hardest pianoist concertos

[aweshana21]

what are the hardest piano concertoes written?

[preludetr]

The hardest is probably some 20th century atonal work but apart from that, it would likely be the Busoni concerto. Not commonly performed as it is over an hour long and includes a male choir! I have heard that it is even harder than Rach 3, although of course I have not played either.

[jimroof]

Many believe that while the Rach 3 SOUNDS more difficult, the Brahms 2 is harder to play.  I am delving into it right now and it is NOT a very 'pianistic' work and some passages are almost impossible to play correctly.  It has fortissimo trills between a 2-4 group and 5 in the right hand, double arpeggios for which there is NO fingering to be found, and countless other quirky acts of piano playing that need the independent eyes of a chameleon to be assured of where hands are landing.

[chopinlover01]

The hardest? I believe that goes to the copy of the Liszt concerto written in diamond...

[rubinsteinmad]

As my great-great-not-so-great-grandfather (1721-1846) said in his distinct Russian accent,
    "The most difficult concerti in the common repetoire are the Rachmaninoff Concerto #3, the Prokofiev Concerto #2, the Bartok Concerto #3, and the Brahms Concerto #2. The most difficult commonly-played concerto that has been written at the present is the Henselt, but that is a work of trash."

[abel2]

As my great-great-not-so-great-grandfather (1721-1846) said in his distinct Russian accent,
    "The most difficult concerti in the common repetoire are the Rachmaninoff Concerto #3, the Prokofiev Concerto #2, and the Brahms Concerto #2. The most difficult commonly-played concerto that has been written at the present is the Henselt, but that is a work of trash."

I still think Prok 2 is overrated in difficulty. I know a highschooler who played it.

[rubinsteinmad]

I still think Prok 2 is overrated in difficulty. I know a highschooler who played it.

There are highschoolers who've played Rachmaninoff Concerto #3 as well.

[aweshana21]

Is bartok concerto no.2 hard?

[abel2]

Is bartok concerto no.2 hard?

Terribly

[abel2]

There are highschoolers who've played Rachmaninoff Concerto #3 as well.

Yeah but still. I gotta say Rach 3 is WAY harder.

[aweshana21]

i agree the rachamaninoff concerto is harder

[alkan2010]

Brahms no.2 and Busoni are the first that come in mind. Reger is another beast.
A special mention to Hummel's op. 89: not as difficult as the behemots of the late Romantic era, but an horrendously taxing work.

[thalbergmad]

Apart from the dogcrap atonal pieces, probably the Schytte. It is also difficult to imagine how the Zichy left hand concerto could be played. I would struggle with 2 hands.

Thal

[gep]

Apart from the dogcrap atonal pieces, probably the Schytte. It is also difficult to imagine how the Zichy left hand concerto could be played. I would struggle with 2 hands.

Thal

First of all, Zichy wrote the concerto for himself to play, so one must accept that at least he could play it (with one hand too, not having two!).

All best,
gep

[gep]

Apart from the dogcrap atonal pieces, probably the Schytte. It is also difficult to imagine how the Zichy left hand concerto could be played. I would struggle with 2 hands.

Thal

I always find it somewhat amusing when people say (or write) the term ‘atonal’ when speaking about music in the same tones as they would say ‘half a mouse’ when speaking about their dinner. As if there were as distinction between tonal and atonal music as absolute as between a dinner with or without half a mouse (and even in the latter case the distinction may not be as absolute as you think, or would hope).
There isn’t such a thing as tonal music and atonal music. There is only music, or varying chromatic colour, with various ways of making harmony. Rakhmaninov as considered by Joseph Haydn would be atonal as Hell, and possibly not even music at all. Rakhmaninov as considered by Xenakis is lame and flaccid.

In fact, no single composer ever wrote purely 100% tonal music (i.e. without any sharps or flats, other than in the key signature). And even then; strike a chord (in the key of C major) consisting of D,E,F. These notes are all in the C major scale. But is the chord therefor tonal or atonal? Please define. But even then; a pure ‘tonal’ chord (say C,E,G) is, strictly speaking, not pure in the equal temperament. And still, what is considered consonant or dissonant is nothing more but an agreement upon what is the one and what is the other. Based on musical theory and habit. These things have changed over time and will continue to change. People often think music has gotten more ‘atonal’ over history (i.e. since Bach or so). Try listening to Monteverdi. And quite a bit of Medieval music was consonant (ie tonal) according to the rules then, but would be considered dissonant now.

