Toughest Pieces in Standard Repertoire

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

Precisely my point. I'm not sure whether you sincerely missed that or are simply being argumentative for the sake of it. Either way, it's a pointless hypothetical MAYBE. As an argument, that's a non-starter- unless you provide some better substance than a "well, it's not theoretically impossible" argument. If we add to that the fact that experienced concert pros cannot form a consensus on what pieces are the most difficult, we have a clear illustration of the fact that difficulty is to at least some degree subjective. Even if there are some black vs white scenarios in which it is objective, these are but a small subset- and hence say nothing about cases of extreme difficulties being compared. The fact that a hamburger smeared in cow dung is more disgusting than one that is not does not prove that one of a well cooked curry and a well cooked soup is objectively nicer. Given that difficulty cannot even be agreed upon by those who have played the pieces under comparison, it's silly to think that anyone can compare it objectively without even mastering difficulties.  Unless a pianist can play works to a high level for the first time based on mental practise alone, they are clearly not capable of processing subtle differences with accuracy.

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.

With mass, yes. Which is why this is such a poorly constructed analogy. Analogy never proves anything. It only illustrates a point. When an analogy is poorly chosen in a way that is not truly analagous with the actual issue under discussion, it might fool a naive person into believing something- but it still doesn't prove anything.

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?  

Much as it might surprise you (given that this thread is about comparing difficult works), yes. I am indeed referring to the fact that it's hard to say which of two difficult works is harder- especially given that difficulty can only be measured by how hard it is for a single individual to execute them and that nobody will agree on which is harder, when the music is difficult enough.

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.

You are absolutely right. I have not the slightest interest in such things. I am only interested in musicality and that which aids technique (for the specific reason that it makes it easier to convey musicality). While I appreciate the naive (not as a derogatory term, in this case) childish fascination of a young student who asks me what the hardest piece ever written is, when a grown adult starts the same contest I am simply bemused. All the more so when a bizarre arbitrary list is chosen for comparison. It's like asking people who's the tallest out of a group of people that has been chosen specifically for the fact that they are all between 4 ft and 5 ft. Who cares- given that there are a number of taller people in the world? For the same reason, if you want a difficulty contest, either stick to proper standard repertoire (rather than such obsurities as the Agosti transcription), or make it all inclusive. Godowksy's Etudes' on Chopin are vastly more commonly played- not to mention the fact that I've never yet heard a half-decent performance of the truly unplayable version of the 3rds etude. I doubt if a single thing on that list compares with the difficult of bringing that off.  

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

Why? My point is that I know pianists other than myself who didn't find it too hard (and who weren't either the boastful type or Hamelins, in terms of technique). What bearing would my own playing have on the issue?

Want me to send you a PDF of the sheet music?

Sure, it would be interesting to have a look. What I am not prepared to do is place a silly vote on a silly contest that is not only subjective, but which would require me to be familiar with every piece on the list for me to have an informed opinion about. What a surprise that the most votes have gone to very popular works, eh?
 

[ahinton]

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?

Personally, I do not know and therefore could not say - but also I could not really care less, since Mr Pace has (a) already made his own very abrasively negative personal position vis-à-vis Sorabji and his music in general perfectly clear and, on the other hand (b) given us no evidence whatsoever as to what he might make of any of it in performance. I would in any case question your assertion that Mr Pace has "probably...the best technique ever", on the grounds that "technique" would first need to be defined in some detail for any such statement to be meaningful, even if it were also to some degree correct. That Mr Pace possesses - and has evidenced in many of his performances - a phenomenal hand/eye/brain co-ordinatory facility is of course beyond all doubt, at least to anyone who has encountered it in action - but is that all that is required of a pianist to qualify him/her as possessing "the best technique ever"? Is that particular facility of his any further advanced in any case than that of, say, Jonathan Powell or Fredrik Ullén or Marc-André Hamelin or Carlo Grante or...? We'd surely be getting ourselves into great difficulties here were we to try to undertake detailed scientific analyses of each of these pianists' physical/mental/neurological facilities (especially in Ullén's case as he is, as no doubt you know, also a professional neuroscientist!).

