Difficulty For The Sake of Difficulty

[starstruck5]

The Romantics had to stretch the boundaries wrt to piano technique -but it bred a culture of Great Pianists, such as Liszt, writing unimaginably difficult virtuoso music.  Ultimately elitist in nature -there is an audience for this awe inspiring piano technic show-offery -but it is a shame the music is unplayable for so many -

I am thinking of simplifying many of the big concert war-horses -and calling them Non-Elite Versions.  This would mean being accessible to people who do not have hands the size of plumbers buckets -and are not technical geniuses -

I can think of hundreds of examples, where pieces such as Chopins' Ballade in F Major, create pianistic difficulties which add nothing to the music -DFTSOD -Difficulty for the sake of difficulty. 

The descending arpeggios in Bar One of the Presto Con Fuoco section doubles the F and A unecessarily -the ascending octave motif in the LH -could be single notes and take little from the stormy impact -

Another example is in Liszts' La Campenalla -we are only 6 bars in and Liszt has to write a rolling B Major Arpeggio, which is another DFTSOD -The melody could actually be just as effective with simple repeated notes, instead of those leaps -I can play those ok -but I am thinking this piece could be made more accessible -not simplified to the point that it can be played by novices -but a Non Elite Version, which could be enjoyed by people of moderate ability - -

Some may argue that simpler pieces already exist which are accessible to hobbyists -but I would like to try and begin a project which makes , for example -a Non Elitist Version of the OP 10 NO3  Etude -

There are some pieces which have difficulties which could be justified musically -such as the Fantasy Impromptu of Chopin -OP 66--here the polyrhythmic arpeggios are beautiful in their own right and add a necessary agitation -however, there may be a case for making an easier version?

What do you think?

[Bob]

No... That's what the composer wrote.  That's what they wanted.

[zezhyrule]

Wouldn't simplifying etudes kinda ruin the whole point of them? Actually pretty much everything you suggested would ruin the originals xP

If you don't think you can play it, then don't!
Playing some watered down version won't fulfill your desires  

[nyiregyhazi]

The Romantics had to stretch the boundaries wrt to piano technique -but it bred a culture of Great Pianists, such as Liszt, writing unimaginably difficult virtuoso music.  Ultimately elitist in nature -there is an audience for this awe inspiring piano technic show-offery -but it is a shame the music is unplayable for so many -

I am thinking of simplifying many of the big concert war-horses -and calling them Non-Elite Versions.  This would mean being accessible to people who do not have hands the size of plumbers buckets -and are not technical geniuses -

I can think of hundreds of examples, where pieces such as Chopins' Ballade in F Major, create pianistic difficulties which add nothing to the music -DFTSOD -Difficulty for the sake of difficulty. 

The descending arpeggios in Bar One of the Presto Con Fuoco section doubles the F and A unecessarily -the ascending octave motif in the LH -could be single notes and take little from the stormy impact -

Another example is in Liszts' La Campenalla -we are only 6 bars in and Liszt has to write a rolling B Major Arpeggio, which is another DFTSOD -The melody could actually be just as effective with simple repeated notes, instead of those leaps -I can play those ok -but I am thinking this piece could be made more accessible -not simplified to the point that it can be played by novices -but a Non Elite Version, which could be enjoyed by people of moderate ability - -

Some may argue that simpler pieces already exist which are accessible to hobbyists -but I would like to try and begin a project which makes , for example -a Non Elitist Version of the OP 10 NO3  Etude -

There are some pieces which have difficulties which could be justified musically -such as the Fantasy Impromptu of Chopin -OP 66--here the polyrhythmic arpeggios are beautiful in their own right and add a necessary agitation -however, there may be a case for making an easier version?

What do you think?

I'm no pedant and believe firmly that well selected simplifications can sometimes be more effective than going out of your way to be literal. Rubinstein and horowitz were good at this kind of cheating. However, after seeing the examples you gave, I'm pretty horrified by what you consider "unnecessary" difficulty. I couldn't even begin to justify a single one of your examples. People who can't cope with such integral demands should just find pieces that better suit their level.

[lloyd_cdb]

However, after seeing the examples you gave, I'm pretty horrified by what you consider "unnecessary" difficulty. I couldn't even begin to justify a single one of your examples. People who can't cope with such integral demands should just find pieces that better suit their level.

I can justify it: Enjoyment of hearing the melody you perform after recognizing you are unable to achieve that level of performance.  Of course composers wanted their pieces to be performed as is.  But playing isn't the same as performing.  If you enjoy hearing melodies you can play, do whatever floats your boat.  I feel as if all the responses so far are making this a crime against humanity for people that are depressed but accepting of their skill level.  I'll often sight read the melody of pieces that are too difficult for me for simple enjoyment of hearing it.

All it comes down to is whether or not you enjoy what you are doing.  Don't expect the simplified version to be widely accepted as a repertoire piece or as a piece for you to benefit technically from, but do whatever makes you happy.  I really don't think you need approval from the pianostreet community...

