Pieces that are massive...

[visitor]

...massive wastes of time.

1, 2, 3- go!

[lisztmusicfan]

... This post.

[ale_ius]

... This post.

i no understands your piece.  Is you say "this post" is name of piece to avoid ?

I think it's good to discuss junky music too.  So many thread are the same about suggest favorite or pieces one like but can also be useful to know what music is probably not worth the efforts ?

Hmm I think there was a similar thread I like about "over rated composers" so this can he like an "overrated music don't bother with it" ha ha

I think the Schumann arabesque is probably a massive exercise in unrewarding effort. Very difficult and ultimately pretty boring even the very best performance la leave me as meh... just okays

[kakeithewolf]

Pretty nearly every bloody piano composition by Alkan.

[future_maestro]

Uh, kind of a stupid question isn't it? I mean, nobody here plays to learn the stupidest pieces, we play to learn the best pieces.

What's the point of your question?

[visitor]

Uh, kind of a stupid question isn't it? I mean, nobody here plays to learn the stupidest pieces, we play to learn the best pieces.

What's the point of your question?

[swagmaster420x]

Uh, kind of a stupid question isn't it? I mean, nobody here plays to learn the stupidest pieces, we play to learn the best pieces.

What's the point of your question?

Well, if you want to live somewhere pleasant, you would want to know which places muggings occur most often in so you could avoid them.

[future_maestro]

Well, if you want to live somewhere pleasant, you would want to know which places muggings occur most often in so you could avoid them.

That is different. For your information, there are not many terrible pieces out there, it just takes a different taste to like each kind. Some people think Rachmaninoff is cool, I think his music is weird. I happen to like Chopin's style of music, but my brother hates it.

I do not think that Rachmaninoff's music is "Terrible," I just simply don't care for it, and my brother doesn't think that Chopin's music is awful either, he just doesn't have the taste for it.

Get my point?
 

[chicoscalco]

That is different. For your information, there are not many terrible pieces out there, it just takes a different taste to like each kind. Some people think Rachmaninoff is cool, I think his music is weird. I happen to like Chopin's style of music, but my brother hates it.

I do not think that Rachmaninoff's music is "Terrible," I just simply don't care for it, and my brother doesn't think that Chopin's music is awful either, he just doesn't have the taste for it.

Get my point?
 

Still... Rach's polichinelle? lol

Although taste is entirely subjective, in classical music we have parameters to qualify pieces. Everyone loves Fur Elise, but it's still a piece with shallow musical content.

[j_menz]

Although taste is entirely subjective, in classical music we have parameters to qualify pieces.

That comes as news to me. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what they are.

[deidre]

Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker (Suite) comes to mind...sigh. No offense to anyone who treasures this piece, but I can't stand playing it.

[j_menz]

Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker (Suite) comes to mind...sigh. No offense to anyone who treasures this piece, but I can't stand playing it.

The Taneyev, the Tchaikovsky revision of the Taneyev, the Pletnev or what other transcription do you mean?

[deidre]

The Taneyev, the Tchaikovsky revision of the Taneyev, the Pletnev or what other transcription do you mean?

Pletnev.
What are your thoughts?

[j_menz]

Pletnev.
What are your thoughts?

It's my favourite.

Funnily, the only Tchaikovsky for piano I like are transcriptions of his orchestral stuff.

[deidre]

It's my favourite.

Funnily, the only Tchaikovsky for piano I like are transcriptions of his orchestral stuff.

I gasped, then laughed at your response. Laughed...meaning. Wow. Such a difference of opinion. lol

[future_maestro]

Although taste is entirely subjective, in classical music we have parameters to qualify pieces. Everyone loves Fur Elise, but it's still a piece with shallow musical content.

Correct, taste is 100% subjective, and I'm sure that not EVERYONE likes Fur Elise, but us Classical musicians (I'm also one) try not to verbally disrespect the great composers.

[visitor]

Correct, taste is 100% subjective, and I'm sure that not EVERYONE likes Fur Elise, but us Classical musicians (I'm also one) try not to verbally disrespect the great composers.

I agree, like with Schumann. His music sucks. But as a dude, despite being bonkers, he was 'da' man. He was a hard worker and had good taste in women.

[kakeithewolf]

Still... Rach's polichinelle? lol

Although taste is entirely subjective, in classical music we have parameters to qualify pieces. Everyone loves Fur Elise, but it's still a piece with shallow musical content.

