well..it all depends on each individuals strong points

Hi, has anyone here played the berg sonata?

Well... I`m only 16 so my knowledge of piano repertoire is slightly limited. Try Liszt`s Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2 in C# minor. That took me 3 years to get it to sound nice lol... or Rach 2 and 3... they are great romantic masterpieces! Or you could try more contemporary works and look for they`re meaning rather that how nice they sound (i`m a big fan of serialism ) Hope that helps!

Re: "(NAMUS)
oh and by the way harvey is still an ass but he`s right what is hard for one can be a breeze for others.i for instance find it more difficult to play a six part invention from bach than a big romantic piece from rachmaninov."

Not just hard, but impossible--considering that Bach never wrote a six-part invention.

Well, I think that most of the pieces mentioned here aren`t really that hard in the scheme of things. Here are some pieces that push the boundaries of what is possible on the piano:

Sorabji, Opus Clavicembalisticum

It`s 4 hours long and it includes some of the most devilish technical and interpretative difficulties I`ve ever seen. Most of it is written on 3 or 4 staves, and it reaches up to 5 near the end. He had to write it like this for several reasons: first of all, there are so many notes that it would be difficult, if not impossible to read on two, and also, it shows the dense contrapuntal writing Sorabji uses and how the pianist must bring out the many melodies correctly. It in includes 2 massive variation movements, 4 huge fugues, 2 toccatas (one marked "fantasia"), an adagio and an extremely complicated "stretta" movement, where all of the themes from the previous movements (there are 12 movements and about 20 prominent themes) are played simultaneously. It is very hard, but also very rewarding, because it is a very interesting and often beautiful piece. Unfortunately, there are only 2 recordings of it, one played by G.D. Madge, and the other by John Ogdon. Neither one of them is very good.

Sheet music samples:

http://i1.tinypic.com/migtmq.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/migu36.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/migu9e.jpg


Finnissy, English Country Tunes

Crazy, not nearly as long as OC, but still very difficult. Instead of describing the difficulties, I`ll just let you view the sheetmusic samples yourself. The music is usually violent, though occassionally it calms down a bit.

http://fuwatm.hp.infoseek.co.jp/finnissy_english_15.gif
http://fuwatm.hp.infoseek.co.jp/finnissy_english_16.gif


Xenakis, Synaphai

Xenakis` idea was to write music which placed such incredible demands on pianists that it would practically be impossible. He succeeded. His piano conceto "Synaphai" includes parts where the pianist must play on 11 different staves at once between their two hands, about one stave per finger. Each finger on the hand is doing something seemingly unrelated to the others. It`s hardly conventional piano writing. Here are some samples of the piano part:

http://fuwatom.hp.infoseek.co.jp/xenakis_synaphai_2.gif
http://fuwatom.hp.infoseek.co.jp/xenakis_synaphai_1.gif


Martino, Pianississimo

A very difficult serial work, lasting about half an hour. Martino was attempting to write the most difficult work he could. It`s avant garde and not particularly "pretty" but it`s a very interesting work.

http://i1.tinypic.com/mihp50.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/mihpht.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/mihpq0.jpg


I hope that I have provided some insight about some works that could potentially be considered the "hardest piece for piano."

Best regards,
John Carey

I still say no piece is harder to play than one that doesn`t exist and never will exist. I also think you need to distinguish "difficult to read" and "difficult to play". They`re different things. (One of the composer`s jobs is to make his music as easy to read as practicable; certain academic composers fail at this spectacularly.)

Re: "Xenakis` idea was to write music which placed such incredible demands on pianists that it would practically be impossible. He succeeded....Martino was attempting to write the most difficult work he could."

I find these remarks dubious. In any case, this is hardly a worthy goal--and certainly not a difficult one.

I still say no piece is harder to play than one that doesn`t exist and never will exist.

Oh, but I agree with you.

I also think you need to distinguish "difficult to read" and "difficult to play". They`re different things.

I disagree. First of all, have you tried to play the pieces in question? If you have not, then I suggest you do, and then tell me whether they are only "difficult to read." Secondly, Sorabji wrote his music on as many staves as he did so that it would be EASIER to read. Finnissy and Martino had to write the music the way they did to get all of their ideas on the page. As for Xenakis... well, I agree with you. The thing is, I have no idea what his stuff would look like on 2 staves, so I can`t really say that he was wrong with the way he wrote it.

(One of the composer`s jobs is to make his music as easy to read as practicable; certain academic composers fail at this spectacularly.)

Perhaps, but not necessarily. If you told that to Cowell or Cage they would probably laugh.

