I intend to take on Liszt's hardest etude

[cuberdrift]

Okay, so I've just completed my piano degree at our local conservatory and am in some kind of "hiatus", so-to-speak.

But deciding that I don't want to just stop playing, I've taken the opportunity to capitalise on practising custom pieces that I like.

Including this:

The notorious 1838 Etude no. 4 from Liszt's Paganini Studies!

So, any ideas on how to tackle this piece? I'm currently practising the first half.

Let's see how this goes lol. 

[soultrap]

Okay, so I've just completed my piano degree at our local conservatory and am in some kind of "hiatus", so-to-speak.

But deciding that I don't want to just stop playing, I've taken the opportunity to capitalise on practising custom pieces that I like.

Including this:

The notorious 1838 Etude no. 4 from Liszt's Paganini Studies!

So, any ideas on how to tackle this piece? I'm currently practising the first half.

Let's see how this goes lol. 

I wish you the best of luck!

I myself certainly don't have the balls to tackle this piece 

[cuberdrift]

I wish you the best of luck!

I myself certainly don't have the balls to tackle this piece 

Thanks!

Though it's mostly a matter of what you "want" I guess which should overcome the hurdles.

I find the opening section to be awkward on my hands and the piece as a whole is pretty insane - your hands are basically everywhere!

I'm thinking this is the bravura piece to end all the bravura pieces as for as Liszt goes lol.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think 2, 5 and 8 are really hard in the 1837 TEs. 12 is tough, but I've hacked my way through it, and maybe it's not the end of the world.

Iirc there is a decent live video recital performance of the original Paganini etudes (also by Nikolai Petrov) on YT.

This poll I made a while back might be of passing interest to you: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=63226.0

[cuberdrift]

I think 2, 5 and 8 are really hard in the 1837 TEs. 12 is tough, but I've hacked my way through it, and maybe it's not the end of the world.

Iirc there is a decent live video recital performance of the original Paganini etudes (also by Nikolai Petrov) on YT.

This poll I made a while back might be of passing interest to you: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=63226.0

Thanks for your answer.

Though I believe you intended to answer my other post in Repetoire?

Anyways, I will check out 2 5 and 8 and see which might be the hardest of the three.

Do you think each of these is harder than the hardest of the Paganini (and what is the hardest of that set Petrov played?)

And regarding the thread you linked, its a good one. But imho it isnt fair to bring up Alkan Concerto or 1837 Grand Etudes into a comparison lile that.

Simply because, those are sets of pieces. They are being compared to individual etudes or hard pieces.

So of course, playing through the 1 hour cycle of Grand Etudes is going to be harder than Islamey, since youre comparing a group to 1 piece.

Singling out the etudes or movements would be better imo.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It's difficult to give a definitive answer to the Paganini etudes question offhand. 4 is obviously pretty nasty, though really it only contains one main problem ie rapid chord reiteration in different positions. I think 2 and 5, in particular, of the 1837 TEs are possibly harder tbh, but that is quite possibly a reflection of my technical preferences and deficiencies.

[cuberdrift]

It's difficult to give a definitive answer to the Paganini etudes question offhand. 4 is obviously pretty nasty, though really it only contains one main problem ie rapid chord reiteration in different positions. I think 2 and 5, in particular, of the 1837 TEs are possibly harder tbh, but that is quite possibly a reflection of my technical preferences and deficiencies.

Okay:

Is the Paganini 4 harder than the hardest of the 1851 TEs?

Also is the Paganini 4 the hardest of all 1838 Paganinis (ok I know you answered this though I'm just making sure if you understood my question completely lol)?

I'm not looking for a detailed answer, just a "gut feel" one will satisfy my curiosity.

I apologise if I come across as too specific, I'm kind of OCD but simply just really want opinions on the hardest (single movement) Liszt work.

I'll alsi look into those 1837 TEs you mentioned and see how they compare to the Paganini 4.

And a bit offtopic but I'm fooling around with Le Preux now and I think Paganini 4 is harder. Admittedly I'm not playing them for real yet just fooling with the scores.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Okay:

Is the Paganini 4 harder than the hardest of the 1851 TEs?

Also is the Paganini 4 the hardest of all 1838 Paganinis (ok I know you answered this though I'm just making sure if you understood my question completely lol)?

I'm not looking for a detailed answer, just a "gut feel" one will satisfy my curiosity.

I apologise if I come across as too specific, I'm kind of OCD but simply just really want opinions on the hardest (single movement) Liszt work.

Hmm, I'd say that it probably comes down to individual preference and technical biases. 1838 PE4 probably the hardest of the set, competition from 6 though. I'd sooner tackle the 1838 PE4 than the 1837 Feux follets tbh, but others might differ.

As for Liszt's hardest single movement work, if you include transcriptions and paraphrases there certainly are other options, and I think the poll I quoted before covered some of them.

FWIW I found Le Preux both tiring and difficult from a few read-throughs, and it's also sufficiently musically negligible imo that I doubt I'll ever spend much further time on it.

[cuberdrift]

Hmm, I'd say that it probably comes down to individual preference and technical biases. 1838 PE4 probably the hardest of the set, competition from 6 though. I'd sooner tackle the 1838 PE4 than the 1837 Feux follets tbh, but others might differ.

As for Liszt's hardest single movement work, if you include transcriptions and paraphrases there certainly are other options, and I think the poll I quoted before covered some of them.

FWIW I found Le Preux both tiring and difficult from a few read-throughs, and it's also sufficiently musically negligible imo that I doubt I'll ever spend much further time on it.