EDIT: As the OP stated, this has already been done:

Hard - Piano Classics

Easy - Easy Piano Classics

I have both books, and they don't contain all of the same pieces, but do contain several.  An example is Claire De Lune.  I sincerely doubt Debussy is turning over in his grave because I performed the simplified version when I was 8.  I sincerely doubt any of the other 8-10 year old's parents really cared, even if one of them was a concert pianist.  I subsequently learned the normal version when my skill developed, because it was a piece I enjoyed and was familiar with.  However, if I played the first one I learned to a paying audience, they'd boo me off the stage. While I agree Chopin's 10-3 probably isn't the best example, I don't see why people seem to be so offended.

[j_menz]

Simplified versions of most of the pieces you mention already exist. I played a simplified 10/3 many many years ago, for example.

I disagree that the originals contain difficulties for the sake of difficulties. They may contain difficulties for the sake of flashiness, but that is not the same thing. And the occasional bit of flashiness is part of the joy of playing piano, IMO. Mostly, though, the difficulties are there for musical reasons and a cut down version will always be a lesser version.

There is, however, probably a ready made market for what you are suggesting.

[ajspiano]

Definitely agree that there is a market for such arrangements (though it may or may not be saturated already). Do not agree that composers made things difficult for the sake of it being difficult, perhaps except in the case of etudes - and simplifying those would often defeat the purpose. Eudes are also, in most cases, far more thought out than just, "I'm going to write something that's hard to play".

When I write for myself its not uncommon to re-arrange and re-arrange again making things more technically challenging, but its never because I want it more difficult - its only because I want it to sound better..  Things don't have to be difficult to sound good, but often times things that sound good are difficult.

[starstruck5]

Definitely agree that there is a market for such arrangements (though it may or may not be saturated already). Do not agree that composers made things difficult for the sake of it being difficult, perhaps except in the case of etudes - and simplifying those would often defeat the purpose. Eudes are also, in most cases, far more thought out than just, "I'm going to write something that's hard to play".

When I write for myself its not uncommon to re-arrange and re-arrange again making things more technically challenging, but its never because I want it more difficult - its only because I want it to sound better..  Things don't have to be difficult to sound good, but often times things that sound good are difficult.

I want to answer a few of the comments made -but I'll start with your AJ -

I agree that simplifying Etudes defeats the purpose for a pianist training to be a concert pianist -but I am talking about a hobbyist having some kind of access to Un Sospiro -for example -

Also making Mozart and Haydn or Bach MORE difficult would not make it better music -

When I write music I try and find the essence and simplify it to its purest form -I often find that the denser music becomes the more the music becomes about texture -and sometimes that is good -if that is the aim, when you want to contrast something for example -also I never want to write for an elite -

The whole Romantic style had to push the boundaries -but a lot of it did become overblown and simply about piano technics -

 

[keypeg]

I am not convinced that music is written for the sake of being difficult, though some might.  In the example of the octaves, I imagine that the musical effect would be different with single notes.

Something was said about simplified music, and there was an example of "easy classics".  The comment about simplified music said something about melody and chords.  I had an experience with an "easy classics" book, which was arranged by Agay, a respected composer and arranger.  It was a few years ago, when I had less knowledge all round than I do now.  I had difficulty with two pieces which didn't come together, and the more I worked with them, the worse they got.

The first piece was marked lento.  It had a sad melody in a minor key, and chord accompaniment.  They dynamics showed gradual cresc. and dim., with a dramatic piano pause, followed by a dramatic louder section that crescendos to a forte climax.  Oddly enough, the other piece was treated exactly the same way.  My problem was that the piece didn't come together.  Even though the chords made sense, I was hearing a melody in the bass that suddenly broke off.  It wanted to go somewhere, and didn't.  There was a hint of an underlying fast, jaunty rhythm, which wasn't quite there.  All of this was pulling at me, but I was supposed to be playing the sad melody, the romantic treatment. Tbh, it was rather cliche and boring.

Then I found out that the piece was actually a ballad, it had a jaunty and fast rhythm, and it was originally in counterpoint. which explained the fragments that disappeared.  By "simplifying" it, the piece lost everything that made it interesting.  It also became unplayable, because it lost its character.

The other piece was something like a Minuet.  The romantic dynamics did not fit.  The suggested tempo was way too slow.  Both pieces were turned into a boring cliche: pretty melody, nice bass, wow the listener with romantic dynamics - no substance, nothing interesting left.  The "complicated" elements in both of these pieces is what made them interesting and powerful as music.

[nyiregyhazi]

I can justify it: Enjoyment of hearing the melody you perform after recognizing you are unable to achieve that level of performance.  Of course composers wanted their pieces to be performed as is.  But playing isn't the same as performing.  If you enjoy hearing melodies you can play, do whatever floats your boat.  I feel as if all the responses so far are making this a crime against humanity for people that are depressed but accepting of their skill level.  I'll often sight read the melody of pieces that are too difficult for me for simple enjoyment of hearing it.

All it comes down to is whether or not you enjoy what you are doing.  Don't expect the simplified version to be widely accepted as a repertoire piece or as a piece for you to benefit technically from, but do whatever makes you happy.  I really don't think you need approval from the pianostreet community...

