Tempest, Appasionata, Moonlight sonata?

I have been playing piano for about 4 years but unsure what piece to learn next. Pieces i have learned are waltz in c sharp minor by Chopin, arabesque 1 by Debussy, polonaise "militaire" by Chopin, flight of the bumble bee by rimsky and im currently learning impromptu 90 no.4 by Schubert.

The pieces im considering are:

Sonata no. 17 "tempest" 1st movement
Sonata no. 17 "tempest" 3rd movement
Piano sonata no. 23 "appassionata" 3rd movement
Piano sonata no. 14 "moonlight sonata" 3rd movement

I would like to know the opinion on difficulty of these pieces from easiest to hardest and what and why you picked that order.

Also if you have recommendations pieces that i might like that are alike to some of these i just mentioned, your more then welcome to give your opinion.

Thank you ahead of time.

You should try them all (make sure to try the hard parts and not only the first few bars) and decide for yourself.

Have you learned the Pathetique?
The appassionata is tricky, tricky...so is the moonlight
The tempest is easiest IMHO but it's certainly not easy

David gave you the right answer.

The Appassionata is certainly the hardest. Between the others, different people might have different opinions. Anyway, all three sonatas are very hard.

Tempest is more difficult than Moonlight.

My reasons:

For the Moonlight, things are relatively straightforward. If you can handle the basic arpeggio technique, the only remaining awkward bit is the octave trill.

For the first movement of the Tempest, you have to be able to control the tempo carefully as the texture changes, as well as handle the triplet figure, which in my experience, tends to be more problematic for most students than the more straightforward Moonlight figuration.

For the last movement of Tempest, tempo control is again an issue, and accuracy becomes difficult when the notes fall outside a comfortable hand position. Plus, the pacing is quite difficult - you have to be able to control a somewhat limited dynamic range with a lot of subtlety, or else the emotional trajectory of the piece is lost.

And if I may make a suggestion or two that might be worth a look, I'd suggest Beethoven Op. 10#1, Haydn sonata in b minor, or one of the Op. 45 Heller studies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMhNGtaOT5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9T7SUWZFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTJI2d1CcI

More people should seriously give Heller Op. 45 a look - Heller was highly respected in Parisian circles and used to hang out with Chopin and Liszt, both of whom held him in high regard.

Hi Maverick91,
I'd say, from easiest to hardest:

1 Sonata no. 17 "tempest" 3rd movement
2 Sonata no. 17 "tempest" 1st movement
2' Piano sonata no. 14 "moonlight sonata" 3rd movement
4 Piano sonata no. 23 "appassionata" 3rd movement

2 and 2' are more or less equivalent, with maybe a bit more difficulty for the 2 (tempest). But 4 is significantly more difficult, I'd say.
chobeethaninov's suggestion is very good. Have you tried the Pathetique ? Both the 1st and the 3rd movements fit your level well, I'd say. I think I played the polonaise militaire more or less at the same time as I played the 1st movement of the Pathetique. Anyways, you can try any of them, except the appassionata.

I agree with natty. I'm learning the tempest now and I find the 1st movement much harder than the 3rd. (I'm only halfway through the 2nd). I cannot play the first movement for nuts (a lot more work is required) but I think I can do a decent job of the third with some polishing.

heller kinda reminds me of schumann...

having played the moonlight and the tempest every single movement i think the moonlight is much easier than the tempest. Obviously the appasionata is much harder than the other 2 mentioned

I am playing through the Tempest right now and the 3rd movement is considerably easier than the 1st, IMO. The 3rd mvt fits very nicely under the fingers and there are no awkward jumps or stretches. The 1st movement has more technical challenges and is more difficult to execute in terms of expression.

The Moonlight was the first Beethoven Sonata I ever attempted and for good reason. Although the 3rd movement is terribly quick, it feels great under the fingers (apart from a couple of the trills). It is so well written, idiomatically speaking, for the piano that playing it quickly isn't a problem.

The Appassionata is a whole different beast as far as I'm concerned. It is a real pianistic Tour de Force and requires great control, agility, power and stamina. It is easily the hardest of the Op's list, in my opinion.

But......

IMO discussions like this can be very misleading because sometimes the difficulties aren't that obvious. And of course a lot of people don't care about those but if we do, it kind of turns our stomachs when we see people saying the pieces are 'easy' or 'not that hard.'

Like, the last movement of the Tempest: It's very, very hard to play without making it sound like the rhythm is wrong. More detail upon request -- but I think a lot of people will know exactly what I mean. So, here's the question: If someone plays the piece because he thinks it's easy, and he gets all the notes -- but makes it sound like the rhythm is wrong, is he really "getting" it? Or is it actually a lot harder than he realizes?

More detail please. It might help me if I'm playing it wrong now.

There are 3 beats per measure. A lot of people, including the great majority of people who aren't at the very most advanced level, make it sound like 2.

The reason is, the two hands 'come together' on the weak half of the 2nd beat, which makes it sound like that's where the beat is.

Another way of putting it: It makes each measure sound like 2 groups of 3, rather than 3 groups of 2.

