Toughest Pieces in Standard Repertoire

[fftransform]

I'm not so much interested in the result as I'm interested in seeing if a thread like this will ever actually manage to not instantly descend into total stupidity.  Anyway, choose which five you think are the most technically difficult - i.e. if a single, hypothetical, average-level concert pianist with a broad and even background came upon these pieces, which would s/he find to be the most difficult to work up to typical performance standards?

No silly arguments about Mozart or Haydn because they're so "musically" difficult, whatever "musically" means.  I don't know what it means, but it doesn't mean what this question is about, that's for sure.

Also, a few of those pieces are a bit on the fringe of the standard repertoire; the Messiaen was working its way into semi-common rep a decade or so ago, but seems to have died off again, but I don't follow that sort of stuff super-closely, so I went ahead and included it.

[outin]

Wouldn't only those people be able to answer who have actually tried to play all these (and maybe fit your hypothetical description)? Hopefully there are some on this forum 

[fftransform]

Crap.  Already at 40% stupidity.

Wouldn't only those people be able to answer who have actually tried to play all these (and maybe fit your hypothetical description)? Hopefully there are some on this forum  

A- did you not vote?
B- I don't know: there are some pieces by Finnissy that I haven't played, and there are also some John Thompson pieces for babies that I haven't played.  Yet for some reason, I feel like I can tell which ones might be harder.  You can just say, "I don't know."  It's not the question's fault that you don't know: Don't try to take it out on the question.  The question never hurt anybody.

[zezhyrule]

I voted... Not sure how much help my vote will be since my ability is no where near close enough to play any of these pieces/sets but according to your point B above, I guess that's okay.

[emrysmerlin]

Is that Scarlatti sonata particularly hard? I thought none of the Scarlatti sonatas are of above-average difficulty..?

[outin]

Crap.  Already at 40% stupidity.

Tried my best but couldn't do better 

A- did you not vote?

No, I didn't vote because:
- I have not seen 90% of the scores
- I have only heard about 50% of the pieces
(That should be corrected of course)

B- I don't know: there are some pieces by Finnissy that I haven't played, and there are also some John Thompson pieces for babies that I haven't played.  Yet for some reason, I feel like I can tell which ones might be harder.  You can just say, "I don't know."  It's not the question's fault that you don't know: Don't try to take it out on the question.  The question never hurt anybody.

I guess it depends on the quality you expect from the answers. If you don't expect too much, then it's a good question. I would think there's such a subjective element to "difficult" when you are comparing pieces that are all supposed to be very difficult, that the answers you get here won't really be that interesting.

But as you said yourself, the answer to you question might be less interesting than the reactions you will get from it...

[outin]

Is that Scarlatti sonata particularly hard? I thought none of the Scarlatti sonatas are of above-average difficulty..?

This one is definitely very hard, my fingers ache from just listening to it... and there are some others too that are pretty virtuosic.

[fftransform]

Ok.  Some of the more esoteric ones:

[outin]

^ Thanks for the selection. Haven't gone through them all yet, but I would say the ones I did are all horrific. I see you grouped the Chopin etudes by opus? I guess if you didn't they had no chance compared to some of the more modern stuff...

I almost got sick in my stomach after listening to the Messiaen with the score trying to imagine myself in the pianists shoes... nice piece though.

So I'm afraid I still can't vote. I hope someone else will be able to distinguish the differences in difficulty with the pieces on your list, I'll just have to back off...

[j_menz]

No Alkan, no Tausig, no Godowski, no Sorabji, no Glass, no Cziffra, only book 1 of the Ligetti etudes, no etc.. etc.. etc...?

Your list of choices seems very incomplete.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I wonder why Rachmaninoff's 1st sonata isn't up there.

[perprocrastinate]

No Alkan, no Tausig, no Godowski, no Sorabji, no Glass, no Cziffra, only book 1 of the Ligetti etudes, no etc.. etc.. etc...?

Your list of choices seems very incomplete.

Aren't they outside of the standard repertoire?