EDIT: As the OP stated, this has already been done:

Hard - Piano Classics

Easy - Easy Piano Classics

I have both books, and they don't contain all of the same pieces, but do contain several.  An example is Claire De Lune.  I sincerely doubt Debussy is turning over in his grave because I performed the simplified version when I was 8.  I sincerely doubt any of the other 8-10 year old's parents really cared, even if one of them was a concert pianist.  I subsequently learned the normal version when my skill developed, because it was a piece I enjoyed and was familiar with.  However, if I played the first one I learned to a paying audience, they'd boo me off the stage. While I agree Chopin's 10-3 probably isn't the best example, I don't see why people seem to be so offended.

I don't necessarily mind the odd easy version. I just thought the examples were ludicrous. The effect of the Chopin Ballade is based on the texture. There's no catchy tune that can be extracted from that with any value. Also, the semiquavers in the Fantasy Impromptu are not easy. It's silly to think of anyone being up to playing those yet needing to omit the cross rhythm. Similarly, who plays all the skips in la campanella yet struggles with an arpeggio? Either you do a proper easy version of something that distills the melody for a novice, you play it as written, or you make a few subtle cheats like horowitz did. It's plain silly to go most of the way there but give up on things that are part and parcel of the music.

[starstruck5]

I don't necessarily mind the odd easy version. I just thought the examples were ludicrous. The effect of the Chopin Ballade is based on the texture. There's no catchy tune that can be extracted from that with any value. Also, the semiquavers in the Fantasy Impromptu are not easy. It's silly to think of anyone being up to playing those yet needing to omit the cross rhythm. Similarly, who plays all the skips in la campanella yet struggles with an arpeggio? Either you do a proper easy version of something that distills the melody for a novice, you play it as written, or you make a few subtle cheats like horowitz did. It's plain silly to go most of the way there but give up on things that are part and parcel of the music.

Maybe my examples were not the most thought out to be fair -though I don't find the octaves in the Ballade difficult or even the descending arpeggio -the combination for a less accomplished pianist is going to add a degree of difficulty -Similarly with the Liszt, although not to the same degree perhaps -

I was not advocating that these pieces be simplified for novices -I am thinking more Grade 8 standard -and I did say I had my doubts about changing the FI in any case -most Grade 8 level players could manage it -

All in all though -having read the comments and given it further thought -I have decided that m difficulty is so integral to the style, that it is best left well alone =good luck to the Elite who can play Gaspard and Islamey -I have decided I would be better advised to spend my time trying to write my own music -in my own way!  Satie would agree with me about a lot of overblown Romantic and post Romantic stuff though -

This is also true of a lot of modern minimalist composers, such as Einaudi -there may come a new counter-movement any time soon though -where composers start writing as if pianists had forty fingers again -

[lloyd_cdb]

After re-reading this thread, I think I was a bit too quick to respond, so I apologize if I came off as hostile.  Anyway...

I had difficulty with two pieces which didn't come together, and the more I worked with them, the worse they got.

I think your examples are the perfect examples of what NOT to do when simplifying, but not necessarily examples of WHY you shouldn't simplify.  If you boil any piece down to it's most simplistic, it is essentially the melody.  Pieces that are contrapuntal have multiple melodies, and in your example Agay clearly butchered one of them for the sake of ease in playing.

I don't necessarily mind the odd easy version. I just thought the examples were ludicrous.

Overall, I do agree that the examples may not have been the best, but I still believe there are many pieces out there that can be simplified for easier access by hobbyists, which also could serve as motivation to continue learning.  As a hobbyist myself, I've quit multiple times due to hitting that 'wall'.  It can be frustrating having my repertoire limited often times simply due to the size/shape of my hand.

Here's an example: Petrarch Sonata 104.  While not supporting the exact concept of difficulty for difficulty's sake, this piece is impossible for me to play.  I can't reach the left hand tenths at the beginning of the piece, and never will.  I could play them as broken tenths, but as Bob wrote at the beginning of this thread, "That's not what the composer wrote".  Even though this is an accepted practice due to the nature of piano as "one size fits all", it really doesn't sound "right" being played that way.  Based on an exaggerated sense of what many people have said, I'm not "allowed" to play this piece.  I just find that ridiculous.  On the other hand, this is probably more of an example of a Horowitz cheat.

While not being able to come up with a truly good example, I don't think the lack of an example negates the concept.  I think people are thinking a bit too black/white in this concept.  As many people have mentioned, most of the difficult pieces have texture that's essential to the musicality of the piece.  Everyone seems to imply that to make it easier you need to altogether eliminate the texture.  Un Sospiro would be reduced down to the top staff with nothing else.  That's not the case.  The texture could be simplified for ease of access without being eliminated. 

Lastly, I do have one caution in regards to my previous example of Claire de Lune.  I didn't follow up the easy version by learning the hard version the next day.  I think that would be a great way to never play the original composition.  I also recently learned Chopin's trois nouvelles etudes no. 2, as I wanted to learn Godowsky's version.  Dumb idea.  While having the same melody, the technical concepts are drastically different.  I tried to do them successively which severely hampered my ability to learn it (that's my excuse at least  ).  Oh well, there's always next year...

[keypeg]

It was good to read the responses to my post.  Thanks.     I wrote about this in another forum a couple of years ago, and nobody seemed to understand what I was talking about.  That included teachers, some of whom were using the Agay "easy" series.  I expected to hear, "Yes, but it doesn't matter." or something similar, but not this shrug of not knowing what I meant, at all.

