I met Ian Pace last summer and asked him how long it takes him to learn the diabolically difficult pieces he often performs. He told me that he received the sheets for Michael Finnisy's English country tunes about three weeks before he first performed the piece. For those who don't know the piece, it's about 50 minutes long and the score is about 250 pages. Here's a little sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wItuWEgs9Sc
(If you wish to follow the score, the music on the page starts around 0:30 in the video)

I'm always fascinated by tales of piano heroics.A couple that come to mind are:
Liszt sight reading Grieg's piano concerto in front of the composer to a very high standard and apparently passing comments as he went.
John Ogdon standing in for someone at the last minute and sight reading Brahms 2nd piano concerto.
Arthur Rubinstein learning Frank's Symphonic Variations on a train on the way to a concert in Spain and practising passages without the aid of a piano.

The story about a Juilliard,and Moscow Conservatory, graduate sight reading the Pathetique, and taking 15 years to master a Chopin etude addresses the issue in a nutshell, whether the poster realized it or not. Many advanced pianists can sight read practically anything. The notes aren't the difficult part. I'm sure that pianist had the etudes' notes under his fingers for many years, but his point was that it took an extraordinary amount of time to MASTER (key word) the work, (i.e. going beyond the notes). I doubt that pianist would claim that he could MASTER "Liebestraum", in a day.

Yes! I had dinner with a pianist who was quite capable of sight-reading pretty much anything. (He had worked for years as an opera coach in Europe and can read pretty much anything.)

I asked him how he learned to sight-read, and he said:

"Well, I had to sit down and the first dozen or so operas I played, but after you've learned 20 opears, the next 50 aren't so bad."

Then he thought for a second and added:

"And it takes a certain kind of concentration."

Yes, but in this case the Chopin Etude was one of the most difficult technically of the set, so just from a technical standpoint it could take a very long time. I think Liebestraum is much easier. I don't think many concert pianists would purposely choose to perform Liebestraum after only a day's practice, but I do think many could learn it very close to 100% technically and at least "good" from a musical standpoint in a day.

I think not only do good concert pianists have sightreading and technical abilities far greater than most, but their interpretive/musical are also much greater than most.

This pianist could play all of Op. 10 (I assume beyond just playing the notes on the page) and needed 15 years to master the technical difficulties of No. 2? I realize everyone's level of technical prowess varies, but, if that's the case I certainly raise my brow. Of course, Liebestraum, TECHNICALLY, is easier. That's just my point...it's not just about the notes! Music is an art. As a result the way you view it changes day to day...it's a continual learning experience (and if it's not then you should quit). One might feel they can "whip up" Liebestraume, in a day and it's programme worthy, but how much substance will it have? I've heard it a million times, so if it doesn't speak to me (and I think a person would be an extraordinary individual to hear and be able to relate all the composer has to say with any work in a day), then what's the point?

I believe that there has been formal academic work on this topic in which Gabriela Imreh participated. If you Google Chaffin/Gabriela Imreh you will find a number of papers/PDFs. They also produced a book which can be previewed (but boy is it expensive).

Practicing Perfection

See chapters six & ten.

If remember correctly they videoed and analysed every practice session from first play through to CD recording, I think for the presto of Bach's Italien Concerto which was 33 hours and I it mentions she learnt Claire de Lune in 4 hours as a comparison.

I'll admit to finding all of this fascinating. But it seems important to figure out your own learning strengths and styles = "Know Thyself!"

I agree with you. As I had said that a concert pianist will be able to play Liebestraum within a day both technically and musically (may not be the best, but, for sure, decent performace). However, with Op.10 No.2, I bet even a month, most concert pianists will be afraid of performing that Etude in front of public. It is hard to fake Op.10 No. 2.

I played 10/2 last year in an amateur electronic recital that's still accessible online. I suppose it's patently inferior to what 99.9% of professionals could do , but I wasn't embarrassed.