[fftransform]

No Alkan, no Tausig, no Godowski, no Sorabji, no Glass, no Cziffra, only book 1 of the Ligetti etudes, no etc.. etc.. etc...?

Your list of choices seems very incomplete.

Which of those pieces seems to be in the standard repertoire to you?  Or can't you read?  By the way, it's "Ligeti," not "Ligetti."  And when you say "Glass," are you referring to Philip Glass?  What?

Your list is insanely incomplete, despite the mention of Glass and the misspelling of Ligeti.  No piece by any of those composers would qualify as the hardest piece ever written.  Try Barrett, Finnissy, Hoban, Xenakis, etc.

[fftransform]

I wonder why Rachmaninoff's 1st sonata isn't up there.

Is that standard repertoire?

[sevencircles]

Hammerklavier

Playing that piece uptempo technically perfect and in a musically interesting way is difficult even if you are the most talented pianist ever.

[fftransform]

Hammerklavier

Playing that piece uptempo technically perfect and in a musically interesting way is difficult even if you are the most talented pianist ever.

Well, I strongly dislike the Hammerklavier, so I'd definitely agree that it's pretty tough to make it sound interesting =P

But all joking aside, I pretty much included that piece strictly for the Fugue, and even then largely for that idiotic octave trill toward the end.  But I don't know precisely what the performance standards are for that piece, tbh.  I'm actually pretty surprised to see that it's gotten as many votes as it has.

[49410enrique]

i must be strange, some of my votes still only have 1 vote, several repeat mentions i did not vote for at all....

of course my impression is based on looking at the score and w recordings, i am not in any position to objectively state with authority one way or the other but i was actually surpried maria's performance of that agosti transcription hasn't generated more votes. that video has been on yt favorites list for a long time. i listen to at least once every couple months. it's incredible every time.

i wish someone woud record his toccatta i have the score but would love to hear what it really sounds like!

[j_menz]

Which of those pieces seems to be in the standard repertoire to you?  Or can't you read? 

Well, they're composers, not pieces since we appear to be in a pedantic mood. But, leaving that aside, as much or as many as quite a few on your list. Apparently you take "standard repertoire" to mean "pieces I know of".

By the way, it's "Ligeti," not "Ligetti." 

Ooops. I do actually know that.

And when you say "Glass," are you referring to Philip Glass?  What?

Indeed. I was thinking of the two Auroras.

Your list is insanely incomplete, despite the mention of Glass and the misspelling of Ligeti.  No piece by any of those composers would qualify as the hardest piece ever written.  Try Barrett, Finnissy, Hoban, Xenakis, etc.

Indeed, as is yours, which is rather the point I was making (and hence, in case you missed them, the etceteras).

[fftransform]

Well, they're composers, not pieces since we appear to be in a pedantic mood. But, leaving that aside, as much or as many as quite a few on your list. Apparently you take "standard repertoire" to mean "pieces I know of".

Indeed. I was thinking of the two Auroras.

If you're peeling off Glass, then it's pretty clear who's simply throwing out any name he's heard.  Philip Glass has absolutely no place in this thread.  There is no rational argument for that.  Auroras?

https://www.philipglass.com/music/compositions/index_compositions.php

No such piece.  What movie is it from?  Maybe you are confusing the movie title with the title of the piece(s).  Or were you thinking of Takemitsu?  If so, mentioning Takemitsu here is only half an IQ point in favor over mentioning Glass.  As well, please point out to me a piece written by Tausig or Sorabji that is as often-performed as any of the pieces in this poll.  Also, please tell me which of Ligeti's later etude(s) are both harder than some of the pieces in the above poll and performed more often than them.  Same with Alkan, please.

Indeed, as is yours, which is rather the point I was making (and hence, in case you missed them, the etceteras).