Pretty much all music other the Plainchant is about harmony. Key signatures and the ‘rules’ of it were only a fairly recent invention (16th Century). As such nothing essential different from Schönbergs system. Both ‘Classical’ tonality and, say, dodecaphony are systems, crutches to hang the music on. Most of the really worthwhile and enduring music is (in harmonic part) based on breaking the rules, rather than adhering to them. Both Bruckner’s and Mahler’s Ninths are firmly tonal, but harmonically they are far from simply being in this or that (or any) key. Messiaen’s music would for quite a lot of people be atonal, but his music is pretty much obsessed with harmony. You could say Boulez is ‘atonal’, but it’s all about how he does what with the notes he uses. That the result does or does not appeal is a question of personal tastes. Which one can try to develop, or take for granted as absolute. In the latter case, you’d be like someone who shudders at half a mouse in his dinner, but won’t mind if there’s cochineal in it, because he doesn’t (care to) know what it is.

all best,
gep

[ahinton]

I always find it somewhat amusing when people say (or write) the term ‘atonal’ when speaking about music in the same tones as they would say ‘half a mouse’ when speaking about their dinner. As if there were as distinction between tonal and atonal music as absolute as between a dinner with or without half a mouse (and even in the latter case the distinction may not be as absolute as you think, or would hope).
There isn’t such a thing as tonal music and atonal music. There is only music, or varying chromatic colour, with various ways of making harmony. Rakhmaninov as considered by Joseph Haydn would be atonal as Hell, and possibly not even music at all. Rakhmaninov as considered by Xenakis is lame and flaccid.

In fact, no single composer ever wrote purely 100% tonal music (i.e. without any sharps or flats, other than in the key signature). And even then; strike a chord (in the key of C major) consisting of D,E,F. These notes are all in the C major scale. But is the chord therefor tonal or atonal? Please define. But even then; a pure ‘tonal’ chord (say C,E,G) is, strictly speaking, not pure in the equal temperament. And still, what is considered consonant or dissonant is nothing more but an agreement upon what is the one and what is the other. Based on musical theory and habit. These things have changed over time and will continue to change. People often think music has gotten more ‘atonal’ over history (i.e. since Bach or so). Try listening to Monteverdi. And quite a bit of Medieval music was consonant (ie tonal) according to the rules then, but would be considered dissonant now.

Pretty much all music other the Plainchant is about harmony. Key signatures and the ‘rules’ of it were only a fairly recent invention (16th Century). As such nothing essential different from Schönbergs system. Both ‘Classical’ tonality and, say, dodecaphony are systems, crutches to hang the music on. Most of the really worthwhile and enduring music is (in harmonic part) based on breaking the rules, rather than adhering to them. Both Bruckner’s and Mahler’s Ninths are firmly tonal, but harmonically they are far from simply being in this or that (or any) key. Messiaen’s music would for quite a lot of people be atonal, but his music is pretty much obsessed with harmony. You could say Boulez is ‘atonal’, but it’s all about how he does what with the notes he uses. That the result does or does not appeal is a question of personal tastes. Which one can try to develop, or take for granted as absolute. In the latter case, you’d be like someone who shudders at half a mouse in his dinner, but won’t mind if there’s cochineal in it, because he doesn’t (care to) know what it is.

all best,
gep

It is a rare pleasure indeed to read a single post comprising so very much good sense as yours here; says it all, really!

OK, here's a test for people here. Imagine a chord whose notes, from bottom to top, are G#, F×, F# B natural and E natural (with an implied C# between the F× and the F#) - an example of quartal harmony that would not be especially out of place in Scriabin or early so-called "atonal" Schönberg; OK, who's the composer? I'll offer a clue; it occurs in a piece of piano music that ought to be rather well known to people here.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is a rare pleasure indeed to read a single post comprising so very much good sense as yours here; says it all, really!

Crawler.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

First of all, Zichy wrote the concerto for himself to play, so one must accept that at least he could play it (with one hand too, not having two!).

Why must one accept that he could play it just because he composed it. Schubert could not play his own Wanderer.

Anyway, I certainly cannot.

Thal

[ahinton]

Crawler.

Who is? On what grounds? And to whom or where?

Is it not legitimate to express what one thinks on this forum provided that it is not unduly insulting or illegal? I had assume that it was so but, if not, I'd better quit.

Whilt I'm still here, however, let's pick apart a thing or three in the post to which you appear to have found my response objectionable.

Gep wrote
I always find it somewhat amusing when people say (or write) the term 'atonal' when speaking about music in the same tones as they would say ‘half a mouse’ when speaking about their dinner. As if there were as distinction between tonal and atonal music as absolute as between a dinner with or without half a mouse (and even in the latter case the distinction may not be as absolute as you think, or would hope).
I suppose that much might depend upon whether or not one has a cat but, that aside, what seems to amuse him is what likewise bothers me, namely when people speak of piece of music or passages in such music as "atonal" as though "atonality" (a term detested by Schönberg) were some kind of eternal absolute rather than a matter of degree; one wonders what they use for ears.

