry, what's wrong with that piece?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

What's the piece?

Petrouchka

Sorry, what's wrong with that piece?

Look at the naturals in the left hand.

[49410enrique]

i will probably learn this next as i'm doing a 'survey' of pieces based on the theme, i'm about to finish one so as soon as i record in the studio or put it on stage i will move on to this (some time october probably).

i love this though, it is the only time i have ever seen this indication , i tried to translate as best as i could , essentially use your fist and sort of randmon and angry
here this should link you a few seconds before it happens. i love this! the piece is too funny , i describe it as having all the wrong notes in all the right places lol

=1m40s

[rachmaninoff_forever]

not the most difficult in my library (both in hard and soft copy) but out of what i'm learning right now these measures are giving me the most grief (at least in the first half of the piece, there's a very close '2nd place' a few minutes later...omg this has taken me so much work just to get through, 'read' and barely  now starting to commit to memory....


note that junk in the 2nd system is designated 2 octaves up.   it's been nice trying to even out the wear on my hammers in my piano at that end f the keyboard drilling that  stuff.

Have fun with that!

[davidjosepha]

I think I've seen the Petrouchka section in a different thread a while ago, asking how you're supposed to do a tremolo with 24/35 while using your 1. Well, good luck with that!

Look at the naturals in the left hand.

Oh.

Oh.

Wow.

[mikeowski]

I've got a good one:



It's going like this the whole time from the beginning, with things like triplets but with eleven notes (whats that called, with nine it's called nonuplet. maybe undecimuplet? sounds stupid) Anyway, this piece was composed especially for a competition and holy sh*t if this isn't ridicolous, I don't know what is.

Here's the link if you wanna look at the whole sheet: Link

[davidjosepha]

Apologize for the low quality, it's a screenshot from a YT video of the piece since I don't happen to have the actual score.

I think I win this thread.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Apologize for the low quality, it's a screenshot from a YT video of the piece since I don't happen to have the actual score.

I think I win this thread.

What is this?  Sorajbi?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I think I've seen the Petrouchka section in a different thread a while ago, asking how you're supposed to do a tremolo with 24/35 while using your 1. Well, good luck with that!

Well since it's impossible to actually play that, the trick is cheating without anyone noticing.

I know I throw that word around a lot, but it's like legit impossible.  I've never heard of a recording where a pianist actually plays it according to the score.

[davidjosepha]

What is this?  Sorajbi?

What gave it away?

[scherzo123]

I like this thread. 

[49410enrique]

What gave it away?

might as well be this , but witha time signature...

[davidjosepha]

but witha time signature...

check again.

[49410enrique]

check again.

oh. ok then. the it is exactly like that. only i can at least play the one i posted.


anoter cool one, i like the single beat tremolo and the 'freely' lol

=1m40s

[rachmaninoff_forever]

This is the closest I could find to perfect.

1:15

I think he sacrifices some of middle notes from the tremolo to get the hidden melody out. 

[perfect_pitch]

These is probably the most difficult two measures I have in my library.  (The bottom two)

It's still an investment though!

Oh come on - it's easier than it looks... You just gotta practice really hard. The part that I think is just insanely ridiculous is where it's notated over four frickin' lines. That's a pain in my arse... Try this at 108bpm

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Oh come on - it's easier than it looks... You just gotta practice really hard. The part that I think is just insanely ridiculous is where it's notated over four frickin' lines. That's a pain in my arse... Try this at 108bpm

*Reads score with music*

Someone please shoot me.

[perfect_pitch]

*Reads score with music*

Someone please shoot me.

Oh come on - you're being a bit melodramatic aren't you? I'll admit, that's how I felt when I watched and heard Weissenberg playing it as I read the music for the first time... but hey - it's a fantastic piece of music.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Oh come on - you're being a bit melodramatic aren't you? I'll admit, that's how I felt when I watched and heard Weissenberg playing it as I read the music for the first time... but hey - it's a fantastic piece of music.

Well, it's still an investment!

[fftransform]

[davidjosepha]

One of the few times I think more than 2 staves would make sense. What piece is this?

[fftransform]

One of the few times I think more than 2 staves would make sense. What piece is this?

Robert Downie's Piano Piece No. 2:

Here, have 11 staves:

[thalbergmad]

[ahinton]

Robert Downie's Piano Piece No. 2:

Gordon Downie, je crois...