You're right.  Instead of saying Finnissy, Xenakis, Barrett and Hoban, I could have said "John Thompson, Satie, etc.," because that would have implied precisely the same thing, correct?  The et cetera clearly covers Xenakis, right?  But the et cetera following Hoban clearly doesn't cover Satie, correct?  Do you sincerely wish to contend that you accidentally listed Alkan, Sorabji and Godowsky, among all of the composers who ever lived, not because you think their works might be the most difficult ever written?  You're either going with that blatant lie, or you're admitting to being silly enough to think that something Godowsky wrote might actually be in the running (a moderately subjective type such as this) of the top 5 hardest pieces ever written.  My list is not incomplete; didn't you see the et cetera?  Besides, several of the hardest pieces ever written were done so by the composers which I explicitly mentioned; none by the composers you mentioned, and the fact that you explicitly mention those particular composers strongly (obviously, 100% obviously) insinuates that you believe they wrote the most difficult music.


And again, Philip Glass?  Come on.

[sevencircles]

Well, I strongly dislike the Hammerklavier, so I'd definitely agree that it's pretty tough to make it sound interesting =P

But all joking aside, I pretty much included that piece strictly for the Fugue, and even then largely for that idiotic octave trill toward the end.  But I don't know precisely what the performance standards are for that piece, tbh.  I'm actually pretty surprised to see that it's gotten as many votes as it has.

 I remember that Hamelin claimed that he didn´t expect it to take such a long time for him to play it well. With a few exceptions it´s the piece that took the longest time to learn for him.

Same with Liszt it took months for him to learn it.

I agree that it´s overrated from a musical perspective though.

[49410enrique]

i don't yet know enough about 'modern'  music (based on style AND chronology) to know if this is part of the 'standard' but Hamelin had this as part of his concert rep. it is mind boggling to me that someone can not only perform this with the depth and clarity of musical intent he displays here but that also anyone can memorize such a thing

"Stefan Wolpe's knotty Passacaglia for solo piano, the 4th one of Four Studies on Basic Rows. Performed by Marc-André Hamelin, live in concert."

[emrysmerlin]

Well, I strongly dislike the Hammerklavier, so I'd definitely agree that it's pretty tough to make it sound interesting =P

But all joking aside, I pretty much included that piece strictly for the Fugue, and even then largely for that idiotic octave trill toward the end.  But I don't know precisely what the performance standards are for that piece, tbh.  I'm actually pretty surprised to see that it's gotten as many votes as it has.

Beethoven became deaf in 1814. The hammerklavier was written in 1817-18, so it would be one of his tries to compose a fugue, on the piano and meant to be difficult, whilst containing the musical qualities.

The first 3 movements are quite good in quality, and even they have loads of different interpretations. (I especially like the non-scherzo scherzo played by Kempff) I don't understand why someone would only regard the fugue as the only difficulty in playing the sonata.

I too agree the fugue very rough in transitions, though I think many of us know what sort of thing Beethoven had in mind when he composed it. The tempo is just silly, he probably intended it to be slower. Maybe some experienced composer can improve upon it?

[j_menz]

Auroras? No such piece.  

Rather embarrasingly (for me) that is correct. I was in fact thinking of John Cage's Etudes Australes and Etudes Boreales. Don't like them, don't like the idea of them. Not sure why the misattribution, though. The australes and boreales explain the aurora bit, though doesn't excuse it.

In any case, though, the "most difficult" music is never going to be in the standard repertoire if to be so means lots of people play it and often. The answer to your original question will always descend into a slanging match about what's in and what's out since the canon is neither established nor fixed.

[emrysmerlin]

Well hasn't the great Horowitz already stated for us what the hardest piece in the standard repertoire is?

[j_menz]

Well hasn't the great Horowitz already stated for us what the hardest piece in the standard repertoire is?

Actually he alternated his answers between Feux Follets and the C Major scale. Which of these did you have in mind?

[emrysmerlin]

Actually he alternated his answers between Feux Follets and the C Major scale. Which of these did you have in mind?

Feux Follets would make more sense...I thought saying that C major scale is the most difficult was a joke.

[fftransform]

Rather embarrasingly (for me) that is correct. I was in fact thinking of John Cage's Etudes Australes and Etudes Boreales. Don't like them, don't like the idea of them. Not sure why the misattribution, though. The australes and boreales explain the aurora bit, though doesn't excuse it.