He then notes
There isn’t such a thing as tonal music and atonal music. There is only music, or varying chromatic colour, with various ways of making harmony. Rakhmaninov as considered by Joseph Haydn would be atonal as Hell, and possibly not even music at all. Rakhmaninov as considered by Xenakis is lame and flaccid.
There's no sensible argument against the first two sentences here. Whether "atonality" could have been perceived by Haydn as "Hell"ish might be up for speculation and the question of what Haydn might have thought of Rakhmaninov or what Bach might have thought of Brahms or what Mozart and Liszt might have thought of Schönberg pinching their ideas for 12-tone melodies is open to possible debate, as indeed would be what Xenakis (who adored Brahms, incidentally) might have thought of Rakhmaninov (which prompts me to recall what the audience at a London Prom concert might have thought of the programme that pitched Xenakis's Nomos Gamma and Ais against Rakhmaninov's The Isle of the Dead before ending with Shostakovich's 9th Symphony!) - but gep's first two sentences here are really beyond argument. What can "atonal" music be other than music with no tones? - for that is what the term literally means!

He continues
In fact, no single composer ever wrote purely 100% tonal music (i.e. without any sharps or flats, other than in the key signature). And even then; strike a chord (in the key of C major) consisting of D,E,F. These notes are all in the C major scale. But is the chord therefor tonal or atonal? Please define. But even then; a pure ‘tonal’ chord (say C,E,G) is, strictly speaking, not pure in the equal temperament. And still, what is considered consonant or dissonant is nothing more but an agreement upon what is the one and what is the other. Based on musical theory and habit. These things have changed over time and will continue to change. People often think music has gotten more ‘atonal’ over history (i.e. since Bach or so). Try listening to Monteverdi. And quite a bit of Medieval music was consonant (ie tonal) according to the rules then, but would be considered dissonant now.
What arguments would you put up against any of this?

Lastly, he writes
Pretty much all music other the Plainchant is about harmony. Key signatures and the 'rules' of it were only a fairly recent invention (16th Century). As such nothing essential different from Schönbergs system. Both 'Classical' tonality and, say, dodecaphony are systems, crutches to hang the music on. Most of the really worthwhile and enduring music is (in harmonic part) based on breaking the rules, rather than adhering to them. Both Bruckner's and Mahler's Ninths are firmly tonal, but harmonically they are far from simply being in this or that (or any) key. Messiaen's music would for quite a lot of people be atonal, but his music is pretty much obsessed with harmony. You could say Boulez is 'atonal', but it's all about how he does what with the notes he uses. That the result does or does not appeal is a question of personal tastes. Which one can try to develop, or take for granted as absolute. In the latter case, you'd be like someone who shudders at half a mouse in his dinner, but won't mind if there's cochineal in it, because he doesn't (care to) know what it is.
Again, why not put forward logical arguments against any or all of this if you have any. Schönberg was steeped in tradition and schooled his students in the works of Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahs et al and, when described once as an auto-didact, famously riposted that, au contraire, he was a pupil of Mozart!". Messiaen was likewise steeped in Franck, Debussy, Roussel, Ravel and others and even Boulez, despite somje of his early trenchant pronouncements that might be seen as having give rise to something of a detour from the late 40s to the early 60s, was likewise indebtedted to his major French forebears and also went on to conduct the work of a number of composers including Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler as well as that of some of his earlier compatriots.

Come on, Thal; tell us what you don't agree with in gep's post (or indeed what I've written above). That would be much more interesting than an empty single word, non-response!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Why must one accept that he could play it just because he composed it. Schubert could not play his own Wanderer.

Well, no, he couldn't and of course one would therefore not acept such a premise but that's not the point; the case cited by gep was about a composer who specifically wrote something for himself to play, which is hardly what Schubert did in his Wanderer Fantasy!

Anyway, what about that chord that I mentioned in reply #15? I really thought that you might be the first to identify it, and prontissimo at that! Also, what key do you think that it's "in"?...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Why must one accept that he could play it just because he composed it. Schubert could not play his own Wanderer.

Anyway, I certainly cannot.

