The issue on "difficulty" in music

[cuberdrift]

After having joined da SDC, I've found out that the people there are less than eager to contribute any sort of insight into whether piece X is harder than piece Y.

To sum up roughly, it seems that the general gist of it is that it is pointless to try to come up with any worthwhile conclusions since it is simply not possible to find out a sure answer.

This I have no problem agreeing with; however, I think that to consider such topics as lacking any sort of capacity to lead to informative discussions is simply questionable. Isn't difficulty in music one big reason why it is performed live?

I am just going to quote my post there and see if anyone here has anything to share on the matter.

So, apparently some people in other forums - and most here (it seems) - are against the concept of debating difficulty in pieces.

While I will admit without a second thought that there will be no serious conclusion to such topics, I still find myself questioning this sort of contradiction.

This is because, of what we can observe, difficulty surely matters in music. I think part of the very essence of musical performance is the human feat of performing something difficult to play, or some stunt-work/acrobatics involved. This is the issue with “virtuosity” and “showmanship” - this is viewed as having little to do with the music’s emotional or intellectual content (which tends to seem why Bach and Beethoven are often contrasted with “display” music like Liszt’s early paraphrases), but as a whole package, the feat achieved by a performer of having mastered and performed LIVE something that is known by mankind as something that requires a lot of dedication and patience does matter.

In short, what I am saying is that I still am struggling to find out the reason why some people stray from discussions on repertoire difficulty, when repertoire difficulty is in the first place on of the main components of why people watch performers. Part of why someone is interested in the Opus Clavicembalisticum is this very reason, and the fact that this occurs despite a lot of people seeming to have a hard time “seeing any music” behind it just proves that it is a very real thing to appreciate something that is simply hard to perform.

So, I’d like to know your thoughts on this. Like I said, I am not going to capitalise on posting difficulty threads because I already see that they are not going to bear much fruit. So I figured to address the core of the issue at hand, to find out your views on the bigger picture.

I'd be eager to listen to your views.

Regards,
cuberdrift

[ahinton]

The problem here, as I've written previously, is that things that are difficult for some will not be so for others. Then there's the question of mechanical / hand/eye co-ordination difficulty (which is usually what's referred to in such discussion) as distinct from musical / interpretative difficulty. It's a minefield, for reasons including but not limited to those.

Best,

Alistair

[ranjit]

The problem here, as I've written previously, is that things that are difficult for some will not be so for others. Then there's the question of mechanical / hand/eye co-ordination difficulty (which is usually what's referred to in such discussion) as distinct from musical / interpretative difficulty. It's a minefield, for reasons including but not limited to those.

Best,

Alistair

Playing devil's advocate here:
While this is somewhat true, there are situations in which most people would agree that one piece is easier than the other -- Fur Elise vs Winterwind, for example. If such a 'coarse' distinction can be made, then it stands to reason that finer distinctions could be made as well.

An analogy could be made to intelligence. While intelligence as a concept is very hard to quantify, it is easy to differentiate between extremes of the spectrum. Researchers have subsequently come up with several measures of intelligence with high predictive validity.

[ahinton]

there are situations in which most people would agree that one piece is easier than the other -- Fur Elise vs Winterwind, for example

...or Chopin's A major Prélude vs Sorabji's Opus Archimagicum. Yes, of course; the issue then, though, is the extent to which that might be thought to matter.

Best,

Alistair

[ranjit]

...or Chopin's A major Prélude vs Sorabji's Opus Archimagicum. Yes, of course; the issue then, though, is the extent to which that might be thought to matter.

Best,

Alistair

Please read the entirety of what I said. My point was this:

If such a 'coarse' distinction can be made, then it stands to reason that finer distinctions could be made as well.

I mean, no one is saying that difficulty of playing a piece is simply playing the notes. You could have a few 'types' of difficulties, and average them out to get an 'average' difficulty score. If we can differentiate between 'easy' and 'hard', we should be able to make more fine-grained distinctions, as well.