Not trying to change your opinion or anything but I thought Le Preux was kind of fun.

It's somewhat more "interesting" than the Paganini 4 albeit being an odd 18 pages long. There are these three main sections (those octave jumps, the one with those sextuplet hand crossing thing and the interlocking chords).

I especially like those interlocking chords and I thought it was pretty neat for Alkan to do something like that.

How hard do you find Le Preux to be?

(All in all I find Alkan etudes in general to be something of a romped up Czerny...there's just.something "primal" about their appeal I guess. Good choice for people who like their pieces showy while avoiding Liszt).

[ronde_des_sylphes]

How hard do you find Le Preux to be?

(All in all I find Alkan etudes in general to be something of a romped up Czerny...there's just.something "primal" about their appeal I guess. Good choice for people who like their pieces showy while avoiding Liszt).

I like Alkan's op 39 very much, tbh.

As for the difficulty of Le Preux, my votes in the poll I cited were: it, the Concerto for solo piano, Fumagalli's lh only Robert le Diable, the 1837 TEs as a set, and Hexameron. I've either learnt or looked at, reasonably seriously, at least half of the items on the options, so I'd like to think that I answered with my eyes open, so to speak. Successfully playing them live is a tremendous feat imo.

[cuberdrift]

I like Alkan's op 39 very much, tbh.

As for the difficulty of Le Preux, my votes in the poll I cited were: it, the Concerto for solo piano, Fumagalli's lh only Robert le Diable, the 1837 TEs as a set, and Hexameron. I've either learnt or looked at, reasonably seriously, at least half of the items on the options, so I'd like to think that I answered with my eyes open, so to speak. Successfully playing them live is a tremendous feat imo.

Wow. How much time did it take you to do this? Did you get them to performance level?

I'm noodling around with the 1837 Feux Follets now. It seems certainly friendlier to the hands than the Paganini, albeit more "musically" complex. I wouldn't say either of them is much harder than the other I think.

There's kind of a reason I took an interest in the Paganini 4. The early versions of the later (revised) Transcendental etudes and Paganini etudes have more notes in them, but most of them sound the same to me (admittedly I haven't seriously listened to them all but this seems so).

So if they sound the same yet are harder, what difference would it make to give yourself a hard time? The exception is that 4th Paganini etude.

In the original set, Liszt had two versions of it, one with double notes and another with much less notes. I believe the third revised one in the collection is the easiest (while still not being easy of course itself), and, boy oh boy, did Liszt no longer include the 1838 double note one in his revised Paganini set. Lol.

So the Paganini 4 seems unique in this way, as it's the only one I know that differs greatly from its revised counterpart.

That being said, how do you see the 1837/8 etudes from their revised versions in terms of difference? Are there sections in the early ones that markedly differ from the late ones? Are there particular etudes (or parts of them) that you prefer in the earlier sets?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

To answer the various questions:

I got some of them to performance level (or perhaps to "played them in public, but would have been wiser if I hadn't" level..) I recorded the Thalberg La traviata, and that was a *real* challenge, even after weeks of concentrated practice).

By and large, I prefer the earlier version of the Paganini etudes. The one which is actually most different is no. 3, which I really like (either that, or I've heard La Campanella far too many times).

With the 1837 TEs, I guess the primary difference is that Liszt's revisions make them more concisely focussed (and of course, slightly easier). That said, there are some interesting things in the earlier versions which it is a shame to lose (eg in 4, 12).

[cuberdrift]

To answer the various questions:

I got some of them to performance level (or perhaps to "played them in public, but would have been wiser if I hadn't" level..) I recorded the Thalberg La traviata, and that was a *real* challenge, even after weeks of concentrated practice).

By and large, I prefer the earlier version of the Paganini etudes. The one which is actually most different is no. 3, which I really like (either that, or I've heard La Campanella far too many times).

With the 1837 TEs, I guess the primary difference is that Liszt's revisions make them more concisely focussed (and of course, slightly easier). That said, there are some interesting things in the earlier versions which it is a shame to lose (eg in 4, 12).

Ok, I'm back here again.

I apologise if I keep barraging you with these questions. I don't expect you to answer them at any particular time, so feel free to respond when you feel like it the most:

For you, what do you think are the very hardest works written by Liszt for the piano? Would you consider the I Puritani or S 253 (Grosse Konzertsolo uber Spanische Weisen) to be the most difficult, for instance? Are these harder or easier than his transcription of Beethoven No. 9? Etc.

Also, do you think Mereaux has some stuff that by far beats any Liszt etude (including any of the Grandes Etudes or the 1838 Paganini etudes) in terms of difficulty?

Finally - which do you think is more difficult, his Auber Tarantella or the El Contrabandista?

I also don't get why many people on Youtube keep insisting that people "can't play (hard early Liszt piece X) at the correct tempo". Where are these "correct tempos"? This is especially prevalent for the S140 no. 4. Apparently Liszt did not put any markings on it, as well as on many other pieces of his. I don't know what these people are referring to.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

With these pieces, I've not looked at them enough to be sure how I feel about them, and tbh a bit of personal technical preference is quite possibly going to be the defining factor. With the Auber, which I have looked at, in part that depends if you want to attack it a la Cziffra, or play it "normally". In the former case I'd say it's harder than the Contrabandista, but it's possible I'd change my mind if I made a serious attempt at learning either..

The Mereaux is a special case, because often I think he writes stuff in a deliberately perverse manner (eg 24), and some of the etudes strike me as not worth bothering with. It doesn't help that many of the extant "recordings" available online are midis.

Sorry if I can't be more helpful.