Let's get back to the topic (if indeed we must!)...

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

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. 

I'm relieved it hasn't gone unnoticed.  Incidentally, "vitriole" is the specially branded version I prefer to use over the generic.

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?

I have no (real) problem with your methodology. Using it it is possible, albeit tedious, for any of us to come up with a complete ranking.  My argument is that it is not objective. Your ranking will be different to mine; Cziffra's would be different to Hamelin's. On all the matters that make a piece difficult we start with different abilities and have a different "learning curve" in order to overcome them. 

That there will be agreement about some relative rankings between pianists of any reasonable standard does not invalidate this.

For iour argument to succeed, you need an objectively standard pianist, the yardstick against which all is measured. My objection to this is threefold: 1. no such creature exists, 2. you appear to be unable to distinguish yourself from this creature, and 3. even if one could construct such a pianist the resulting rankings would be of no value to anyone insofar as they differed from this creature.

[ajspiano]

I have to agree with J_menz, such a question can be objective only for an individual - and it would have to be an extraordinarily experienced one. Beyond that, as soon as you involve more than one pianist all objectivity is lost, there are infinitely too many variables.

The question is subjective where people are involved. You need robot pianists.

As far as this musicality thing, - it is relavant..  but I suspect that you, and most experienced people accept that music is a product of technique, as such anything with a musical difficulty has a technical difficulty - the technique required to produce that music. But, many forum users do not define it that way, technically difficult means anything fast and intricate enough to cause physical problems such as an inability to go fast enough or physical tension..  musically difficult is anything that is difficult to execute with control over the dynamics and direction of the work, but hitting the right notes in the right order is easy enough.

[fftransform]

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  

What a convenient misquotation.

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  

You seem to have left something out, which makes the implication that his comment is so obvious, and just what is so obvious is that my thread is pointless.  Responded to in kind.

That is ludicrously illogical. [...] 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.

You are going in circles, simply restating yourself without supplying any argument.  I have destroyed this argument already, completely destroyed it.  You are talking about something totally irrelevant to this thread.  "Easiness" and being able to do something "casually" are completely irrespective to what I feel confident that I have proven.  Let me give you a better example: take an insanely difficult mathematical conjecture.  It's either true or false; it's not both.  But nobody here would be able to solve it.  Does that mean that it's neither true or false?  No, of course not.  Does that mean that it's not an interesting topic for pianostreet?  Maybe so, but what you find interesting and what I find interesting may be different; if you find this topic so uninteresting (the theoretical, not the physically possible), then you are free to shut up at any time.  Using one of your own examples, for a given person, either biking 500 miles or swimming the channel would be more difficult at a given time; it's true that one would be more difficult than the other, presuming that the person has the faculties to do either.  Can I guess which one would be harder for me?  No.  But it's true that one would be more difficult.  You obviously cannot follow my arguments, because your response does not address it in any way that I did not mention as being a faulty line of attack.  Your responses will be pointless until you have actually understood what I have said; as far as I can tell (e.g. note ajs/j_menzs' responses), you're the only person remaining who does not understand.  The argument has now moved past you; you have been left behind.

[fftransform]

I have no (real) problem with your methodology. Using it it is possible, albeit tedious, for any of us to come up with a complete ranking.  My argument is that it is not objective. Your ranking will be different to mine; Cziffra's would be different to Hamelin's. On all the matters that make a piece difficult we start with different abilities and have a different "learning curve" in order to overcome them.

This is of course correct; I have implicitly conceded this point even in the opening post of this thread.  However, I am interested in determining the most difficult piece for the average pianist; thus on average, that will be the most difficult piece, of course.  Whether or not we want to say that means that the piece is then the "most difficult" without qualification is another matter entirely - I feel that it is, but I am not interested in pursuing such an argument until everything else has been resolved.

My objection to this is threefold: 1. no such creature exists, 2. you appear to be unable to distinguish yourself from this creature, and 3. even if one could construct such a pianist the resulting rankings would be of no value to anyone insofar as they differed from this creature.

