"Technical" vs. "Musical" difficulty

[cuberdrift]

This sort of dichotomy seems to get thrown around to abandon by pianists, so I'm going to ask you guys what exactly this means.

I think "technical" difficulty, judging by how people seem to bring it up, is - how hard is it to hit the right notes at the right time.

"Musical" difficulty - how hard it is to make a piece sound good (may be easy to hit the notes but hard to make them sound good, like Mozart).

Would this be correct?

What are your thoughts?

[brogers70]

Technical difficulty is the difficulty in making the piece sound the way you want it to sound. Musical difficulty is the difficulty in imagining the way you want it to sound in the first place.

[cuberdrift]

Technical difficulty is the difficulty in making the piece sound the way you want it to sound. Musical difficulty is the difficulty in imagining the way you want it to sound in the first place.

While that definition might fit your idea, that doesn't seem to be how most people think of the terms.

For example: people will say, "Oh Chopins tristesse? Technically thats EASY. Musically though its way harder than Waterfall. But man Waterfall - that things much tehcnically harder than Tristesse."

See here?

Tristesse is NOT easy to make it to sound like how you want it to sound. It takes some time. However, hitting its notes isnt a problem. So by your definition it would be technically hard; which doesnt seem to be a view of people.

When people bring up technical difficulty, they often seem to mean "getting around the notes", i.e. hitting them accurately.

This is why the often insist that "ohh La Campanella is way harder than Chopin etudes" even though it might be harder to hit right, but not as hard to hit well.

[thalbergmad]

To me there is no difference. If you bring mechanical difficulty into the equation, there is a difference.

[ahinton]

To me there is no difference. If you bring mechanical difficulty into the equation, there is a difference.

Precisely!

Best,

Alistair

[cuberdrift]

To me there is no difference. If you bring mechanical difficulty into the equation, there is a difference.

Ok, for you, what is "mechanical difficulty"?

[thalbergmad]

That is simply the difficulty in playing the notes without worrying about expression.

[ahinton]

That is simply the difficulty in playing the notes without worrying about expression.

Indeed; the term "technique" is all too often misused when "mécanique" is meant.

Best,

Alistair

[opus10no2]

Broadly speaking - to me, the more notes a piece has - the more easy it becomes for the pianist to use their expressive capabilities.

Since with the piano we are so limited with the expressive options we can do with a single note, as compared to other instruments.

Therefore - despite the piece having mechanical difficulties that can be difficult on their own terms to surmount - it becomes easier in a musical sense because the control and creativity demanded by each single note is less.

Things like Mozart sonatas and Chopin Mazurkas - they have less notes, bare textures. More focus on each individual note and therefore more meticulous musical creativity and control must be implemented in order for a performance to project nuance, complexity and interest in such deceptively 'simple' music.

In other words - the notes on the page may be simple but the performance must be layered, varied and complex - and this is the challenge.

[cuberdrift]

Broadly speaking - to me, the more notes a piece has - the more easy it becomes for the pianist to use their expressive capabilities.

Since with the piano we are so limited with the expressive options we can do with a single note, as compared to other instruments.

Therefore - despite the piece having mechanical difficulties that can be difficult on their own terms to surmount - it becomes easier in a musical sense because the control and creativity demanded by each single note is less.

Things like Mozart sonatas and Chopin Mazurkas - they have less notes, bare textures. More focus on each individual note and therefore more meticulous musical creativity and control must be implemented in order for a performance to project nuance, complexity and interest in such deceptively 'simple' music.

In other words - the notes on the page may be simple but the performance must be layered, varied and complex - and this is the challenge.

I agree.

Your post further re-affirms my theory: and that is, "how hard it is to hit the note" = technical/mehanical difficulty: "how hard it is to make that note sound good" = musical difficulty.

A scale run in Czerny is more difficult to play accurately than a handful of notes in the second movement of a Mozart sonata; but while you have to worry about only the general direction of the entire Czerny scale run, mess up just one of the few notes in the Mozart, and everything is changed.

[opus10no2]

Good points well made.

This offers a good example of what I mean.

Music must offer richness, and that richness depends upon more control and creativity when it comes to Music of deceptive simplicity like Chopin's Mazurkas.

They are meant to be played with subtle rhythmic and dynamic shadings, colours, and variations in voicing and pedalling.

I'm not saying more 'notey' and overtly complex music doesn't have it's difficulties - but there are more notes to work with and far less danger of sounding boring.

[brogers70]

While that definition might fit your idea, that doesn't seem to be how most people think of the terms.

I agree; my view is probably in the minority. Nonetheless, to me, the most important technical issue is being able to produce the sound you want to produce. Playing a lot of notes fast and accurately is not the only thing or even the most important thing about technique. If you focus on what it takes to control the sound in the way you want, you will probably, also, be able to play a lot of notes fast, but to me, that's secondary, more athleticism than technique.

[johnlewisgrant]

Usage varies from one person to the next, and thus it is hard to get clear on and ultimately agree on a conceptual distinction between "technical" and "musical" ability.

They probably overlap, at least in the sense that a lack of technical ability may limit a pianist's capacity to make music.  Alternatively, the better a pianist is technically, the more scope she or he has to make music.  Technical ability thus becomes a necessary but not sufficient condition of making music.

Then again, if you hold the view that aesthetic value--not only in music, but in all the arts--is something about which "objective" agreement is ultimately impossible, then you may find it difficult to draw a really firm distinction between the art and the craft of playing.

[chaseroberts2_]

I know I'm a bit late to this, but one piece I'd like to point out that I found to be very difficult musically is Schumann's Kinderszenen. The pieces themselves aren't hard technically, but take lots of listening and patience to figure out the markings and interpretation.