Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin Major Works

You're right if we're talking about amateurs. I'm not sure it's right if we're talking about people at the higher levels.

That's exactly the reason why I took up Horowitz as an example of one of probably thought(if he played) the Italian Concerto was harder than the Scherzo.. On the other hand, when he was a developing pianist in his youth, I find it hard to believe that he was technically able to play the notes of the Scherzo before the Italian Concerto..

We could define A to be mechanically harder than B if the number of people (worldwide) who could play B's notes at speed but not play A's notes at speed is greater than the number of people who could play A's but not play B's.

There is still some ambiguity in this definition (what does "play the notes" mean? what is "at speed"?), but I like it. Note that we ignore anyone who can play both pieces.

I bet that using this definition, the 2nd Scherzo is mechanically harder than the Bach.

-J

I don't understand. According to your current level, you should already be able to judge on which of those major Chopin works you have listed are harder for you.

How about your scales, arpeggios and octaves?

Just put your metronome to 100 and play hands together:
scales, 6 notes per tick
arpeggios, 5 notes per tick
octaves, 4 note per tick

If all are perfect then consider major Chopin works.
If not, then you have to practice more scales, arpeggios and octaves.

You need more in the definition.

Are we also talking about playing at a credible tempo, and also EVENLY?

The Chopin tolerates a certain unevenness more than the Bach does; in some ways 'a certain unevenness' could be said to be part of the "sweep" in the Chopin. The Bach doesn't tolerate unevenness at all. And don't forget, the left hand is involved too.

To me, the evenness issue is the main thing that makes the Bach harder -- that plus the greater transparency (which is related to the intolerance for unevenness).

There are so very many parts to "what do we mean" with such questions -- and that's even before getting to things like interpretation and depth, which make this comparison even hairier.

To put this in another context, Paul Lewis, a mean Beethoven performer, seriously said he finds the Appassionata less troublesome than the Pathetique, as it lies more easily under the hands. I doubt many pianists view these works in a similar manner.

This simply illustrates the obvious point: each person has different technical trouble spots and aspects which come more naturally. Re the works in the thread, anyone contemplating any of them should already be aware of his/her strengths and weaknesses, choosing new works (from a purely technical view) on the basis of relative ease of access or as a way of improving the weaknesses.

Me, I start on new works that I would really like to play and which I believe do not contain technical difficulties that are way beyond me. In that order. If I'm wrong about the technical bit, I abandon or look for exercises or pieces that will improve my technique. On this, it's amazing how playing Bach makes lots of other composers more accessible.

I'm 100% with you, Joe. I don't understand the obsession with avoiding recordings by other pianists. I have to believe that the great pianists of today and yesteryear didn't simply amass a 6-foot stack of scores and begin sampling them. If they were like the rest of us, they probably heard someone else play a piece, and then felt inspired to add it to their repertoire.

Perhaps Stores is such an accomplished pianist that he is able to simply sight-read anything placed in front of him. If so, then he can gain a "sense" of a piece simply by playing it. But for someone who plays at a sub-amateur level (i.e. me), that luxury is not available. I need to actually hear someone play it well, so I can decide: 1). If the piece is within my capabilities (usually not); and 2.) If it is within my grasp, do I like it well enough to invest time in it.

I remember passing over Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words No. 40 (Elegy) because I couldn't sight-read it well enough to fully appreciate it. Then I heard it on a recording of Horowitz encores, and fell in love with it. It's truly a gem that was worth investing time in. But even then, I certainly don't remember having Horowitz's interpretation in my head. He simply revealed the true beauty of the piece that I was unable to do on my own. And although I could never duplicate his performance even if I had tried, I sure wouldn't have lost any sleep if I had. Nor would I have felt "unoriginal".

It is probably easier than all of the Scherzos from a pure mechanically technical point of view. And to clarify what this means: I think that everyone who can play the notes of any of the scherzi are can physically manage the Op 48 No 1. Everyone who can pay the notes of the Nocturne isn't necessary able to physically play the notes of the Scherzi.. Anyway, I think this is a good way to explain it.. I would say that the difficulty range from the Op 48 to the 2nd or 3rd Scherzo is about the same as the one from these two Scherzi to the first Ballade

The pieces that the OP has played are all easier than the "Major Works" he has listed, so I don't now what you base what you are saying on... Also, I have no idea where you get the "put your metronome to 100"-thing from... really? What about thirds? Sixths? Double notes? Tremolos? Trills? Arpeggios where you need to play 6 notes per tick at metronome value 100?