The first two are not valid objections, but the last one is.

1) I do not require the actual existence of such a pianist; however, if concert pianists can be ordered based on their technique, then of course there is an average one.  That we could do so would be a similar argument, but again, I am not interested in pursuing it.  I do not need the existence of such a pianist.  Once we have established the objectivity of the ordering of difficulty relative to any pianist, existent or not, I can proceed with the main thesis that I outlined above.

2) I do not understand what you mean by this.

3) As I said, this is valid, but I have mentioned twice now that I intend to argue against it.  However, we should let the dust settle and make sure everyone understands what the game is; it appears that a certain somebody both has no understanding of this thread and insists on commenting profusely.

[fftransform]

As far as this musicality thing, - it is relavant..  but I suspect that you, and most experienced people accept that music is a product of technique, as such anything with a musical difficulty has a technical difficulty - the technique required to produce that music.

This is correct.  There are technical aspects of piano playing which are often attributed to "musicality," and then there are choices in interpretation.  The latter are inconsequential to this debate.

[j_menz]

3) As I said, this is valid, but I have mentioned twice now that I intend to argue against it.  However, we should let the dust settle and make sure everyone understands what the game is

Since this is the true heart of my position, I await your argument with interest.

[ajspiano]

Since this is the true heart of my position, I await your argument with interest.

As do I..   since even if we had 2 technically competent (identical skill set) pianists.. I still think that their potentially different approaches to learning, and potentially different rates of learning different skills will impact what they find more difficult.

I just can't see the relevance..  where are these pianist that are identical twins, had the same teacher, studied the same repertoire, on the same piano, and used identical practice approaches, practicing for the same number of hours on the same days over an entire lifetime...?  not to mention non-piano based impacts to learning abilities..

You can produce a rough generally agreeable result..  but I can't see it ever being an truly objective..   there is no black and white answer to the "which is harder" question once you surpass a certain level.

[outin]

What a convenient misquotation.

You seem to have left something out, which makes the implication that his comment is so obvious, and just what is so obvious is that my thread is pointless.  Responded to in kind.

Actually my eyes were rolling to the idea of finding your hypothetical concert pianist on this forum. I guess you could interpret that as an implication that I see your thread as pointless. But you clearly stated what your motivation was (to measure the amount of stupidity invoked) and I cannot say THAT is pointless (to you), so I was just happy to contribute.

[fftransform]

Since this is the true heart of my position, I await your argument with interest.

As do I..   since even if we had 2 technically competent (identical skill set) pianists.. I still think that their potentially different approaches to learning, and potentially different rates of learning different skills will impact what they find more difficult.

I just can't see the relevance..  where are these pianist that are identical twins, had the same teacher, studied the same repertoire, on the same piano, and used identical practice approaches, practicing for the same number of hours on the same days over an entire lifetime...?  not to mention non-piano based impacts to learning abilities..

You can produce a rough generally agreeable result..  but I can't see it ever being an truly objective..   there is no black and white answer to the "which is harder" question once you surpass a certain level.

Ok.  I do not have time to do it tonight, but my general thesis is going to be that if we agree that there is a hardest piece for the "average" pianist (which is what we have been arguing about up until now), then defining "hardest piece" (in the standard repertoire) to be precisely that piece is the best definition.  The reason I use standard repertoire instead of all repertoire finally becomes important, there.  You can preemptively have at it, if you want.

[j_menz]

Ok.  I do not have time to do it tonight,

My patience is boundless. Well, within limits. Oh...

if we agree that there is a hardest piece for the "average" pianist

We don't.  Nor do we agree that there is an "average" pianist.

then defining "hardest piece" (in the standard repertoire) to be precisely that piece is the best definition. 

The definition is frustrated by the problems above.

The reason I use standard repertoire instead of all repertoire finally becomes important, there. 

Clearly I'm missing at least part of your point as I don't see what difference it makes, other than convenience, which doesn't seem to be what you are getting at.