[ranjit]

Also, if some techniques come easier to some people than others, it does not mean that we can not come up with an "objective" measure/measures of difficulty. More facility with a particular subset of skills can translate to a higher subscore.

For example, if you have especially good octave technique, Hungarian Rhapsody no. 6 might be relatively easy for you to play (subjective difficulty). But, the "objective" difficulty of the piece would be the same. So, you could look at the hypothetical "rating" of the piece, and think "gee, this piece has a 9/10 octave difficulty rating, but the rest seems ok. and I think I can handle an octave-rated-9 piece".

[dogperson]

Don’t you assess the difficulty of music by reading it away from the piano?  I,e., hmmm grade 8ish with 10 measures of rapid octaves in both hands. Conclusion: a little tougher for me than grade 8 as octave technique is a weakness or ‘no big deal with the octaves’

I see no reason to come up with more than this unless you want to write a book about grading repertoire and that has been done many times.  I just have a ton of music I want to play  and this is what works for me.... with a little advice from my teacher.  I have no need to be objective or to think about the difficulty of more than a few pieces at a time and no desire to have a big project of it.  If I were a teacher, my perspective might be quite different: use graded repertoire sources, add my notes and keep a tracker by grade.

Sorry to be a spoilsport but I doubt my perspective will slow anyone down with this project. I wouldn’t expect it to.  Carry on

[ahinton]

Please read the entirety of what I said. My point was this:
I mean, no one is saying that difficulty of playing a piece is simply playing the notes. You could have a few 'types' of difficulties, and average them out to get an 'average' difficulty score. If we can differentiate between 'easy' and 'hard', we should be able to make more fine-grained distinctions, as well.

I did read it, otherwise I would not have responded as I did and still do.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Also, if some techniques come easier to some people than others, it does not mean that we can not come up with an "objective" measure/measures of difficulty. More facility with a particular subset of skills can translate to a higher subscore.

For example, if you have especially good octave technique, Hungarian Rhapsody no. 6 might be relatively easy for you to play (subjective difficulty). But, the "objective" difficulty of the piece would be the same. So, you could look at the hypothetical "rating" of the piece, and think "gee, this piece has a 9/10 octave difficulty rating, but the rest seems ok. and I think I can handle an octave-rated-9 piece".

OK, but I ask again, what is the point of this kind of exercise? How might it help anyone to do what?

Best,

Alistair

[ranjit]

Don’t you assess the difficulty of music by reading it away from the piano?  I,e., hmmm grade 8ish with 10 measures of rapid octaves in both hands. Conclusion: a little tougher for me than grade 8 as octave technique is a weakness or ‘no big deal with the octaves’

I see no reason to come up with more than this unless you want to write a book about grading repertoire and that has been done many times.  I just have a ton of music I want to play  and this is what works for me.... with a little advice from my teacher.  I have no need to be objective or to think about the difficulty of more than a few pieces at a time and no desire to have a big project of it.  If I were a teacher, my perspective might be quite different: use graded repertoire sources, add my notes and keep a tracker by grade.

Sorry to be a spoilsport but I doubt my perspective will slow anyone down with this project. I wouldn’t expect it to.  Carry on

Fair enough. Commonly used "grades" (ABRSM, Henle) would work well enough for a general idea of difficulty, and someone who wants something more specific may as well look at the score. A measure of difficulty beyond a point wouldn't really serve a purpose.

The only place I can see this being useful is if the information is being fed to a computer for analysis.

EDIT: Well, now that I think of it, this would ultimately end up similar to coming up with keywords/metadata to describe an article.

[dogperson]

should have written as well that I disagree with the initial thesis that the essence of musical performance is the human feat of performing something difficult to play.

This is not the essence of any performance I would want to attend or listen to the recording of; rather the essence of a musical performance is to hear beautiful music performed so that it stores the soul.

If I merely want virtuosity and a technical feat, I’ll attend the circus and watch the high wire act.  It frankly doesn’t matter to me if I am the only one in the world that feels this way, but I find it disheartening that a performance major graduate sees it differently.

