The most difficult piece

[i_m_robot]

Actually, here's something for you to chew on.

ya I hate playing 28 against 17 in 10ths.  Especially 64th note 10ths.

um....


you're forgetting the ossai

[stebroccm]

The real question here is "how hard can a piece be and still be physically playable?" There is a point at which transcendental virtuosity morphs into unplayability, and honestly, i think this point was reached in the 19th century with the Hammerklavier, Brahms Paganini Variations, Feux Follets, and many other pieces of similar caliber.  Some later pieces may exceed these pieces' actual level of difficulty in terms of the time/effort/talent they take to prepare, but this is simply in virtue of them either being longer, or compressing more challenges of the same level into fewer measures.  Peoples' hands, at least to my knowledge, haven't evolved sufficiently in the past hundred years to allow people to do things with them that Liszt couldn't have done.  What HAS evolved is our methods of instruction (though maybe not in the USA), which allow many more people to play at a Lisztian level at earlier ages.

[lostinidlewonder]

There is a point at which transcendental virtuosity morphs into unplayability, and honestly, i think this point was reached in the 19th century with the Hammerklavier, Brahms Paganini Variations, Feux Follets, and many other pieces of similar caliber.

These peices aren't unplayable just tough to learn, but i think most people who play could play them with enough corectly focused effort. I find that the majority of music written before the 20th Century musically can be very tough to maintain, but note wise and physically speaking not so much since they all have this very traditional sound and movement. (Maybe not traditional when they where written but they have become the standard nowadays).

That isn't to say you are not left with your heart racing at the end and beads of sweat over your face in many peices, but this is more of a standard race rather than tiptoeing through abstractness. I personally find a big difference. I could play many pages of traditional music yet after a few pages of abstract music I will be either confused mentally forgetting what Ive been doing or trying desperately to hear some logic in the sound. If none of that then I enjoy spending the time reopening pathways to insanity

You have to be very interested in abstract stuff to really remember what you are doing, I think it can warp your mind, like playing blindfolded chess! I really think Scriabin Etude and Preludes are prety damn good, a lot of them boarderline abstractness but has a good mix of traditional stuff and Scriabiny stuff.

With the more abstract music, people could say it has great musical difficulty because of the unorthodoxed paths that they may take and the difficulty it poses for your memory, but you can be carelessness now and then in abstract music and get away with it, but with much more traditional music, clangers are so much more obvious and is detrimental to the presentation. You have to be more "perfect" in your playing.

Peoples' hands, at least to my knowledge, haven't evolved sufficiently in the past hundred years to allow people to do things with them that Liszt couldn't have done. What HAS evolved is our methods of instruction (though maybe not in the USA), which allow many more people to play at a Lisztian level at earlier ages.

Not only has our instruction improved but the technology developing our modern day piano's have improved dramatically allowing us a lot more fine control, more than Liszt would have ever experienced on the earlier pianos in the 19th century. There is no way we can compare ourselves against the old masters simply because the grounds which we stand on are totally different.

It makes me think about sport stars from the past. A really great baseball player from the 20s, would they have had a chance against the stars of today?? The comparison is impossible to define because of the difference in experience and training. So to say you will attain a Liszt technique just because you can play a handful or so of his is a little blasphemous.

You will move closer to  Liszt's technique if you learn to sight read anything at any tempo without error, improvise on notes anyone scribbles down on paper or play arpeggio movements spontaneously with infinite variation, complexity and shading and color. That is the tip of the iceberg which his musical ability was at. Physically he tormented the old pianos he played, breaking a great deal. So again I would think that if Liszt had better instruments and the musical knowledge which exists today, he would be probably blow the socks of us all in many more ways. But I think he already did in many ways.

[rachmaninoff_969]

Has anyone played Ligeti's piano concerto?  It is immensely difficult both technically and musically.  What do you guys and gals think?

[Sergey R]

Heh, I liked your "Misenchanted Prelude" Nightscape. And LOL, "with care" on that other thing.