I guess that for the question in the OP, you have to decide whether what makes the music difficult to play is essential to the music.  If it's giving an important effect, is there another way that is easier, or do you leave that piece alone?  I also know of one case where a piece that was in something like C# major was transposed to C major.  That went fine as far as playing it was concerned, but when the person was ready to play the real version, he had the white keys in his hands, and it was hard to transition to the black keys.

In regards to the two pieces I encountered, I had an idea of what was going on.  The minuet was rather simple, but would have required skills in articulations, bringing out voices etc.  My teacher refers to "miniatures" which are simple, "easy to play" pieces, that require sophisticated technique to make them musical.  It was one of those.  Agay applied an formula to both of those pieces: dynamics of cresc. dim., a dramatic pause at a forte, and then a sudden quietness that swells.  If you can't do the sophisticated technique, you can still play slowly and get louder.  Put that into a recital, or in the home, and parents will gush.  Or it might just be gratifying to make something sound emotional before you have the ability to do and see more in music.  I think there is a certain social psychology in the decision.

Meanwhile as a student I want to learn about music while I'm learning to play it, and I can't do that if everything is reduced to a "make it popular" formula.  As an adult student still getting my skills together I avoid "adult method books" because they do seem to go after a formula designed to appeal to "popular wishes".  That is not the kind of thing being discussed here.

[asuhayda]

I guess that for the question in the OP, you have to decide whether what makes the music difficult to play is essential to the music. 

I understand where you are coming from here.  I don't know.  I guess if I were writing an original piece of music, I probably wouldn't want someone else to decide whether or not what I wrote was essential to the music.  Seeing as all of these composers are long gone, I guess that doesn't really matter too much.

I for one, don't like simplified versions of pieces (but that's just me).  If I play a simplified version, I don't get gratification out of it because I know it wasn't the original.  Plus, it keeps me wanting more.  If there is something that's above my level, then I can put it up on the list of pieces I want to learn... or sometimes I foolishly and futily go after it.

Generally, the way a person performs a piece is more arguable in terms of "necessity to the piece" than the score itself.

But, contrary to one of the other posts, I actually think it's good to play music that's always just a little above your level.  If you play music that's at your level, you might not ever realize your maximum potential.

[benzenering]

Im sorry I have to say this but I definitely sense bitterness in thread starter not being able to play them.

Can't play them? No worries. Blame the composer for making it too hard.

How are we certain that these "difficulty for the sake of difficulty" was what the composer had in mind when writing these pieces. They might have not considered it even difficult when they wrote them. I'm talking of works like ballades, scherzos and etc, and not even etudes. Heck, why are we complaining that etudes are difficult because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be an etude anymore.

Not accessible to many? If all music were of equal difficulty and no one bothered to make music hard, then everyone would be good concert pianists after a reasonable 2 years of training. This "difficulty issue" is also one rewarding point of music is that if you're willing to practice, you'll be able to play stuff that other people ( who don't practice ) can't. These difficulties are actually rewarding when you overcome them. And there are music composed for all sorts of level so shall we not stop looking at those ridiculously difficult pieces and then complain that they are too hard? :p


 

[outin]

Not accessible to many? If all music were of equal difficulty and no one bothered to make music hard, then everyone would be good concert pianists after a reasonable 2 years of training. This "difficulty issue" is also one rewarding point of music is that if you're willing to practice, you'll be able to play stuff that other people ( who don't practice ) can't. These difficulties are actually rewarding when you overcome them. And there are music composed for all sorts of level so shall we not stop looking at those ridiculously difficult pieces and then complain that they are too hard? :p

Now it would be really sad if there wasn't so much music that is impossible for me to play now. Because if and when I get better, I think I would still want to get even better and if I ever was good enough to play EVERYTHING I might just quit the piano. At least for me it makes no difference what other people can play. I don't do this to impress anyone, just to enjoy the experience of constantly learning something new and of course enjoy being able to play beautiful music, even if not as beautifully as others can. And since there is beautiful music available in every level, it's a win-win situation really

Of course composers who were also virtuoso pianists wanted to write difficult things, because they could then show what they can do and compete with other pianists. But this usually just makes the music richer...

I think we need the easier arrangements to please those who cannot or do not want to invest so much into playing, but I have always found them annoying to play. I'd rather find an easier piece to study first.

[danhuyle]

I wish I could write hard pieces, all my music is beginner level compared to the masters. Writing the hardest pieces gives you recognition and there's many pianists who thirst for virtuoso repertoire. You get praised for writing extremely difficult music.

I'm amazed how they could even come up with difficult music.

They're not written for their difficulty. It's written the way it is because it sounds good.

The outcome is to write music that we all want to play and fulfill that feeling.

[xavura]

I'd rather it be difficulty for the sake of difficulty than simplicity for the sake of simplicity (see: a lot of modern music).

[starstruck5]

Im sorry I have to say this but I definitely sense bitterness in thread starter not being able to play them.

Can't play them? No worries. Blame the composer for making it too hard.

How are we certain that these "difficulty for the sake of difficulty" was what the composer had in mind when writing these pieces. They might have not considered it even difficult when they wrote them. I'm talking of works like ballades, scherzos and etc, and not even etudes. Heck, why are we complaining that etudes are difficult because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be an etude anymore.