If I thought learning to play was only as a technical feat, I would lock the fallboard

[ted]

This is not the essence of any performance I would want to attend or listen to the recording of; rather the essence of a musical performance is to hear beautiful music performed so that it stores the soul.

Well put, and exactly how I feel about both live performance and recordings. Technique in improvisation is a two-edged sword. It has to be there, of course, and well in excess of what is required for idea generation, but improvising for gymnastics and improvising for music are very different, and the former should never substitute for the latter.

[cuberdrift]

The problem here, as I've written previously, is that things that are difficult for some will not be so for others. Then there's the question of mechanical / hand/eye co-ordination difficulty (which is usually what's referred to in such discussion) as distinct from musical / interpretative difficulty. It's a minefield, for reasons including but not limited to those.

Best,

Alistair

Thanks for your insight.

My view: Well, that's why I'm not considering an objective kind of exercise. I understand the opinions of people will differ as to the difficulty of the music, but statistics will still end up saying something useful (or at least informative) imho. If Chopin's octave etude, for instance, is considered by 49 out of 50 pianists to be his hardest etude, than that 1 person probably had an unusually good octave technique.

I think both ahinton and ranjit have useful ideas here. Actually, the whole issue I have is that the discussion of difficulty of repertoire necessitates what I feel to be a useful and interesting discussion, which tends to leads to talks on how these difficulties are handled, why one person think it is difficult for him while another does not, etc.

Furthermore, more significantly, I have not yet seen a convincing argument that negates the essentiality of how hard a piece is to its reputation. Why does the Alkan Solo Concerto or Rach 3 get mentioned a lot? Are they more beautiful or transcendental than any of the Beethoven or Mozart concertos? Maybe not. But it's because they're "hard". And it brings a sort of excitement to viewers if one would be the first pianist to play, for instance, the Alkan Concerto, because viewers are wondering whether he will give a masterful performance DESPITE the difficulties involved; the triumph appears greater since the piece is knowably difficult.

should have written as well that I disagree with the initial thesis that the essence of musical performance is the human feat of performing something difficult to play.

This is not the essence of any performance I would want to attend or listen to the recording of; rather the essence of a musical performance is to hear beautiful music performed so that it stores the soul.

If I merely want virtuosity and a technical feat, I’ll attend the circus and watch the high wire act.  It frankly doesn’t matter to me if I am the only one in the world that feels this way, but I find it disheartening that a performance major graduate sees it differently.

If I thought learning to play was only as a technical feat, I would lock the fallboard

I never said it was the "ONLY" essence, but it's still a component of it. Why then, are many familiar with that famous story of Dreyshock playing the Revolutionary in octaves? Or Chopin's Minute Waltz being turned to thirds by Rosenthal? Or Cziffra's version of the Bumblebee? Does it make them more musical? Not necessarily. But it DOES make them sound more "impressive", which is the point.

Then there is Liszt, who famously started the tradition of playing the piano sideways for audiences to see him. I even think it's to see his hands. Whenever I listen to some of his early bravura pieces on audio only, I always think, "it's not that interesting to just hear. I think these were composed to be SEEN". These pieces just aren't going to be that effective unless the audience sees the flying hands of the pianist, which Liszt seemed to have understood, and aimed for. Does it change, in anyway, the music (sound)? Of course not. But the visual appeal - the stunt work - is taken into account.

One goes to hear music mainly because of the enjoyment and emotion it brings, but there are times when one is curious about it partly because it is so hard and he'd like to see how far the pianist goes.

Don't get me wrong here: Again, I never said I listen to music because it is difficult. I sometimes do, sometimes don't. It's kind of part of the package. It's that feeling of surprise and shock you feel when you see Oscar Peterson go into a frenzy improv, or Cziffra do a cascading run that sounds like rockets being shot into the sky; it sounds impressive, and it is an impressive feat.