[ajspiano]

Ok.  I do not have time to do it tonight, but my general thesis is going to be that if we agree that there is a hardest piece for the "average" pianist (which is what we have been arguing about up until now), then defining "hardest piece" (in the standard repertoire) to be precisely that piece is the best definition.  The reason I use standard repertoire instead of all repertoire finally becomes important, there.  You can preemptively have at it, if you want.

I can see your thinking, I don't understand why its relevant or a good idea..

I can't see a logical way to "rate" pianists in order to generate the average..   in order for this to be objective you're going to need numbers, does it look like this?

Skill sets rated out of 10 -

Legato touch 8.96
Leaps 7.6
Arpeggios 9.2
musical phrasing 8.3
interpretation 7.59 (oh dear, this ones highly subjective)

And how do we actually come up with the numbers, is there a series of tests? Does a pianist play arpeggios in all keys and we analyse their playing with a computer? giving them a mathematically defined score based on evenness of timing and articulation?

After all thats done, how does a pianist compare themselves to the average? how will these figures be relevant to someone who hasnt done similar testing..  how will they know where they stand a week later once they've practiced a bit more?

Sorry if that seems a bit attacking - not my intent - I'm quite intrigued to hear what you have to say because I'm certain that you realize how ridiculous what's spinning around my head right now is, and must have an actual argument.

[outin]

Skill sets rated out of 10 -

Legato touch 8.96
Leaps 7.6
Arpeggios 9.2
musical phrasing 8.3
interpretation 7.59 (oh dear, this ones highly subjective)

Another intriguing idea from you!
Should we add precision of dynamics and timing? What else...

[ajspiano]

Another intriguing idea from you!
Should we add precision of dynamics and timing? What else...

I have the best ideas.

..Unfortunately I feel that the number of skills involved would be far too vast and also somewhat overlapping.

it also presents other problems..

For example. -

Suppose we have the following pianists.

Pianist A:
Scales - 5
Arpeggios - 10
Skill Set X - 5
Skill Set Y - 5

(5 + 10 +5 + 5)/4 = 6.25

Pianist B:
Scales - 4
Arpeggios - 3
Skill Set X - 10
Skill Set Y - 8

(4 + 3 + 10 + 8 )/4 = 6.25

.....

Chopin 25/12 is rated 8.986 for difficulty.

Which pianist finds it easier?

[outin]

I have the best ideas.

..Unfortunately I feel that the number of skills involved would be far too vast and also somewhat overlapping.

That can all be solved with mathematics as long as we know all the components that contribute to being a good pianist...Do we?

The real problem would be if we see pianism (as arts) as something where perfection does not exist and one can always be better. So defining 10 would be impossible. I am not sure I feel this way, for me perfection is being faultless, after that it is just individuality (maybe actually going to another direction than perfection).

it also presents other problems..

For example. -

Suppose we have the following pianists.



.....

Chopin 25/12 is rated 8.986 for difficulty.

Which pianist finds it easier?

I never actually thought of these two ratings used together (rating of difficulty and rating of competency of pianists), I just find them both intriguing

BTW. Don't they use some kind of system like this to rate in exams and competitions already?

EDIT: I wonder why I have this obsessive need to correct my spelling mistakes in this thread?

[j_menz]

As far as this musicality thing, - it is relavant..  but I suspect that you, and most experienced people accept that music is a product of technique, as such anything with a musical difficulty has a technical difficulty - the technique required to produce that music.

Slightly off topic (for which, apologies) but I couldn't let this pass.

I agree that there is a technical aspect to producing musicality.  But there is also a difficulty that does not have a technical aspect.  There are some pieces that are conceptually difficult; it is not a case of strugglig to produce what you want (though that may certainly exist) but of knowing just what it is that you do want. A composition's intent may be unclear, ambiguous or seemingly internally conflicted.  This is not a matter of any technical ability at all, it is a matter of knowing to what end that technique is to be applied.

[ajspiano]

BTW. Don't they use some kind of system like this to rate in exams and competitions already?