The Etudes Boreales are not that bad, but yes, the Etudes Australes are potentially extremely difficult, if you play them as they are meant to be played (i.e. follow the staff hand assignments) and play them at a reasonable tempo (no tempo is given in those pieces).


On an unrelated note, just wanted to share this really awesome performance of Petrouchka by Berman.  It's not the cleanest rendition (it's live), but it's definitely the most ridiculous, in the good sort of sense, particularly the 1st/2nd movements:

[nyiregyhazi]

Crap.  Already at 40% stupidity.

A- did you not vote?
B- I don't know: there are some pieces by Finnissy that I haven't played, and there are also some John Thompson pieces for babies that I haven't played.  Yet for some reason, I feel like I can tell which ones might be harder.  You can just say, "I don't know."  It's not the question's fault that you don't know: Don't try to take it out on the question.  The question never hurt anybody.

So, in other words, people can tell the difference between very easy pieces and very hard ones, even if they can't play them? Great. the problem is that you're asking us to compare hard with hard- making that comparison totally irrelevant. You can't know which of two hard pieces is harder without conquering the difficulties. Instead of berating others for stupidity, consider what a truly stupid thread this is- asking people to compare a seemingly randomised list that omits countless familiar works and contains many obscure ones. what basis was this bizarre list constructed on? if you ask a ludicrous question, expect ludicrous answers.

[fftransform]

So, in other words, people can tell the difference between very easy pieces and very hard ones, even if they can't play them? Great. the problem is that you're asking us to compare hard with hard- making that comparison totally irrelevant. You can't know which of two hard pieces is harder without conquering the difficulties. Instead of berating others for stupidity, consider what a truly stupid thread this is- asking people to compare a seemingly randomised list that omits countless familiar works and contains many obscure ones. what basis was this bizarre list constructed on? if you ask a ludicrous question, expect ludicrous answers.

Hi, you're a *** idiot whose "thinking" (I wouldn't call it that; I only ascribe such a term to humans) is as reckless and archaic as your username would insinuate.  If I can know that an easy piece is easier than a hard piece - objectively - then I can - objectively - know that a hard piece is easier than a harder piece.  Unless you want to make the retarded (oh wait, I guess that's what you're doing; so what should I call you?) argument that a different set of parameters determines the difficulty of easy pieces than determines the difficulty of hard pieces.  Please give me your - it necessarily exists, if your argument has any merit (it doesn't, so don't bother trying) - 100% arbitrary cut-off (and do tell us by what means you use to objectively determine this cut-off, by the way) for where/why pieces of music stop being easy and become difficult.  What about pieces that are, I don't know, 'medium-hard'?  How about 'hardish medium-hard'?  If you are too ignorant (you are) to tell me which piece up there is harder than another, that's your problem.  That has nothing to do with the merits of the question, other than the fact that you comprise a portion of the audience over whose expertise this question is.  You're only insulting yourself, not the question, and not me, as hard as you're trying.  None of these pieces are even vaguely obscure: Please tell me which piece(s) on that list is obscure to you.  It will be funny to me to know which ones you're not all that familiar with.  Or is it that you're so much more educated than everyone here that just because it's not obscure to you doesn't mean it's not obscure to most-everyone else here?  Or is it not a most-everyone sort of deal, only "some people"?  How many is "some"?  Enough to make the pieces not obscure?  You will be hard-pressed to find a serious piano competition, at least in the US, where nobody in the competition had a Ligeti Etude, Rzewski NAB4 or the Corligliano in their repertoire; the Messiaen less-so now, but 10 years ago you'd have been just as hard-pressed, and I did explicitly mention that fact regarding the Messiaen.  Also, are you accusing everyone who's voted or given responses here of giving "ludicrous" answers?  Or did I ask a ludicrous question and somehow manage to avoid getting strictly ludicrous answers, in contradiction with your ludicrous accusation?  I suggest that you be either indignant or dumb at a given time, not both.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm going to ignore most of your post- seeing as it consists primarily of trying to attribute straw man arguments to me that I neither made nor implied. The fact that you can weigh up easy versus hard has no bearing at all on hard vs hard. It's like saying that because a person can tell the colour black from white, they can also distinguish which of two shades of grey is minimally darker. That's without even mentioning that the sole means of judgement is experience of actually conquering the difficulty. I've often started things that seemed hard, only to find them easy shortly after. Equally what seemed technically easy never quite becomes comfortable elsewhere. that's why we have to conquer difficulties first before mouthing off- in order to come from a place of knowledge rather than naivety.