I suppose that it's about as good an example as any in a thread such as this one, though not a whole lot seems to have been heard of his music of late...

Best,

Alistair

[invictious]

Oh come on - you're being a bit melodramatic aren't you? I'll admit, that's how I felt when I watched and heard Weissenberg playing it as I read the music for the first time... but hey - it's a fantastic piece of music.

I am still grateful at my own decision that I only attempted to learn the Danse Russe, even though the other two movements are also absolutely alluring and appealing (note heavy alliteration here, which is absolutely intended). Just listening to this piece makes me so happy, whether the piano transcription or the original orchestration!

Nevertheless, the idea of learning the third movement of Petrushka is just, to me, inconceivable. Unfortunately, as much as I love this set of pieces, I do not see myself learning it to a standard anywhere near satisfactory. Looks like I better get back to my L'Isle Joyeuse as my goal piece!

PS Thanks for your guidance previously offered to me. They were immensely helpful to me!

[perfect_pitch]

Hey invictious... I was happy to help. Sorry to hear you aren't going to pursue the Stravinsky... I'm still fascinated by it and it's been almost 2 years since I last played it.

[49410enrique]

one of the better examples of the ultra specificity i've come to expect from him lol i love the extreems of pppp<fff the mixed glissand the half pedeal and half press indication (essentially he's going after the overtones but only slightly becuase of that quarter rest)

[49410enrique]

other supremely specific and ultra difficult to 'follow' exactly as stated. i mean c'mon really, ppp inner voices pp top voices?  where do the knuckles need to be?. yet to figure out the 'echo' 

strangely it's these challenges that draw me to this piece. would love to try and work them out someday when i have the technique, sensitivity, and courage to really attempt it.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

other supremely specific and ultra difficult to 'follow' exactly as stated. i mean c'mon really, ppp inner voices pp top voices?  where do the knuckles need to be?. yet to figure out the 'echo' 

strangely it's these challenges that draw me to this piece. would love to try and work them out someday when i have the technique, sensitivity, and courage to really attempt it.

What piece is this?

[scottmcc]

Petrouchka

Look at the naturals in the left hand.

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I find those naturals to be helpful. The right hand plays an a flat earlier in the measure, so as a courtesy the left hand is indicated to be an a natural. This way one is not confused into thinking that the accidental applies across all octaves. Makes sense to me at least.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I find those naturals to be helpful. The right hand plays an a flat earlier in the measure, so as a courtesy the left hand is indicated to be an a natural. This way one is not confused into thinking that the accidental applies across all octaves. Makes sense to me at least.

You explained this better than J Menz

However, if this doesn't confuse you, I have something else that's even worse!

[davidjosepha]

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I find those naturals to be helpful. The right hand plays an a flat earlier in the measure, so as a courtesy the left hand is indicated to be an a natural. This way one is not confused into thinking that the accidental applies across all octaves. Makes sense to me at least.

I was thinking this too, but what about the e-natural? It's already been made natural in the right hand when it shows up in the left...

[j_menz]

You explained this better than J Menz

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I find those naturals to be helpful. The right hand plays an a flat earlier in the measure, so as a courtesy the left hand is indicated to be an a natural. This way one is not confused into thinking that the accidental applies across all octaves. Makes sense to me at least.

If you look at the score, you'll notice that the only "unneccessary" natural signs occur on the octaves of notes that have previously had a sharp or flat. Strictly, they would not be given those accidentals anyway, since they are not the same note in the same octave, but it makes it clear that they shouldn't. I find it quite useful, especially in pieces with lots of accidentals (and especially where there are lots of notes to a bar).

We appear to have said exactly the same thing.

[j_menz]

However, if this doesn't confuse you, I have something else that's even worse!

Bring it on mate, I've been playing (if that is what you'd call it) Alkan all weekend. If it's worse than that, you're on your own.

[49410enrique]

What piece is this?

it's Percy Grainger's "Lullaby from 'Tribute to Foster' " as he describes it, "a study in 'musical glasses' effect based upon Stephen Foster's Song "Camptown Races" (also called "Doodah').

it's such an incredible piece of music based on something you wouldn't think would form the basis for something so splendid.

[ajspiano]

However, if this doesn't confuse you, I have something else that's even worse!