Not everyone loves Für Elise.

[philb]

I agree, like with Schumann. His music sucks.

Gotta love people on internet piano forums, good lord.

And to the rest of the Schumann haters: Schumann's early piano works (Papillons, Davidsbundlertanze, Carnaval, Sonatas 1-3, Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, Arabesque, Humoreske, etc.) are some of the most ingenious, passionate, profound, and beautiful pieces ever written for the medium. Certainly one of the greatest minds of the 19th century, and with out a doubt one of the greatest 19th century composers for piano along with Chopin, Liszt, etc.  

And to quote Liszt: "Schumann's works are not destined to meet with a popular success. But no superior intelligence can fail to perceive in them merit of a high order and rare beauties. Of all the compositions that have come to our notice, with the exception of Chopin's muzic , it is those of Schumann in which we have recognized the greatest individuality, novelty, and technical skill. In the Impromptus (op. 5) novel harmonic and rhythmical devices abound. In the Sonata (op. 11) the logic of the ideas is worked out closely and with precision; this is the distinctive characteristic of Robert Schumann's works. But far from precluding originality, it calls it forth and throws it into still stronger relief. Passion is revealed in his works indirectly and discreetly, but it is there, true, deep, and intensely moving. Schumann's muzic appeals to contemplative souls and serious minds, who are not content to remain on the surface of things, but know how to plunge into deep waters to seek the hidden pearl."

[visitor]

Gotta love people on internet piano forums, good lord.

And to the rest of the Schumann haters: Schumann's early piano works (Papillons, Davidsbundlertanze, Carnaval, Sonatas 1-3, Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, Arabesque, Humoreske, etc.) are some of the most ingenious, passionate, profound, and beautiful pieces ever written for the medium. Certainly one of the greatest minds of the 19th century, and with out a doubt one of the greatest 19th century composers for piano along with Chopin, Liszt, etc.  

And to quote Liszt: "Schumann's works are not destined to meet with a popular success. But no superior intelligence can fail to perceive in them merit of a high order and rare beauties. Of all the compositions that have come to our notice, with the exception of Chopin's muzic , it is those of Schumann in which we have recognized the greatest individuality, novelty, and technical skill. In the Impromptus (op. 5) novel harmonic and rhythmical devices abound. In the Sonata (op. 11) the logic of the ideas is worked out closely and with precision; this is the distinctive characteristic of Robert Schumann's works. But far from precluding originality, it calls it forth and throws it into still stronger relief. Passion is revealed in his works indirectly and discreetly, but it is there, true, deep, and intensely moving. Schumann's muzic appeals to contemplative souls and serious minds, who are not content to remain on the surface of things, but know how to plunge into deep waters to seek the hidden pearl."

1. I did not say I hate Schumann. Quite the contrary, I said he's 'da man.
2. I should have been more clear. His music does not suck for the purposes of discussing theory and such. It's okay for that I suppose.
3. His music is great for wasting one's time.
4. His music is horrible to listen to or play.

[philb]

1. I did not say I hate Schumann. Quite the contrary, I said he's 'da man.
2. I should have been more clear. His music does not suck for the purposes of discussing theory and such. It's okay for that I suppose.
3. His music is great for wasting one's time.
4. His music is horrible to listen to or play.

Again, anyone who can dismiss Schumann's output as "a waste of time" really has no clue (or a soul to touch).

[chicoscalco]

1. I did not say I hate Schumann. Quite the contrary, I said he's 'da man.
2. I should have been more clear. His music does not suck for the purposes of discussing theory and such. It's okay for that I suppose.
3. His music is great for wasting one's time.
4. His music is horrible to listen to or play.

EDIT: ok i dont know why this didnt work, but I wanted to share Cortot's rendition of the Davidsbundlertanze. I think it's the best answer to that post.
And would someone please enlighten me on the pronunciation of this german word?

[awesom_o]

1. I did not say I hate Schumann. Quite the contrary, I said he's 'da man.
2. I should have been more clear. His music does not suck for the purposes of discussing theory and such. It's okay for that I suppose.
3. His music is great for wasting one's time.
4. His music is horrible to listen to or play.

Sounds like someone who doesn't play any chamber music! 

[diwang99]

For difficulty, Ricecar complete and memorized. I would say Goldberg variations is a massive piece.