evidently, you're an angry person who started this thread to talk down to people, but the foolishness started in the very first post. You didn't even say what this thread is for. It's fine when a person is choosing between a few pieces to learn and asking for thoughts on difficulty, but this thread does not even have an evident purpose. It's obviously not the hardest piece of all time, so what defines this list and what is the significance of the hardest piece on it- given the many omissions?

PS whatever goes in america, corogliano is merely a name to most pianists here, if that. Also, I've been told by various pianists who have done the rzewski that it isn't all that difficult. Perhaps it's time to try playing them before starting a childish difficulty contest? A person who has never left their arm chair can tell you that a marathon would be harder than a half marathon. However, unless you have both swum the channel and cycled 500 miles, you cannot say which is more gruelling.

[richard black]

Hey, Mister Fast Fourier could have just won the prize as this year's most obnoxious contributor here!

[ajspiano]

..I'm inclined to feel like fftransform actively looks for fights.

..I'm also inclined to think that fftransform is a VERY intelligent person and I'm quite shocked to see him trying to get an objective answer to a subjective question, especially considering where and who he's asking.

..actually, consider he said he's not interested in the result, rather the conversation that ensues, I'm not sure what the expectation was. Such threads have a long history of descending into stupidity and pointless pissing contests.

[j_menz]

If I can know that an easy piece is easier than a hard piece - objectively - then I can - objectively - know that a hard piece is easier than a harder piece.  

Nonsense.  Complete, utter, ridiculous nonsense.

In any part of the advanced repertoire, what makes one piece difficult is not the same as what makes another piece difficult. What I may be good at and what I may struggle with will determine the relative difficulty of pieces for me rather than some illusory objective criteria.

You have asked a stupid question in order to provoke responses to cater to your need to argue offensively. Either get a life, or find a 12 step program.

[ajspiano]

Nonsense.  Complete, utter, ridiculous nonsense.

He's trying to create a bubble where all pianists are identical..

if a single, hypothetical, average-level concert pianist with a broad and even background came upon these pieces

[j_menz]

He's trying to create a bubble where all pianists are identical..

I rather think it's more likely he's trying to make the question objective by hypothesising some sort of objectively standard pianist. Given his mathematical/scientific background, that is an understandable position. It is still a useless one.

[ajspiano]

I propose we use the following formula.

[number of notes] x [average interval width] x [tempo]

As such, for "twinkle twinkle" played with one hand (and assuming I got this right, there's no way i'm doing it again to check)

42 x 1.69 x 120(random acceptable tempo) =  8517.6..   maybe we should divide by 1000 so the numbers arent so huge.

twinkle twinkle = 8.51

Edit:
Apologies to fftransform, since I now really have sent this thread into complete and utter stupidity.

[49410enrique]

I propose we use the following formula.

[number of notes] x [average interval width] x [tempo]

As such, for "twinkle twinkle" played with one hand (and assuming I got this right, there's no way i'm doing it again to check)

42 x 1.69 x 120(random acceptable tempo) =  8517.6..   maybe we should divide by 1000 so the numbers arent so huge.

twinkle twinkle = 8.51

solid. and anyone that takes issue with this new perfect system will get one of these:




Edit:
Apologies to fftransform, since I now really have sent this thread into complete and utter stupidity.

[perprocrastinate]

Apologies to fftransform, since I now really have sent this thread into complete and utter stupidity.