Thal

Granted. I will rephrase. Schubert could not play his own Wanderer, but was pianist enough to know that it would be playable by a good pianist (or, considering your remark, by a pianist better then himself, of which he most likely knew a few). Experience from own capacities might let a composer extrapolate to what is playable by others, if and when not by himself. Since Zichy, by what I read of him, was an experienced left-hand player, he may very well have been able to extrapolate if, when not he himself, someone else could play it. Moreover, Zichy lived and wrote at a time when composers were often well experienced musicians themselves, and performing artists, and as such of their own work. As such, perhaps more practically inclined than some present-day ones. From that, I would surmise that Zichy, when writing such a singular work (how many one-hand piano concertos existed at the time? I read his may be the first), will most likely have taken his own capacities as starting point, because how big was the chance someone else would perform such a work (even when it had been an easy one). Perhaps he could not play it himself, but I would think he would perhaps have than taken what he could play and stretched it just that bit further, perhaps to the limit of what was deemed possible or just beyond. The history of music is filled with music that was once (in its time) deemed unplayable, such as the Paganini and Tchaikovsky Violin Concertos. Consider the music of Alkan. There are some one-hand Etudes by the latter which, judging from the sound and print, will have met only bafflement upon its appearance. Quite a few pieces once thought of the pinnacle of unplayabillity are now played by kinds, usually Chinese ones. When you believe things are impossible, they are. It just takes someone who doesn’t know it’s unplayable. Take the Franz Schmidt Piano Concerto for the Left Hand, it even got, during the composer’s lifetime!, arranged for two hands by Wührer. But it is playable with the left hand alone, if only by a pianist of amazing powers such as Carlo Grante. How Wittgenstein fared by it I do now know, but Grante plays it as if by three hands, rather than one. So one must assume that Schmidt knew it would be possible. Since Zichy himself was a capable one-arm baron, I do assume he was able to at least calculate the limits of the possible. In my limited experience I have seen musicians play music with two hands that I would have thought impossible for not that long ago.

For practical matters, does a score of the work exist? What you write elsewhere suggesting it may not (you state that there are no parts). It is mentioned as published (UE 1902), but that refers to the reduction? If lost, this would be a great pity, but in that case, if a reduction does exist, a performable version could perhaps be made, and the work performed by someone like Hamelin, as you suggest.

All best,
gep

[thalbergmad]

As far as j am aware, a full score does not exist and if it did, it should be kept as far away as possible from Hamelin who would probably turn it into a midi, as he did Rubinstein 4.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Come on, Thal; tell us what you don't agree with in gep's post (or indeed what I've written above).

The point i was making does not concern his post but your response.

As soon as he writes something, you are all over him like a besotted schoolgirl.

Thal

[richard black]

Prokofiev 2nd is a pretty strong contender.

[ahinton]

The point i was making does not concern his post but your response.

As soon as he writes something, you are all over him like a besotted schoolgirl.

You really do write some rubbish sometimes! If someone writes something interesting enough to comment on, I may well comment on it; that someone could as easily be youo as anyone, so why not make a little more effort?

There's also no harm in agreeing with what someone has written (and disagreeing with certain aspects thereof).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I ought perhaps also to add that much of what gep has written here about the myths and misunderstandings of tonality are broadly identical (other, perhaps, than in the manner of their expression) to what I have previously written on the subject - but what would I know about it? I'm a mere composer, after all!...

Best,

Alistair

[medtnaculus]

Probably not among the hardest but Schmitt's Symphonie Concertante is very hard for both the pianist and orchestra. Probably why it isn't played so often.

It also has some of the most epic moments I've ever heard in a concerto.

[ahinton]

Probably not among the hardest but Schmitt's Symphonie Concertante is very hard for both the pianist and orchestra. Probably why it isn't played so often.

It also has some of the most epic moments I've ever heard in a concerto.

Not the greatest of piano concertos but undoubtedly a work well worthy of far more performances than it gets.

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Hardest? Hardest how?
To play convincingly? Or to play the notes in the right order? These are two different things. You could play a passage marked pianissimo and leggierissimo and double forte and get all the notes right, but it hardly conveys the intent of the composer.
To play convincingly, I suspected Thal might advocate for the Schumann, since he presumably doesn't think it can be played convincingly.
I haven't the slightest clue what the "A priori" truth is in this particular case, but I suspect it's some obscure concerto none have heard of (not that that would take any value away, of course).

[medtnaculus]

Not the greatest of piano concertos but undoubtedly a work well worthy of far more performances than it gets.

Best,

Alistair

Though slightly inconsistent, it is a personal favourite of mine.

On a side note if you ever have any similar recommendations to Schmitt I'm all ears -- especially something much like Crepuscules, Ombres or Ravel's Gaspard.

In terms of other concertos (not related), I've heard praise for Bridge's Phantasm as well as Goossens' Phantasy Concerto though they didn't make too much of an impact upon my very first listen. Perhaps I'll give them another go later.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The one I've just finished writing

Just kidding; it's not that bad.

I'd say the Reger and Henselt. The Schytte looks comparatively manageable, though stamina might be an issue in the last movement.

[rubinsteinmad]

I'd say the Reger and Henselt.

My grandfather once told me and my brother: "The Henselt is a work of trash."

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I had no idea your grandfather was Glenn Gould.

I forgot to mention that the Liszt Malediction is clearly harder than the "reputable" Liszt concerti, imo.

[thalbergmad]

My grandfather once told me and my brother: "The Henselt is a work of trash."

Perhaps he had tried to play it and failed, so it sounded like trash.

It was however far in advance of anything written at the time and its neglect no doubt has more to do with the demands made of the soloist, than the soaring and powerfull romanticism of the music.

Thal