Not accessible to many? If all music were of equal difficulty and no one bothered to make music hard, then everyone would be good concert pianists after a reasonable 2 years of training. This "difficulty issue" is also one rewarding point of music is that if you're willing to practice, you'll be able to play stuff that other people ( who don't practice ) can't. These difficulties are actually rewarding when you overcome them. And there are music composed for all sorts of level so shall we not stop looking at those ridiculously difficult pieces and then complain that they are too hard? :p


 

If I was bitter, I wouldn't have revised my opinion -I don't believe in jelousy or bitterness -becuse it doesn't add anything to your skill set -or whatever it is you are envious about -

I admit I am no virtuoso, I don't want to be either - but I think it is harsh to accuse me of 'blaming the composer' My whole point was that I wanted to make pieces accesible to a non-elite - it has nothing to do with personal frustration at not being able to play overblown finger breakers -I would prefer to compose anyway -I don't want to play Gaspard or the Liszt Sonata -and honestly -I have been persuaded that difficulty is an essential part of the way Romantic and Post Romantic music defines its unique style-I think your attack is a bit unfair -though I can understand why you would form such an opinion -

Also I like the idea of simplicity for simplicitys sake -but accept that not everyone does.

[jayeckz]

but it is a shame the music is unplayable for so many -

Is it truly unplayable for so many?

I firmly believe that most people can't play virtuosic works because most people aren't willing to put in the work necessary to learn these pieces.  Take George Li for example.  In an interview he stated how he struggled learning Chopin etudes sometimes taking many months to learn one.  His willingness to stick with the pieces and practice properly is what got him to the level he's at.

I am thinking of simplifying many of the big concert war-horses -and calling them Non-Elite Versions.  This would mean being accessible to people who do not have hands the size of plumbers buckets -and are not technical geniuses

The fact is, if you can't reach a 10th, a lot of the 19th century+ repertoire will be inaccessible to you unless you're willing to rewrite the pieces or leave out notes.  This isn't really a matter of elitism or not...

Also, I think you really have the wrong idea of pianists.  Most pianists develop their technique and their pianistic ability through hard work.

I can think of hundreds of examples, where pieces such as Chopins' Ballade in F Major, create pianistic difficulties which add nothing to the music -DFTSOD -Difficulty for the sake of difficulty.

We must have learned/listened to different F Major Ballades.

Another example is in Liszts' La Campenalla -we are only 6 bars in and Liszt has to write a rolling B Major Arpeggio, which is another DFTSOD

How is this considered a difficulty for the sake of difficulty?  I could teach a complete beginner who can comfortably reach an octave how to practice and play this rolled chord in minutes (possibly even in seconds)

The melody could actually be just as effective with simple repeated notes, instead of those leaps

Does that sound as effective to you?

...I am thinking this piece could be made more accessible -not simplified to the point that it can be played by novices -but a Non Elite Version, which could be enjoyed by people of moderate ability - -

Just in case you didn't know, La Campanella is an etude.

Still you want a La Campanella that is approachable by people of "moderate" ability.  What would writing for people of moderate ability look like?  I believe anyone with a firm pianistic foundation can approach all music (it's just a matter of time!).

Some may argue that simpler pieces already exist which are accessible to hobbyists -but I would like to try and begin a project which makes , for example -a Non Elitist Version of the OP 10 NO3  Etude -

I've seen and heard several "simplified" versions of many pieces including op. 10 no. 3.  Sure the main melody is there, but it pains me to mention this atrocity and Chopin in the same sentence.

What do you think?

You must be trolling or be extremely frustrated with your current abilities.

[j_menz]

Also I like the idea of simplicity for simplicitys sake -but accept that not everyone does.

Simplicity in technical requirement or simplicity in what is expressed? Surely the best music will be that which expresses the most profound. And if it does, technical simplicity will never make it easy to play.

By way of example, there is a body of works by Liszt, written towards the end of his life, which are pared down to the absolute minimum of notes; spare and sparse. Technically, they could be handled without trouble by anyone in Grade 3 or so.  They are, however, some of his most difficult pieces to pull off. They require all the  experience and technical control of any of Liszt's most extravagent technical warhorses, and the full musical depth and life experience that only time can bring. Simplicity?

[pianoplunker]

The Romantics had to stretch the boundaries wrt to piano technique -but it bred a culture of Great Pianists, such as Liszt, writing unimaginably difficult virtuoso music.  Ultimately elitist in nature -there is an audience for this awe inspiring piano technic show-offery -but it is a shame the music is unplayable for so many -

I am thinking of simplifying many of the big concert war-horses -and calling them Non-Elite Versions.  This would mean being accessible to people who do not have hands the size of plumbers buckets -and are not technical geniuses -

I can think of hundreds of examples, where pieces such as Chopins' Ballade in F Major, create pianistic difficulties which add nothing to the music -DFTSOD -Difficulty for the sake of difficulty. 

