Two of the greatest sonatas evert written. Though I wonder, they are both put at LRSM and FRSM (why both?)... I wonder, why are they considered so difficult? I mean, I can't find any of the movements worth to be considered just as difficult as many of the other pieces on those lists... Why are they put there? Sure, they are musically difficult, no doubt, but technically, are they really that hard?

Partially, yes. It seems typical for Schubert that about 90% of a piece (give or take a few %) are not extremely hard whereas the remaining 10% are very unpianistic and awkward to play. Of course, in order to give a convincing performance, you need to be able to play these 10% just as well as the rest of the piece, and for that you need a very solid technique, hence the difficulty rating.

okay.. I can agree on that a bit.. still though, they do not feel as hard as most of the other pieces on the same list. Same thing applies to Schubert's first Impromptu op 90 in c minor. That one is rated as a Diploma piece if I am not wrong (I think it was by RCM).. I cannot see why though, is that piece even as difficult as the other impromptus?

Well, "technique" does not mean the ability to play the notes. "Technique" means how you play the piano and how you make the music.

Learn the first movement of the D. 960, since the notes do come rather quickly, and learn an impromptu, since the notes of those also come quickly. Even in the process of learning, you'll be able to see the differences.

Most of Schubert's pieces that are (sadly and mistakenly) considered by people to be rather long/repetitive are very hard to make a huge, overarching big picture. That's why student performances of his music sometimes sounds like they just go on FOREVER and FOREVER... It's not the actual amount of time, but it's the fragmenting of phrases.

I know, I have observed this too Orange.. And actually Schubert is my favorite composer, and I find it strange that many people forget to mention him up there among the greatest..

One of the difficulties with Schubert is that while most composers will stick to a simple pattern in the accompanying hand, Schubert tends to break the pattern. Musically this may be fine, but pianistically it is much more difficult.

I do not think this is a difficulty, but even great pianists mess up the articulation in Schubert's music. I remember when I was playing through D. 960, I went to hear Rudolf Serkin play it, and he messed it up. (I am pretty sure I have heard that sonata played live more than any other, starting with Rubinstein, and going through a number of other greats.)

This is a common take on Schubert, but I don't find it to be true. I would agree that maybe perhaps 10% of 959 (I'm more familiar with that than with 960) is more difficult than the rest--but "awkward," "unpianistic?"

Tomasino

Well take the second movement of his D 959. Sure, it isn't that technically difficult until you get to the middle section.. But is the middle section really THAT difficult?

As per what Mrenaud said, there are places in both sonatas where even just the notes are hard too! -- if we're going to do some justice to both the tempo and the spirit.

For example: Both scherzi. The leaps, the everything.

Or, how about just the opening of 959 -- if anyone thinks it's easy to do those chords with good voicing and articulation, I'd bet they're not really doing it.

And in 960, last mvt, what about those few measures of leaping chords and octaves after the 2 measures of rest? If anyone thinks that's easy, I'll lay a significant wager that either they're not really doing the rhythm, or not hitting the chords cleanly. More likely both.

so which movement from these two sonatas are the hardest then and is the middle section in the 2nd movement really as hard as it sounds?

The main sections of the 2nd mvt are hard too, if you're gonna be playing the LH as softly as it ought to be and still making some sound come out.

I remember when I heard it at a concert and the guy just missed a huge amount of those notes -- no sound. Usually when that starts happening, the pianist makes an adjustment. He never did.


And the thing is, most amateurs don't count this kind of thing when they talk about whether something is technically difficult or not -- I guess because they're not that demanding about how the notes will sound. They just play them.


Sorry to be smirking at it. But I'm trying to help eradicate that kind of thinking.

Can you explain further in regard to the Serkin performance? When was this, by the way? He's one pianist I regret never
hearing live.

What stood out to me in Serkin's performance was pedaling through staccato passages, particularly when the staccato was in contrast to legato. The passage beginning at bar 80 is an example. The first two notes of the phrases are legato, and the remainder are staccato. If you pedal that passage, everything becomes a weak blur of notes.

I do not remember when I saw him. I go to so many concerts!

Even Mitsuko Uchida messed up the coda in her otherwise immaculate and beautiful recording of it...

well okay thanks anyway

I still don't understand "awkward" and "unpianistic." I agree, Schubert can be difficult, as can Beethoven, Chopin, or a host of others. But what is it that makes Schubert's difficult music "awkward" and "unpianistic?" It's said so often, but I've never felt it to be true.

Tomasino

To me, Schubert isn't difficult in the digital sense but all the more in the psychic department, it's about soul and heart, despite his awkward pianotechnique, one should be beyond questions like fingering or unhappy pianistic constellations, one should be in His mind and heart, that's the real difficulty, esp. in this nowadays quite shallow world, 'depth' is the keyword. And who has that?