I don't think that happens until I post in it.

Oh wait..

[outin]

I propose we use the following formula.

[number of notes] x [average interval width] x [tempo]

As such, for "twinkle twinkle" played with one hand (and assuming I got this right, there's no way i'm doing it again to check)

42 x 1.69 x 120(random acceptable tempo) =  8517.6..   maybe we should divide by 1000 so the numbers arent so huge.

twinkle twinkle = 8.51

We should also include density of notes which may also vary a lot in different parts of the piece and also some variable that describes the difficulty in memorizing the piece. And what else...

OK, I must admit that creating such a formula and making some empirical research with it actually intrigues me 

[j_menz]

OK, I must admit that creating such a formula and making some empirical research with it actually intrigues me 

Yikes!!

Here: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/life

Get one. Now!!

[ajspiano]

We should also include density of notes which may also vary a lot in different parts of the piece and also some variable that describes the difficulty in memorizing the piece. And what else...

OK, I must admit that creating such a formula and making some empirical research with it actually intrigues me 

LOL, i think i'd find it mildly amusing to read the "how we did this and why" article, and the results..  but actually devising something that would come close to working, and actively exploring the pieces in that way..   

unfortunately my current formula is heavily flawed..  its bias toward anything with a lot of wide fast leaps. La Campanella would probably rate VERY highly.

[outin]

Yikes!!

Here: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/life

Get one. Now!!

No thanks, I am sure it's too dangerous!

[ajspiano]

No thanks, I am sure it's too dangerous!

If one takes an interest in mathematically calculating a works difficulty I don't see how doing so would violate any of the definitions presented in j_menz's link.

[nanabush]

I'm gonna say NOT the Chopin op 10, 25 or Liszt Etudes... I'm playing or have played a couple from each, and I can safely say there are some pieces on the list I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

The problem with Messiaen and Stravinsky is that they don't have intermediate standard repertoire pieces.  They just have some really hard stuff... so I find once you get to Chopin Etudes, you'll have probably played at least something from Nocturnes, Waltzes, Preludes.  Stravinsky it's just like "BOOM Petroushka. GO!" and Messiaen has a more difficult harmonic/tonal language to understand IMO.  I can picture asking to learn the Messiaen and my teacher saying "euuuhhhhh, hmmmm, haahhhh, hmmm.... how about some Debussy?" Haha!

[ajspiano]

I'm gonna say NOT the Chopin op 10, 25 or Liszt Etudes...I'm playing or have played a couple from each

I assumed where fftransform listed a set he meant a performance of the entire set, not just one or two individual works.. I could be wrong though.

[j_menz]

I assumed where fftransform listed a set he meant a performance of the entire set, not just one or two individual works.. I could be wrong though.

No doubt, if you are, you will find out in due course, at great length, and with suitable vitriole.

[ajspiano]

No doubt, if you are, you will find out in due course, at great length, and with suitable vitriole.

I should probably re-check all my spelling and grammar..

..of course if that does happen I won't be reading it anyway.

[fftransform]

I assumed where fftransform listed a set he meant a performance of the entire set[.]

This is correct.

No doubt, if you are, you will find out in due course, at great length, and with suitable vitriole.

Also correct.  Key word: suitable.  My vitriol (spelling!) is always in direct proportion with proper reciprocation; I'm just typically more explicit in my responses to implicit, but equal, vitriol.  Please read upward and realize that this is quite obviously the case.

I rather think it's more likely he's trying to make the question objective by hypothesising some sort of objectively standard pianist. Given his mathematical/scientific background, that is an understandable position. It is still a useless one.

Ok; tell us why.  From what I can see, you have a grand total of two directions to go with this: Both are wrong, and if you actually bother to make an argument, I'll actually bother to tell you why it's incorrect.  Until then, all you've said is, "you're wrong; no no no, I don't need to defend my statements.  He just needs to defend his."

..I'm inclined to feel like fftransform actively looks for fights.