The descending arpeggios in Bar One of the Presto Con Fuoco section doubles the F and A unecessarily -the ascending octave motif in the LH -could be single notes and take little from the stormy impact -

Another example is in Liszts' La Campenalla -we are only 6 bars in and Liszt has to write a rolling B Major Arpeggio, which is another DFTSOD -The melody could actually be just as effective with simple repeated notes, instead of those leaps -I can play those ok -but I am thinking this piece could be made more accessible -not simplified to the point that it can be played by novices -but a Non Elite Version, which could be enjoyed by people of moderate ability - -

Some may argue that simpler pieces already exist which are accessible to hobbyists -but I would like to try and begin a project which makes , for example -a Non Elitist Version of the OP 10 NO3  Etude -

There are some pieces which have difficulties which could be justified musically -such as the Fantasy Impromptu of Chopin -OP 66--here the polyrhythmic arpeggios are beautiful in their own right and add a necessary agitation -however, there may be a case for making an easier version?

What do you think?

the romantic composers were writing to bring the best out of a piano romantically. It was their expression, then they died. Can not get any simpler than that

[starstruck5]

Is it truly unplayable for so many?

I firmly believe that most people can't play virtuosic works because most people aren't willing to put in the work necessary to learn these pieces.  Take George Li for example.  In an interview he stated how he struggled learning Chopin etudes sometimes taking many months to learn one.  His willingness to stick with the pieces and practice properly is what got him to the level he's at.


The fact is, if you can't reach a 10th, a lot of the 19th century+ repertoire will be inaccessible to you unless you're willing to rewrite the pieces or leave out notes.  This isn't really a matter of elitism or not...

Also, I think you really have the wrong idea of pianists.  Most pianists develop their technique and their pianistic ability through hard work.


We must have learned/listened to different F Major Ballades.


How is this considered a difficulty for the sake of difficulty?  I could teach a complete beginner who can comfortably reach an octave how to practice and play this rolled chord in minutes (possibly even in seconds)


Does that sound as effective to you?


Just in case you didn't know, La Campanella is an etude.

Still you want a La Campanella that is approachable by people of "moderate" ability.  What would writing for people of moderate ability look like?  I believe anyone with a firm pianistic foundation can approach all music (it's just a matter of time!).


I've seen and heard several "simplified" versions of many pieces including op. 10 no. 3.  Sure the main melody is there, but it pains me to mention this atrocity and Chopin in the same sentence.


You must be trolling or be extremely frustrated with your current abilities.
[/quo
I resent the trolling accusation -my responses have hardly been throwing fuel onto the flames- I have revised my original opinion ffs -did you not reaD THAT -also I accepted that my examples were not well thought out -and it is the combination sometimes of difficulties which discourage hobbyists -bear in mind also I wasn't saying that concert music shouldn't exist -or there shouldn't be very hard music -I was exploring the idea of simplifying for the many -not trying to disrespect the few -

Furthermore, please don't side with difficulty and imply that my own personal shortcomings are responsible for my original opinion -I and many others don't have time to dedicate to becoming a virtuoso -I could if I had the time -I am after all of Grade 8 standard -was sudying for higher diploma -=until I became ill -if you are representing yourself as an advanced pianist -prove it -I already know that AJ and Nieredgehazi are brilliant pianists, Dannyhule also - -others I don't know -I have just  stopped trying to be brilliant technically -it doesn't interest me anymore -funnily enough those three were the least rude to me -and their arguments I respected and accepted! You are just digging up old earth -

I am frustrated with my current abilities at composing actually -but I am a stubborn so and so -I will master it! The Schillinger System specifically -

This is a nightmare to edit -the cursor keeps jumping about -difficulty for the sake of difficulty -na  -lol

[candlelightpiano]

The Romantics had to stretch the boundaries wrt to piano technique -but it bred a culture of Great Pianists, such as Liszt, writing unimaginably difficult virtuoso music.  Ultimately elitist in nature -there is an audience for this awe inspiring piano technic show-offery -but it is a shame the music is unplayable for so many -

I am thinking of simplifying many of the big concert war-horses -and calling them Non-Elite Versions.  This would mean being accessible to people who do not have hands the size of plumbers buckets -and are not technical geniuses -

I can think of hundreds of examples, where pieces such as Chopins' Ballade in F Major, create pianistic difficulties which add nothing to the music -DFTSOD -Difficulty for the sake of difficulty. 

The descending arpeggios in Bar One of the Presto Con Fuoco section doubles the F and A unecessarily -the ascending octave motif in the LH -could be single notes and take little from the stormy impact -

Another example is in Liszts' La Campenalla -we are only 6 bars in and Liszt has to write a rolling B Major Arpeggio, which is another DFTSOD -The melody could actually be just as effective with simple repeated notes, instead of those leaps -I can play those ok -but I am thinking this piece could be made more accessible -not simplified to the point that it can be played by novices -but a Non Elite Version, which could be enjoyed by people of moderate ability - -

Some may argue that simpler pieces already exist which are accessible to hobbyists -but I would like to try and begin a project which makes , for example -a Non Elitist Version of the OP 10 NO3  Etude -

There are some pieces which have difficulties which could be justified musically -such as the Fantasy Impromptu of Chopin -OP 66--here the polyrhythmic arpeggios are beautiful in their own right and add a necessary agitation -however, there may be a case for making an easier version?

What do you think?

Starstruck is right.  A lot of pieces are simply unplayable.  There are a lot of pianists on this forum who play nothing but etudes.  Makes me wonder how that makes someone a fine musician when all they play is etudes.  I think that just playing etudes and nothing else does not make a fine pianist.  There's more to music than that.  There's definitely a case for making easier versions of some difficult pieces, though of course, one would not do that with etudes or FI or pieces like that.  There are simplified sheets out there already, though more is always welcome.  Some of us just like to enjoy playing the piano and do not strive to be concert pianists.