[visitor]

 i used to think hotcross buns was difficult, i don't think so anymore, somewhere there are people who think it's harder than mary had a little lamb, there are also those that think it's the other way around, there are those that think both are difficult, and those who don't think either is difficult. 

[fftransform]

ahahah u pozted dat on da SDC?

deze threadz are da worzt

[lostinidlewonder]

To define difficulty clearly you would have to write out an entire detailed timeline for how to practice a piece from start to finish including all drills, fingerings, pattern observations and more. For online discussion people are often not serious enough to go though such detail with a single work.

A piece which would take someone 100 years to master vs a piece which would take them 2000 years, there is a difference in difficulty even though they probably would die before completing either. Increasing the amount of study you do every day and working on building your playing and learning skills will have a dividing effect on this time. So if one simply studies exclusively only the impossible piece and nothing else then they may never complete the work, but if they go ahead and build up their skills with other more efficient to learn materials then they may get to a point were they can play the piece which was in the past for them impossible.

This then increases the complexity of presenting the difficult of a piece. It should not only be viewed as approaching the piece directly but we can also measure its difficulty but how we approach it side on, that is building our skills elsewhere so we may be better equipped to contend with it. That then becomes a very difficult question to answer in details since each person would be different in this area.

[ahinton]

To define difficulty clearly you would have to write out an entire detailed timeline for how to practice a piece from start to finish including all drills, fingerings, pattern observations and more. For online discussion people are often not serious enough to go though such detail with a single work.

A piece which would take someone 100 years to master vs a piece which would take them 2000 years, there is a difference in difficulty even though they probably would die before completing either. Increasing the amount of study you do every day and working on building your playing and learning skills will have a dividing effect on this time. So if one simply studies exclusively only the impossible piece and nothing else then they may never complete the work, but if they go ahead and build up their skills with other more efficient to learn materials then they may get to a point were they can play the piece which was in the past for them impossible.

This then increases the complexity of presenting the difficult of a piece. It should not only be viewed as approaching the piece directly but we can also measure its difficulty but how we approach it side on, that is building our skills elsewhere so we may be better equipped to contend with it. That then becomes a very difficult question to answer in details since each person would be different in this area.

Fair comments, not least to the extent of their pointing up the sheer complexity and wide-ranging nature of the subject.

You write
"This then increases the complexity of presenting the difficult[y] of a piece. It should not only be viewed as approaching the piece directly but we can also measure its difficulty but how we approach it side on, that is building our skills elsewhere so we may be better equipped to contend with it."
Although mention is admittedly slightly off-topic, I have said before that a pianist who has fully mastered WTC, the last five Beethoven piano sonatas, the études of Chopin, Liszt and Alkan and Godowsky's Studien über die Etüden von Chopin is arguably equipped to tackle almost anything and everything in the piano repertoire, from Scarlatti to Finnissy and from Haydn to Sorabji.

Best,

Alistair

[cuberdrift]

I don't care that much for a strict, scientific "assessement" of difficulty. THAT to me seems like going further than needed.

Personally I go with simple measurements like how long it would take one to get a piece to his performing standard. I think that's a pretty crude but reasonable way to look at this. It's really nothing scientific or scholarly, just a sharing of personal viewpoints and struggles.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't care that much for a strict, scientific "assessement" of difficulty. THAT to me seems like going further than needed.

That seems irrational though.

Personally I go with simple measurements ..... sharing of personal viewpoints and struggles.

Sharing personal viewpoints and personal struggles in fine though my own personal viewpoint would be different to someone else and I may miss a lot of challenges others might find which I find quite routine and not a challenge worth mentioning from my perspective. It seems logical to define difficulty to actually show what work needs to be done to complete the piece. Lay it all out and one can assess themselves which parts are routine and which ones will require more attention.

Sure connecting all the ways in which one could build their skills with other works, theory or exercises etc and the impact they all have on the difficulty of particular pieces takes the issue probably way too far for a discussion (something that would be more relevant in actual lessons with a teacher as you contruct a personal syllabus to work from).