FWIW, I don't think it should be significantly more challenging than Liebestraum No. 3 for an expert reader to work up on short notice. The left hand is a very prosaic alternation of single notes or octaves with chords in a routine harmonic progression, and I don't think the right hand is so complex once it's grasped that it's almost entirely a chromatic scale played with 3-4-5.

Steven

I'm going to say a terrible thing now.

I think that very often what we call "substance" is merely a "boy scout difficult piano piece badge" that we award ourselves after spending huge amounts of time learning something. I don't think my months-long work on something that was difficult for me actually makes my performance better than that of the genius who can learn the same thing in three days or three minutes.

Some geniuses play mechanically rather than musically, but I think that's a different issue - because some of them really do play musically, right away.

And then there's people like me, who can play anything musically, with a lot of wrong notes

That's pretty much how I perceive myself as well. Musical understanding vs technical understanding. Some people seem to me to have just one or the other, while some seem to have both. But can guys like me (I play with often-shameful technique) actually learn to do exactly what the "wind-up piano action figures" do? Can the mechanical pounders learn to play music just as beautifully as [insert personal favourite here]? Or are we all more or less stuck as we are?

AND, most importantly: Am I making a false distinction here? Is it really all one skill, that I'm wrong to divide?

I listened to both of them....Nothing to be embarrassed, it is what it is.

No one plays musically right away. After learning to incorporate all the many facets of good musicianship into one's playing, then, perhaps, a person's playing is more immediately musical.
In regard to your first paragraph...were those three months spent on technical issues, or, were they spent searching for the composers voice and how best to convey what you believe he/she to be saying to your audience? Of course, you can't term simply covering the notes as "substance". There may, indeed, be more substance to your work than that of your "genius", who is able to pull off a technically sound, musical performance at a faster rate. Substance is not about the amount of time spent with a work or how polished your performance is. Substance is about getting behind the notes and speaking through the composer to your audience.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your grammar somehow, you have just directly contradicted yourself.

Leaving the technique vs musicality aside for a bit...
I remember the first time that I was presented with the sort of extraordinary skill that the op is refering to. I used to sometimes sit in on lessons with a student (piano major) just to observe.

I remember when I first heard this student play one of the later skriabin sonatas (can't remember which number, but i know it was a later one, but not Vers la Flamme) in his lesson. He played by memory while the professor and I followed the score; it was an exciting, accurate performance followed by a brief discussion on some minor interpretive points. It was (almost) the first time I had heard skriabin and his performance made me very excited about this composer. So I asked the professor "how long has student been learning this piece?". Answer, "A week". I can still remember how surprised and impressed I was, very inspiring

This student's piano playing, learning and memory skills would have been above most if not all of the students at the conservatory at that time, yea he was a top student, but I saw him eat and drink - definitely human.

My boyfriend learned two Ligeti etudes, L'escalier and Arc-en-ciel, in about a week (1-3 hours of practice per day) and performed them at the opening at a grand hall here.

He's also the only person I know who can learn a concerto such as the Chopin f minor in under three weeks and perform it with orchestra.

...I guess that explains your mood emoticon.

hahaahah.. YES =)

I can only speak from experience. To start, one for Sotto Voce. It took me 3 attempts to be able to perform Faure's Ballade. I was shocked by my first attempt as the performance made no sense whatsoever.

I can usually make a plausible performance of anything - on sight. Sometimes I play at full speed. Others I play at maybe 70%. Now I understand Liszt's mind, a relatively demonic score can seem easy to me. Conversely Liadov or Tanayev are unknown to me, so I would imagine there will be the learning curve of understanding the composer. For instance, the ballade is the only work I have played for Faure. It was of a difficulty that it needed to be taken seriously. Therefore the first performance threw me. The same thing happened when I first attempted Albeniz Iberian suite.

Invariably small issue points will materialise in all works. These need to be resolved. Even at concert standard, a single bar may take a whole year to resolve. There are three wider issues. Has the performance bedded down? What standard is the baseline for performance? Is greater familiarity with a chosen work going to "add some"?

I thought as much! Your boyfriend must have some crazy good skills...

I have it on very good authority that a piece of string is 43.2cm