The "100" thing is just a simple test that he can use to evaluate himself and see whether he is ready for Chopin's major works he has listed.

And what makes just "100" a good number?

It is easy to remember.

BTW, double thirds and sixths, 3 notes per tick.

Are you serious? You think that this exact numbers will tell him that if he can play them, he can play the pieces by Chopin?

Why don't we just wait and hear from him?

We often decide to study a work because we have heard a recording or a performance of it. That's a large part of musical life. But you may have missed the point that I objected to; it was joe's observation : "Listen to the piece until you know it in your head backwards and front then take it to the piano."

That intensive pre-study, before taking it to the piano would for me, kill any inspiration that an initial exposure to a work might have and deprive me of the excitement of any "discovery," musical or technical, that the work might hold.

Regards,

I see your point. It makes sense that burning a specific interpretation into your brain might destroy your creativity on that particular piece, but what is your opinion about getting to know a piece through many different interpretations, instead of just one? I think doing this creates context for the listener. This is what I always do before tackling any piece, and it never stops my creativity. Do you think creativity is a thought-out process? Or do you think it come out of thin air? Or both? For me, creativity ideas usually pop into my mind without my control, but my musical personality also plays it's role.

Thoughts?

Really? You do realise that the phonograph hasn't always been with us (not to mention electricity), yes?




I am, yes, and so are many others here. It is not rocket science... it's simply learning to read a score and developing your technique sufficiently enough to work your way through anything. No one needs to listen to someone else play a work to decide if it's within their capabilities. If they do, then they should go to their teacher(s) and ask for every penny back, because they should be able, after a certain point, to open a score and decide in the music store itself whether this or that is going to sit on the music rack or the shelf whence they fetched it. I've never understood this thinking that says "do I like a piece well enough to invest my time in it." What? There is not a piece of great music which ISN'T worthwhile enough for one to "invest his time" in, if, as OldMan here states, one is still grounding himself in the early stages of learning (which, of course, we all are doing really). I just can't wrap my head around someone saying they don't like a work, if they can't play the damned thing. You've only heard someone ELSE play it... how do you know it's not the performer who you've heard that you don't like? Perhaps they've made a mess of things? I can't begin to tell you how many scores I've picked up over the years of works I'd not ever sat down with seriously and once I dove into it I fell completely in love... how can you not?

To rely on a recording to decide so much for you is to say that you're lazy. You need a crutch to lean on. Educate yourself and do some homework. Spend less time listening to Joe Blow's recording and posting replies on PW and practise, practise, practise. You didn't begin playing with the grand aim of achieving that "sub amateur level" did you (if so, then all I can say is "Wow")? Get yourself a good teacher and get busy.

Re sight reading, assessing a piece from scratch. When I was still in single figures of age, or only just about 10 (I started lessons at 11), I was fooling around with piano reductions of orchestral pieces - Mendelssohn's Ruy Blas for instance. At 11 my teacher immediately put me in for Associated Board Grade 4.

I am not a concert/professional pianist but I was certainly "sub amateur" then. That sort of experience led me to become a reasonably accomplished sight reader, but more importantly helped me to be able to explore music, to get inside it from the word go, whether or not I had heard it before.

This is different from practicing a work of course, but the "getting acquainted" process (at something like a normal speed) can be a very useful precursor to slow painstaking study. You know much better that the effort will be worth it: the music has already spoken to you, you have already responded to it.

And...............it's fun.

You really love telling people how to live their lives, don't you? Music is NOT objective, neither is learning music. All people are different, do you not understand? In other words, there is no one way to do something. If someone learns better by listening before learning, let them! Your attitude is disgusting.

Also, you said:

"No one needs to listen to someone else play a work to decide if it's within their capabilities."

No one ever said you need to, stores. I'm almost shocked at the things said in this post. It's almost as if you don't even understand the very things you are arguing against. Do you even know my position on this subject? You don't appear to.

scherzojoe:

stores is saying what he thinks right in the face. And IMO, all of what he said is true.

You may not like his posting style or not agree with him, but he is on subject.

Why don't you just stay on subject too instead of criticizing his posting style?

Edit: Just in case you don't realize, my response is similar to yours, just to show how easy it is not to stay on subject. Only this time the example target is you.