I'm no competition buff.. 
But I think you'll find that its more of a "start with a perfect score and receive deductions every time you mess up in some tiny way" kind of deal. A find the faults approach, not a quantify the successes one..  which wouldnt work..  what happens? 10 points for every accurate phrase?

As far as in exams..  grading doesn't really work like that, its far more broad.. 
such as, this kind of pedagogical concern, between this and that extreme of difficulty means grade X, give or take a grade (with concern to a broad range of technical concerns)
like this - https://www.gradedpianorepertoire.com/about/gpr_grading.php

As far as marking, again I think its quite broad.. for example
A - accurate performance, with interpretive flair
B - accurate performance, satisfactory interpretation
C - fluent performance, some wrong notes
D - many wrong notes, general lack of fluency.

With the overall mark being drawn from the result of that kind of process applied to pieces, scales, aural skills, sight reading and general knowledge.

Aside from that, you get some really general comments like "nice playing" or "could've been softer bars 12-18" ..I don't think they exist to help your playing much, rather just tick the can you play a few grade X pieces box, though that is of course just my personal experience.

[ajspiano]

Slightly off topic (for which, apologies) but I couldn't let this pass.

I agree that there is a technical aspect to producing musicality.  But there is also a difficulty that does not have a technical aspect.  There are some pieces that are conceptually difficult; it is not a case of strugglig to produce what you want (though that may certainly exist) but of knowing just what it is that you do want. A composition's intent may be unclear, ambiguous or seemingly internally conflicted.  This is not a matter of any technical ability at all, it is a matter of knowing to what end that technique is to be applied.

I agree there is a difference..   but I think I could argue that musical conception is a technique involved in a good performance. Just because its not physical doesnt make it separate from "technique", that word just means how you do something. How you produce a good performance of those pieces is to think through that musical conception aspect.

[fftransform]

We don't.  Nor do we agree that there is an "average" pianist.

Actually, you did:

I have no (real) problem with your methodology. Using it it is possible, albeit tedious, for any of us to come up with a complete ranking.

I can then define "average pianist" in the obvious way.

If you wish to redact your acquiescence, then you are wrong and I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.  You provide absolutely no counterarguments; you are just being obstinate and intellectually lazy.

[ahinton]

Among all the arguments, counter-arguments and arguably non-arguments presented so far in this thread - from which issues over "technique" as distinct (as though it can be!) from "musicality" (is not "mécanique" perhaps a more appropriate term than "technique" in this particular context?), how or whether one could conceive of an "average" pianist in the thread context and all the rest of it - no one seems yet to have thought to venture any observations about the other problem inherent in the thread topic, namely that of what does or does not qualify - or what may be regarded by whom at any given time - as "standard repertoire"; the term is, I think, generally taken to denote (albeit among other things) music that, having earned widespread respect and stood the test of time (whatever that may be), is mainly if not exclusively by deceased composers and, for example, Medtner's E minor and B flat minor sonatas, Godowsky's Studien über die Etüden von Chopin and Alkan's Opp. 35 and 39 are now far more widely regarded as pinnacles of the piano literature than they were half a century ago, although whether and to what extent they may be regarded, even today, as "standard repertoire" inevitably remains open to argument.

Of the composers in the "voting list" above, only Corigliano and Rzewski are still alive and most have long been dead; the works listed, however, represent but a tiny fraction of what anyone might (or might not) think of as "standard repertoire" and, since that list seems entirely arbitrary in its selection from such repertoire, it could be argued that any voting results would accordingly do little to answer the question of what might be thought of as the "toughest pieces in standard repertoire". What in any case justifies those two living composers' works as "standard repertoire"? - provable numbers of public performances, broadcasts and recordings? If that's to be the sole defining parameter (although I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the case), why only one single reference to Messiaen - and to a mere 5% or so of just one of his works, at that?...

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

Actually, you did:

I can then define "average pianist" in the obvious way.

If you wish to redact your acquiescence, then you are wrong and I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.  You provide absolutely no counterarguments; you are just being obstinate and intellectually lazy.