I would like to see this..  as I also had the same opinion regarding Scriabin's use of "courtesy" accidentals.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I would like to see this..  as I also had the same opinion regarding Scriabin's use of "courtesy" accidentals.

As me? or as scottmmcc?

[ajspiano]

As me? or as scottmmcc?

as scott and j_menz. There opinions, and mine, are practically identical.

[j_menz]

Love this particular passage.

The small part of my brain that dedicates its life to remembering accidentals made a sharp fizzing noise and went on strike at the E that is both sharp and flat at the same time.

I daren't cross the picket line it has set up. Those little grey cells look mad as hell.

Tempo allegro moderato (allegedly); dotted crotchets at 108.

[scottmcc]

We appear to have said exactly the same thing.

My apologies, didn't see your post.

[black_keys]

Its sorabji , but im not sure if its from opus clavicembalisticum.

This is from Hamelin imaginery symphony (Homage to Sorabji):



from Hamelin cadenza to Liszt's 2^nd hungarian rhapsody:



Roslavets etude no.1:



Scriabin:



Rzewski:





Stockhausen:



Yedidia:

[black_keys]

Love this particular passage.

The small part of my brain that dedicates its life to remembering accidentals made a sharp fizzing noise and went on strike at the E that is both sharp and flat at the same time.

I daren't cross the picket line it has set up. Those little grey cells look mad as hell.

Tempo allegro moderato (allegedly); dotted crotchets at 108.

Cant find anything wrong here , The E is written like that because you have two layers here , the repeated a+c+Eb chord , and the a-E#-F# octaves that make the melody (I think ), the composer have to keep this shape so the performer can understand whats going on here.

This situation appeared frequently in the 20th century music so they maked a solution:

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Scriabin:

Scriabin's 7th sonata.

[ahinton]

I have to admit that I struggle to figure out quite what's perceived to be so "ridiculous" about most of the examples so far quoted (of which, incidentally, the Sorabji one is indeed from OC's Passacaglia). The notational "conventions" of Xenakis's Synaphai are admittedly pretty resistant to easy figuring out, either from the standpoint of klavierfaktur or visual intelligibility, but even that is merely a part of what has to be taken on board when Xenakis writes something of which near-accurate representation of the text as presented is arguably less of an intended issue as is the case with much other piano music (and that remark, for the record, is not meant as a pejorative). Roslavets's use of accidentals in his piano music written around WWI can sometimes make for difficulties of reading and perhaps offer at least some would-be interpreters undue temptation to rewrite passages (rightly or wrongly in principle) so as to make them seem rather easier to prepare. The fact that there are few ways in which to rewrite the Stockhausen or Rzewski examples to make them seem to appear any less "ridiculous" is itself suggestive that they're not as "ridiculous" as some might at first think. Alkan's occasional oddities of accidental use are hardly "ridiculous" - just rather unusual and not that hard to figure out. The very citation of Scriabin and some others here in such a context is more "ridiculous" than the examples themselves could possibly be! What's so ridiculous about the way in which the Sorabji is presented? The immensely effective closing pages of Yedidia's Third Piano Sonata, whilst a real test of the pianist's hand/eye co-ordination in practice and replete with obvious dangers, are hardly notated in a "ridiculous" way. Hamelin's quotes here have absolutely no place to be cited in the context of such a thread as this; that's just plan daft.

So, all in all, what's the big deal?

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

My apologies, didn't see your post.

None necessary; it was in an older different thread. And we agree.

I think rachmaninoff_forever is still looking for someone to take his side on this, though. 

[j_menz]

So, all in all, what's the big deal?

We like to gripe about the challenges we face.  

All the notations may well in fact be reasonable, sane and as economical and clear a way as is possible to set out the composers' intentions.

That does not mean that they do not give us poor pianists the occasional what moment that we like to share. And a forum such as this is really the only place most of us can find some understanding and sympathy.

The composers shown here often delight, move and inspire us. The pieces shown are in our collections for a reason. They are also capable of annoying the hell out of us at times in equal measure.  Except Plinkovsky, of course, whose too great a gem to lose favour ever.

[starlady]

What is the meaning of the time signature in the Roslavets?--that is, why is it written as 3/8+2/8?  While 5/8=3/8+2/8 is undeniably a true statement I do not understand its relevance here.

puzzled, s.