[lloyd_cdb]

For people that keep referencing the translation of "etude", I think that's a pretty cheap cop-out of a response.  We get it, it means study.  Ok, now that that's out of the way... The Romantic Etude is hardly a preparatory piece.  Liszt's first edition of his Etudes are arguably his most difficult pieces.  How exactly does that prepare you for the rest of his repertoire?  Stop taking a literal translation of a word as a defense of difficulty.

Now, for all the people that seem to be offended by the OP, please take some time to actually read through the 11 posts in which the OP as well as many of the first responders revised their original statements.  Why bother contributing to a conversation if you are only willing to hear the first sentence?

Some of us just like to enjoy playing the piano and do not strive to be concert pianists.

Or to impress random people on the interweb 

[outin]

Etudes? Some of my absolute favorite pieces of piano music to listen to are just etudes...Must be something wrong with me 

And since I like them so much, it would be really great to play them one day...even though they are just etudes 

[danhuyle]

Etudes? Some of my absolute favorite pieces of piano music to listen to are just etudes...Must be something wrong with me 

And since I like them so much, it would be really great to play them one day...even though they are just etudes 

Can't blame you for that. I play etudes because they sound good.

You don't need to play etudes to prove anything. Pianists play them because they love it.

As for simplifying pieces, you could do your own thing with Paganini's Caprice No24 theme. Brahms, Rachmaninoff and Liszt used the same theme and all 3 came up something different for the one theme. Then there's people making arrangements of known songs on varying difficulties.

The ones who do virtuosic arrangements write them for that difficulty for flashiness? I highly doubt it's written to be unplayable to the majority. Perhaps someone might explain this better.

 

[starstruck5]

I don't have a problem with people wanting to play Etudes -

Anyhow, thanks to Candlelight for her support!

Also for some weird reason my reply to a trolling accusation went blue like the quote -so for the record here is the reply to that nasty post I gave earlier -

I resent the trolling accusation -my responses have hardly been throwing fuel onto the flames- I have revised my original opinion ffs -did you not reaD THAT -also I accepted that my examples were not well thought out -and it is the combination sometimes of difficulties which discourage hobbyists -bear in mind also I wasn't saying that concert music shouldn't exist -or there shouldn't be very hard music -I was exploring the idea of simplifying for the many -not trying to disrespect the few -

Furthermore, please don't side with difficulty and imply that my own personal shortcomings are responsible for my original opinion -I and many others don't have time to dedicate to becoming a virtuoso -I could if I had the time -I am after all of Grade 8 standard -was sudying for higher diploma -=until I became ill -if you are representing yourself as an advanced pianist -prove it -I already know that AJ and Nieredgehazi are brilliant pianists, Dannyhule also - -others I don't know -I have just  stopped trying to be brilliant technically -it doesn't interest me anymore -funnily enough those three were the least rude to me -and their arguments I respected and accepted! You are just digging up old earth -

I am frustrated with my current abilities at composing actually -but I am a stubborn so and so -I will master it! The Schillinger System specifically -

This is a nightmare to edit -the cursor keeps jumping about -difficulty for the sake of difficulty -na  -lol

********************************************************************

I kind of feel a bit naff re-posting this -but I was angry at the time -

[emrysmerlin]

I think that a large chunk of the Rach 3 can be cut off from the score/simplified without being noticeable, especially the appregios at the start. I actually prefer listening to renditions which you can't hear those notes.

As for etudes...many of them have been revised. As mentioned by lloyd_cdb, Liszt's etudes, for example, has been simplified into a finer product that is easier to play for the most part, and is musically vs technique more balanced.

I disagree about La Campanella. It sounds as though it has already been simplified.

Liszt has a lot of flashy bits. Listening to his concertos, however, persuades me to think of it as un-simplifiable. You do need those chords; removing them would dramatically weaken it.

Anything by Baroque composers...n/a. Maybe the voices, but most of the time they matter.

Reger...yes.

Méreaux...no one is stopping you.

Pieces like the Busoni Concerto... some parts can be simplified without being noticeable.

I do believe that music can be cropped down to what notes you must play. That might not necessarily decrease the difficulty of playing it however (eg. I'd sometimes rather do 1-hand octave jumps than jumps using a single finger. Makes me feel more comfortable)

[rmbarbosa]

If something is hard, dont simplify. Work hard untill you can play it. This isnt elitist, this is the only way to achieve perfection. Sorry, this is what I think.

[starstruck5]

If something is hard, dont simplify. Work hard untill you can play it. This isnt elitist, this is the only way to achieve perfection. Sorry, this is what I think.

Don't apologise -you do have a good point -

[jayeckz]

For people that keep referencing the translation of "etude", I think that's a pretty cheap cop-out of a response.  We get it, it means study...Stop taking a literal translation of a word as a defense of difficulty.

Since my post was the only one referencing etude as a study (via a link to wikipedia), I assume  your post was directed at me.