You left out the following sentence- in which he stated that those rankings would be subjective? You are stooping so low as to use selective quotation to misrepresent another person's stance and then argue against them based on that false representation, rather than on what they said? You are not the intellectual you pretend to be. You are a simple troll.

[nyiregyhazi]

You seem to have left something out, which makes the implication that his comment is so obvious, and just what is so obvious is that my thread is pointless.  Responded to in kind.

Making an obvious statement amounts to "vitriol" that warrants reciprocation? I advise you to check your dictionary regarding the definition of the word- or better still admit that you were talking bullshit when you claimed that your vitriol only appears in response to vitriol from others. It does not. You are a sad angry person who probably whacks off at the enjoyment of trying to put others down, without provokation. Your thread isn't pointless. You started it so you could jerk off.

Let me give you a better example: take an insanely difficult mathematical conjecture.  It's either true or false; it's not both.  But nobody here would be able to solve it.  Does that mean that it's neither true or false?

Again, you are unable to compare like with like? That is an objective issue. Anyone who could find the proof will come to a single correct answer as to whether it was true or false. Which of two very hard pieces is hardest is not objective. Of those who can play both, there will not be a universal agreement on which was harder. Is your grasp of common sense logic so flimsy that you cannot appreciate this fundamental differentiation between your poorly chosen analogy and what we are actually looking at here?

 Using one of your own examples, for a given person, either biking 500 miles or swimming the channel would be more difficult at a given time; it's true that one would be more difficult than the other, presuming that the person has the faculties to do either.  Can I guess which one would be harder for me?  No.  But it's true that one would be more difficult.

So? Your argument was that you CAN guess. Not whether it can merely be theoretically stated that one would be harder to a theoretical pianist who cannot be precisely defined. Please don't misattribute my argument as being against something other than that it was made against. And once again, the fact that it would be more difficult to do one than the other applies only to the specific individual. Others would find the other harder. So, in short, we can neither identify which is harder for an individual (without performing both feats) nor can we say that either is harder in general.

If you get off on forming your own opinion of what an average pianist's skill set is (incidentally, I suggest you define whether you are taking the mean, median or modal average- if you want to pretend that you're being all intellectual here) and then estimating what piece is hardest for them, that's fine. What you don't seem to comprehend is that any estimates of these things are going to be completely subjective and will have minimal bearing on any real life pianists- due to their not being your theoretical average pianist. A theoretical concept of objectivity does not make casual individual  guesswork any less subjective or, for that matter, pointless.

[j_menz]

Actually, you did:

I can then define "average pianist" in the obvious way.

If you wish to redact your acquiescence, then you are wrong and I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.  You provide absolutely no counterarguments; you are just being obstinate and intellectually lazy.

You appear to have misunderstood. I don't argue about the way you approach measuring skills (at least for the purposes of this thread), but I do not believe that they measure anything other than an individual actual pianists abilities. I do not accept that you can then use these data to extrapolate an "average" pianist.  The problems identified in AJs post using only 4 parameters identifies the reason why this is not so; adding further data points or dimensions does not overcome this.  If you believe it does, you will need to explain how.

Are you saying that for every measured dimension there is an average and that the "average pianist" would be the one with, on every dimension, the average for that dimension? If so, that would be acceptable as a definition. There may need to be some debate about what the dimension are, and whether there should be some sort of weighting to them, but in principle that could be agreed. Assuming this could be done, I would be prepared to go forward using this definition. My reservations about its usefulness remain, though.

This is not a retraction, simply a clarification of my acquiescence; you appear to have taken it for more than it was.

[musefanemail]

Sorry for interupting, but check out Boulez's Piano Sonata no.2, guys.
It's a one tough sonata! Being a contemporary it sounds a bit weird, though.

[emrysmerlin]

Actually I think everyone missed out the "S" behind the "PIECE" in the topic.
fftransform did intend to let us vote for more than 1 piece. As long as people have seen the scores, listened to the music and maybe attempt a little to play them, their reasoning for choosing the piece should be half-valid.

That would imply that the poll is useless, however.