Partially true, although the choice of the word "fight" connotes something incorrect.  I am interested in wrecking two arguments: that the answer to this at a given time is subjective, and some arguments concerning this thing some people call "musicality," although the second type has not cropped up, yet.

..actually, consider he said he's not interested in the result, rather the conversation that ensues, I'm not sure what the expectation was.

I am interested in making people realize that it is objective.  Because it is.  It is painfully obvious.  Expectations were low, I will tell you that.

Hey, Mister Fast Fourier could have just won the prize as this year's most obnoxious contributor here!

Of course, you are familiar with the famous quote of Derrida . . .

Nonsense.  Complete, utter, ridiculous nonsense.

In any part of the advanced repertoire, what makes one piece difficult is not the same as what makes another piece difficult. What I may be good at and what I may struggle with will determine the relative difficulty of pieces for me rather than some illusory objective criteria.

You have asked a stupid question in order to provoke responses to cater to your need to argue offensively. Either get a life, or find a 12 step program.

I have no need to argue offensively - nobody here is doing that, e.g. telling people that they have no life, insinuating some psychological issues, calling their questions stupid, etc.  That is clearly not happening in this thread; from where do you get the impression that it is?  But if something like that were happening, then I would probably respond in kind.

Regardless, if you grant me that it is objective that Debussy's Reverie is easier than Feux d'Artifice, I have won the argument immediately.  I think you should think before you speak; do you not see why this is true?  I will go through this one more time; now maybe you will understand it.

So, you hand me Reverie and Feux d'Artifice, and tell me to show which one is harder.  I can do this objectively - you have granted this, as far as I can tell, given that one piece is easy and one piece is difficult.  But how do I do this?  Well, I have some virtues that certain piano works can exhibit, A, B, . . . N.  Feux d'Artifice has qualities C, D, . . . K, for instance, to some certain degrees, and Reverie has some other properties E, F, . . . L, also to certain degrees - do you understand this?  If I could objectively tell that Feux d'Artifice is harder than Reverie from these qualities, we have some system of determining a piece's difficulty (say, a numerical value on the interval [0,1]) from them.  So now you say that I cannot use this system to compare the difficulties of two difficult works.  Please note that if you gave me any 'difficult' work, I am able to determine which virtues it has and its degrees, because I could have substituted in that difficult work for Feux d'Artifice when comparing it against the easy piece, Reverie, and succeeded - do you understand this?  So now you give me two 'difficult' works, and you say that I can no longer use these virtues to determine which is more difficult.  That is your argument - do you understand this?  Now, please see that there are only a finite number of pieces written for the piano, and you have split works into two categories: easy and difficult.  Apparently, we know which pieces are easy and which pieces are difficult, just not which are the "most difficult" (and I think you will want to argue that we also do not know which pieces are the "most easy"; if you don't accept this claim, you will be in some trouble, so I am doing you a favor).  So you have given me a partition of all piano pieces.  Please see that this partition is arbitrary: For instance, surely we can use these virtues to determine that Feux d'Artifice, while hard, is not as hard as Barrett's Tract - do you agree?  It would be quite unintuitive, and ad hoc, to disagree, but feel free to do so.  So I can further categorize into easy, hard, very hard.  I can continue on like this, and start getting an order on the difficulty of all piano pieces, or at least break up the piano repertoire into very many disjoint sets of difficulty.  But you say there is some unexplained reason why I cannot completely order the piano repertoire using these virtues: that is a bizarre and seemingly ridiculous argument.  It is your job to say why I can use these virtues to objectively and truthfully tell the difference between two pieces, but not two others.  Your argument seems to necessarily be one about the precision of these virtues; but if they are imprecise, this is equivalent to saying that they are incomplete.  But I truthfully and objectively could tell the difference between Reverie and Feux d'Artifice; if they were incomplete, it is clear that I would not have been able to know that I had successfully done so.  Contradiction - do you understand?

[fftransform]

I'm going to ignore most of your post- seeing as it consists primarily of trying to attribute straw man arguments to me that I neither made nor implied.