I thought a link would be far more effective than a paraphrase or my inadequate attempt to explain what an etude is (especially etudes written from the 19th century onwards).  If I wanted to say study, I would have just said study.  You're entitled to your own opinion; however, your superficial attempt to read an article is a bigger cop-out.

Liszt Paganini etudes were written in order to stretch the borders of pianistic technique for the purpose of musical expression.  Since the "difficulty" is such an integral part of the musical expression, how can you effectively simplify the piece?

Ok, now that that's out of the way... The Romantic Etude is hardly a preparatory piece.

Who said this?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone who stated this.  I don't even imply this.

Anyway, if you meant preparatory as in introductory, I can think of a few etudes that can serve as preparatory pieces.  However, I also believe this really depends on person the learning the piece.

Liszt's first edition of his Etudes are arguably his most difficult pieces.  How exactly does that prepare you for the rest of his repertoire?

Any pianist that thoroughly studies these pieces and polishes these pieces will probably be able to hit the notes for anything in the romantic repertoire.   IMO, there are "growth" pieces and there are "non-growth" pieces.  For the non-growth pieces there are no new techniques, rhythms, harmonies, etc.  These pieces only require the pianist to learn the notes and work out interpretation.  The growth pieces have any combination of new techniques, rhythms, harmonies, musical structures, etc.  These pieces challenge the pianist to increase their limitations.

I'm unfamiliar with the first edition of Liszt's etudes and I honestly do not know nor care to find out where the difficulties lie.  However, I'm certain a thorough study of the etudes (assuming they are growth pieces for the pianist) would make the rest of Liszt's literature more approachable.

Now, for all the people that seem to be offended by the OP, please take some time to actually read through the 11 posts in which the OP as well as many of the first responders revised their original statements.  Why bother contributing to a conversation if you are only willing to hear the first sentence?

Or to impress random people on the interweb  

I'm definitely guilty of not reading the entire thread.

I was annoyed by the OP's discussion of non-elite vs. elite. The OP made it sound like virtuostic writing was meant for this elite group of "geniuses" and doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that the majority of these "geniuses" worked extremely hard to get to the level of proficiency they are at.

[benzenering]

Some car makers have to stretch boundaries to the prices of cars but it bred a culture of expensive sports cars, with unimaginably expensive price tags. Ultimately elitist in nature - there is an audience of those who can afford those cars but it is a shame that these cars are unaffordable to many.

I am thinking of making these branded cars cheap. And calling them Non-Elite versions. This would mean making them affordable for people who are not filthy rich or lazy to earn money.

I can think of hundreds of examples of cars, Ferrari, Mercedes, etc etc. blah blah blah.

Some may argue that cheap branded cars will not exist. But I would like to try starting a project which makes these cars dirt cheap.

There are some sports cars which could have their price tag justified by their fine quality. However, there may be a case for making a cheaper version.

What do you think?

PS : I'm not rich, and many others I do not want or have the time to be rich. Because I see no point.

but still, just make those cars affordable for me okay?

[starstruck5]

Some car makers have to stretch boundaries to the prices of cars but it bred a culture of expensive sports cars, with unimaginably expensive price tags. Ultimately elitist in nature - there is an audience of those who can afford those cars but it is a shame that these cars are unaffordable to many.

I am thinking of making these branded cars cheap. And calling them Non-Elite versions. This would mean making them affordable for people who are not filthy rich or lazy to earn money.

I can think of hundreds of examples of cars, Ferrari, Mercedes, etc etc. blah blah blah.

Some may argue that cheap branded cars will not exist. But I would like to try starting a project which makes these cars dirt cheap.

There are some sports cars which could have their price tag justified by their fine quality. However, there may be a case for making a cheaper version.

What do you think?

PS : I'm not rich, and many others I do not want or have the time to be rich. Because I see no point.

but still, just make those cars affordable for me okay?

I think you are the one who is trolling -as far as I am concerned the topic is closed -I revised my original opinion -I get that you don't agree with with my OP -

[thesixthsensemusic]

I am sorry but (and I am referring to the opening post) this is utter nonsense. These pieces were written by extremely well-educated men (and women, Clara Schumann comes to mind) who were very well aware of what made their music work.

Take Chopin for example, even his slower compositions like the Barcarolle and the Berceuse are extremely difficult. But, every note he uses in there is essential, and these difficulties are not there because of showmanship, but to tell a musical story.

Your point is only fair when discussing a rather narrow selection of works, especially by lesser composers who imitated virtuoso composers like Sigismond Thalberg and Franz Liszt. Of which there are quite a few, but they're not very well known nor well liked. Any extremely difficult piece by a genius, like Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Mendelssohn or Liszt is difficult simply because these difficult parts were what made the piece work. Composers wrote for the stage, not just for hobbyists, even though there is a huge amount of less difficult but enjoyable works.

Personally I would recommend you practice as much as your social life and work cq. studies allows you to, look at fingering, and if you really want to become a good technical pianist I'd download a copy of Carl Czerny's Schule Der Gelaufigkeit (school of velocity) and play all of these study pieces with a metronome, starting slowly and building it up till you can play them at the indicated speed effortlessly.

A good technique is a feat that can be achieved by anyone with normal motor skills, a decent musical ear, and patience. It will also give you a tremendous adrenalin rush if you achieve it, besides of acquiring a skill you can be VERY proud of. Good luck!