[nyiregyhazi]

Actually I think everyone missed out the "S" behind the "PIECE" in the topic.
fftransform did intend to let us vote for more than 1 piece. As long as people have seen the scores, listened to the music and maybe attempt a little to play them, their reasoning for choosing the piece should be half-valid.

That would imply that the poll is useless, however.

So, who would like to step forward and lay a claim to having studied the scores of every piece on this list of supposedly standard repertoire? Anyone in the entire forum? I doubt if more than 5% of members would know the score of the Agosti transcription or the Corogliano Etude, if that. There's a reason why judges actually listen to all of the competitors in piano competitions- rather than eliminate those whose playing they have not previously heard, without listening.

[emrysmerlin]

1. 5% is still a lot of people regarding this forum. 
2. I do believe most of the pieces are accessible in this list. It would be unfortunate if some of the supposedly hardest ones are not voted due to them being not easily accessible, but still we would at least know which other ones are.

I would now like to apologize to nyiregyhazi for not being able to understand his/her analogy.

[richard black]

FWIW - no, FFT, I've never read Derrida. I'm not as smart as you.

[ahinton]

FWIW - no, FFT, I've never read Derrida. I'm not as smart as you.

Then perhaps you should - but then just carry on being and thinking like Richard Black as we would all expect of you!

Best,

Alistair

[ebubu]

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.

Yep, I thought EXACTLY the same thing, and pretty much the same names....
Though, now I remember the title of the thread is "standard repertoire", which of course slightly changes the perspective....

[slobone]

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

Thanks for posting that, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Had never heard of the composer or the piece before, obviously immensely difficult. Only Hamelin could make it sound about as hard as a Chopin polonaise.

[yohankwon]

why do i not see Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No.2?

[celegorma]

why do i not see Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No.2?

Because its not hard.

[redrobin62]

I can almost guarantee that any pianist worth his salt who goes up on stage and performs Alkan's Grande Sonate 'Les Quatre Ages' on a well-tuned Steinway will have the audience eating out of his hand after the 4th movement. Just check out the version by Marc-Andre Hamelin. It's almost superhuman!

[emrysmerlin]

Alkan's sonate, despite being a great and innovative piece of music, is, unfortunately, not part of the standard repertoire.   

[ahinton]

Alkan's sonate, despite being a great and innovative piece of music, is, unfortunately, not part of the standard repertoire.   

Indeed it is not; it should be, though, shouldn't it?!...

Best,

Alistair

[thesixthsensemusic]

I'd have a suggestion of my own;

Schumann's Toccata is next to impossible because it's entire score is filled with fast tremolos between single notes and dual-note intervals in both hands, that are extremely unnatural and therefore uncomfortable to play, and even set the standard for the (very rarely given) maximum difficulty ranking at Henle.de's online catalogue. His 'Carnaval' is not, even though it is a difficult work. I've seen the scores of both works, the Toccata makes me get cramps in my lower arms even by looking at all these tremolos.... the score basically looks like an asphalt road, it's that black from all those notes...

[jlh]

Indeed it is not; it should be, though, shouldn't it?!...

Best,

Alistair

Speaking of Alkan's Sonate, I will be playing all 4 movements this Sunday for a recital.

Live webcast will be here:https://new.livestream.com/accounts/582849/JoshHillmann

Wish me luck!

[redrobin62]

Too bad this recital isn't in Seattle. I'd love to see it. Good luck with your performance!

[ahinton]

Speaking of Alkan's Sonate, I will be playing all 4 movements this Sunday for a recital.

Live webcast will be here:https://new.livestream.com/accounts/582849/JoshHillmann

Wish me luck!

Good for you! I do indeed wish you luck!

Best,

Alistair

[canada100]

Liszt is not the hardest-remember, he was a PIANIST!!!!!


Most people would say:

Balakirev's Islamey
Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto 3
Tchaikovsky Concerto 1
A COMPLETE PERFORMANCE of the 24 Chopin Etudes
Beethoven Hammerklavier Sonata


Again, it depends on the pianist!