I am not "attributing" any "arguments" to you; the whole point of my post is that you have no real arguments.  I am simply insulting your intelligence.  Don't mix the two up.

The fact that you can weigh up easy versus hard has no bearing at all on hard vs hard. It's like saying that because a person can tell the colour black from white, they can also distinguish which of two shades of grey is minimally darker.

Not surprising that you have 100% misunderstood my point.  I am not saying that a given person can tell the difference between every shade of gray; I am not saying that anybody can actually do this.  I am saying that the optimally truth-conducive mechanism by which one determines these shades of gray is theoretically capable of determining the difference.  However, there are some anatomical issues with the shades-of-gray argument, so instead consider the weights of objects.  At a certain point, they are all just "unliftably heavy" to us.  But the way we might determine which one is heavier is with a scale.  The scale can always tell which one is heavier, assuming the scale is sufficient.  As well, given two objects, both of which are extremely heavy and perhaps weigh very nearly the same, it is still an objective fact which one is heavier than the other.  That fact exists; it does not matter whether a given human is actually capable of determining which one is heavier.  I am certainly not interested in any such topic, and if you thought I was, then your reading comprehension skills are lack-luster, to say the least.

That's without even mentioning that the sole means of judgement is experience of actually conquering the difficulty.

I deny this.  I can name two pieces that I haven't played and can tell you which is easier, of course.  Or are you specifically referring to two difficult works?  Again, I deny that this is the only way to determine which is more difficult (of course), but for the sake of argument, let it be so.  You have still not shown that I am incorrect; actually, you seem to imply that I am correct.  It's not a logical impossibility to play every piece ever written for piano, only a physical impossibility.

You didn't even say what this thread is for. It's fine when a person is choosing between a few pieces to learn and asking for thoughts on difficulty, but this thread does not even have an evident purpose.

It serves only a philosophical purpose; if you are not interested in such things, you should not have posted here.  I'm not sure that you even have the capacity to be interested in such things, frankly.

Also, I've been told by various pianists who have done the rzewski that it isn't all that difficult.

Then please feel free to quite quickly learn the piece; in particular, feel free to upload just a few bars of it, specifically 4:35-5:15

Want me to send you a PDF of the sheet music?  Actually, the whole first 4:34 is very easy, and not the most exhausting piece written for left hand ever.

PS- I've played quite a few of the pieces on this list, the Rzewski included.
PPS- Ian Pace - probably the pianist with the best technique ever - said that the Opus Clavicembalisticum wouldn't give him any real problems, technically.  Should we say that means that the OC is easy?

[nyiregyhazi]

Also correct.  Key word: suitable.  My vitriol (spelling!) is always in direct proportion with proper reciprocation; I'm just typically more explicit in my responses to implicit, but equal, vitriol.  Please read upward and realize that this is quite obviously the case.

Quite. Replying to the following

Wouldn't only those people be able to answer who have actually tried to play all these (and maybe fit your hypothetical description)? Hopefully there are some on this forum  

with "Crap" and reference to 40% stupidity is "obviously" and example of reciprocating vitriol with vitriol. That was a really aggressive post that he made, wasn't it? Obviously he ought to attend anger management classes as urgently as yourself, for trying to talk to you that way...

Regardless, if you grant me that it is objective that Debussy's Reverie is easier than Feux d'Artifice, I have won the argument immediately.  I think you should think before you speak; do you not see why this is true?  I will go through this one more time; now maybe you will understand it.

That is ludicrously illogical. What is it that makes you think that the ease of comparing extremely obvious differences in difficulty means that extremely subtle differences in difficulty can be casually determined without so much as conquering them? Just because it's easy to tell that a Sunday league footballer is less skillful than a premier league player, it does not mean that any old fool can also determine which of two great players is more skillful. Even among top pundits, there's not necessarily an objective right answer. Taking a singular example of two extremely different cases has zero relevance to your list- where you specifically chose them for all being at the very high end of difficulty. It's bad enough that you are not comparing like with like in your example, but it's worse still that you seem to feel that "proves" something about a totally different scenario.