P.S. Someone might say, it's also wrong to say "3 groups of 2," because we really should be making it an even flow of 6 notes.
And that's sort of true. But there's still the fact (FACT) that if you aren't aware of the pitfall, you'll be making it sound like 2 groups of 3 -- you'll be making it sound like 2 beats per measure, which is awful. If you want to call the alternative (i.e. the "correct" thing) just a continuous group of 6, rather than 3 groups of 2, that's fine.

If I were you, I'd learn the Pathetique instead of all these tricky, tricky pieces. It fits under the hand, it's not too terribly difficult (but it's not boringly easy at all), it's musically very rewarding, and yes, although it's played to death, but it still holds a certain charm...

I agree with everything you say there Mark. I always felt a very strong 3 beat feel and I always bring that out strongly in my interpretation. I didn't find that aspect of it very difficult. As far as my ranking of the movements goes, I did say that it was only my opinion, and of course, we all have our own specific weaknesses so it is somewhat subjective. Most of us do seem to be in agreement about the relative difficulty of these movements however, so I think there is some legitimacy to the rankings.

Good for you!!

But it is very difficult. If it isn't for you, that's great.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I find these pieces plenty difficult - just that particular aspect didn't trouble me. Rhythmic things generally don't trouble me (years of playing in odd-time/polyrhythmic fusion bands will sort that out) My sloppy left hand is another story!

Mark, When I saw 3/8 (how do you type a time signature here without the annoying and inaccurate bar?), I first tried to play it to make it sound as three beats *in a measure* too. It was close to impossible. I then noticed the tied note (the second half of the first beat of each measure, left hand) and the groupings of 4 right hand notes (notes the phrase mark over those groups). So really, the feel is of 3 alright but it isn't within each bar. The feel of a 3 extends across bars. This can be achieved simply by giving a slight emphasis on the left hand note that occurs on the second half of the first beat of each of those measures.

This is how I've parsed it. What you said about people playing it as two is true.. that's the natural tendency and the outcome if you emphasized the notes that are played together (first beat, and so it sounds like two triplets each measure). Emphasis on the second note of the left hand and the right hand grouping will give a triple feel to it, but the triple feel extends across the physical bar lines in the score.

Let me know if this makes sense.

I can't tell.

It sounds like you know what you're talking about and that you have the right idea, but I don't at all get the thing about emphasizing the 2nd note of the L.H. I don't see how that helps (seems to me it would get in the way).

But you do seem to have the right idea, so I do sort of assume that it 'makes sense' even if I don't get it.

I think the main thing is to make sure that the 'weak' part of the 2nd beat doesn't sound strong -- which, for most people, takes work and is very hard.

I know this is bad but I did a quick take of the first few measures:



Also, I don't really know if a triple feel is intended.. two groupings of 3's make sense in the later bars though they don't in the first few.

I don't hear any top pianist play it with any particular triple feel at the beginning.. watch Kempff. I really don't hear it. So while I wouldn't emphasis the downbeat, I wouldn't try to go out of my way to make it sound triple.

You are absolutely committing the "sin."

That's what makes this movement especially hard, although not in an obvious way. And generally the player has no idea that the problem is going on, because he/she 'hears' it the way it's supposed to be -- but that's not what's coming out.

And as for nobody conveying the "3 beats": As I said in the earlier post, the main thing is to avoid the impression of TWO BEATS. Show me any major pianist who gives that impression!
(I just checked W. Kempff. No surprise -- he does it great.)

P.S. I don't get where you think "2 groupings of 3" makes sense anywhere in the movement.

Yea, I can hear the "sin" but now that I think of it, I don't really view it as something that's less than ideal. To not emphasize the first beat of the measure is good but to try and play it as 3 groups of two notes is just not possible because the way those phrase markings and tied notes are written, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Ando, do you mind recording the first bit like I've done so that I can see (and hear) what you guys mean here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzfjammsOuE&feature=related

Describe this to me Mark. What do you hear here that I don't? :P

I promise you that it's awful. If you don't realize it, it's that your ear isn't giving you the right message. Which, BTW, is part of the non-obvious difficulty of this piece, and many others: the difficulty isn't with what the fingers have to be able to do, but what the ear has to be able to do.


See the edit of my above post. Just listen to Kempff. If you don't hear a huge difference between the rhythm that he conveys and what you convey, your ear is failing you on that.

P.S. I just checked that Richter recording. And as with the Kempff, there's no surprise -- he does it great.

Being able to hear the difference is part of what's necessary to do any kind of decent job on the piece.

In fact, take any recording on youtube you want. Show me one where you think you can absolutely hear 3 groups of two notes being played.

Re-read my earlier posts.

(You're missing the point.)

The point isn't to hear 3 beats; it's to AVOID giving the impression of 2 beats!

Is that the first note of the right hand grouping of 4?

I think you're talking about the right note.

There's a "bump" every time you hit that part of the measure.

And that's exactly the "sin."

P.S. You have lots and lots of company.

I see.. I think I understand (and hear). Let me see if I can get that to go away in 10 mins. I probably won't..lets see.