I find these remarks dubious.

If I understand your definition correctly, I would merely suggest that you do a quick websearch for the names of the composers and the pieces to erase your doubts.

In any case, this is hardly a worthy goal--and certainly not a difficult one.

Would you tell that to Ravel when he wrote Gaspard de la Nuit?

Best regards,
John Carey

Re: "I disagree. First of all, have you tried to play the pieces in question? If you have not, then I suggest you do, and then tell me whether they are only `difficult to read.`"

Whether or not they are only difficult to read is utterly and obviously beside the point. The point is that "difficult to play" and "difficult to read" are different things, and you were clearly confounding the two.

Re: "Secondly, Sorabji wrote his music on as many staves as he did so that it would be EASIER to read. Finnissy and Martino had to write the music the way they did to get all of their ideas on the page."

You`re the guy with the bug about staves. I was rather more concerned about the proportional rhythmic notation.

Re: "As for Xenakis... well, I agree with you."

Since I did not proffer an opinion about the difficulty of his piece to play or to read, I have no idea with what you`re agreeing. I did once see a Xenakis piece performed at a piano recital and another performed at a guitar recital and liked both. I didn`t see either score (and I don`t recall the name of either piece). The guitar piece seemed more of a bravura vehicle than the piano piece.

Re:

Me: "(One of the composer`s jobs is to make his music as easy to read as practicable; certain academic composers fail at this spectacularly.)"

You: "Perhaps, but not necessarily."

Yes, one of the composer`s jobs is NECESSARILY to make his music as easy to read as practicable. No, not ALL academic composers fail at this spectacularly.

Re: "If you told that to Cowell or Cage they would probably laugh."

I doubt that very much, although I never met Cowell--I have met Cage. Their failure to laugh, of course, wouldn`t necessarily absolve them for putative transgressions. A published Cowell essay about the music of Roy Harris I chanced upon a few years ago makes it clear that Cowell was perfectly capable of misunderstanding rhythmic notation at an elementary level.

Re: Me: I find these remarks dubious.

You: "If I understand your definition correctly, I would merely suggest that you do a quick websearch for the names of the composers and the pieces to erase your doubts."

1) Definition of WHAT?
2) I`m perfectly willing to take your word that these composers wrote these pieces. I am dubious about the INTENT you ascribe to them.
3) In any case, I won`t be doing any Google-ing. Everything I post here--and elsewhere--comes directly from me own `ead, thank you very much.

Re: Me: "In any case, this is hardly a worthy goal--and certainly not a difficult one."

You: "Would you tell that to Ravel when he wrote Gaspard de la Nuit?"

First, given its title and poetic source, this piece is obviously a special case--the exception that proves the rule. Second, Ravel called it "the very devil to WRITE"; THAT was his emphasis.

The main thing I want to get across is: Kids, don`t try this at home.

A safe upper limit for staves, since you bring up staves, is probably four--two per hand. Use proportional rhythmic notation sparingly and carefully, and make sure there is a definite musical idea behind it. In other words, don`t write 13:7 just because you happen to have improvised thirteen notes in the time of seven. Even if there`s a definite musical idea behind it, if it can`t reasonably be played, it isn`t music. Avoid augenmusik.

Re: Me: "A published Cowell essay about the music of Roy Harris I chanced upon a few years ago makes it clear that Cowell was perfectly capable of misunderstanding rhythmic notation at an elementary level."

I mention this only because you brought up Cowell. I don`t want to appear to be singling him out. Ravel, Stravinsky, and Bartok were also perfectly capable of misunderstanding rhythmic notation at an elementary level (see Paul Creston`s "Principles of Rhythm" for apposite examples), an occupational hazard of the soi-disant rhythmic innovator--what appears to be daring and original often turns out to be a commonplace improperly notated. Let`s not limit ourselves to classical composers either: Marvin Hamlisch`s "A Chorus Line" score has a passage obviously inspired by Paul Desmond`s "Take Five" notated in 6/4. The 4 + 2 here is a take-off of Desmond`s 3 + 2. A modicum of reflection will reveal, however, that 4:2 is equivalent to 2:1, which just so happens to be the most common triple meter rhythm possible. Hamlisch`s passage ought to have been notated
in 3/2, which, it turns out, is just how Stephen Sondheim notated a similar passage in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" a decade earlier. Brubeck himself was not immune. Consider his "Blue Rondo a la Turk", notated in 9/8 and grouped 2 + 2 + 2 + 3: This is essentially three eighth note triplets preceded by three subdivided quarter note triplets in 3/4, hardly revolutionary. In this case I don`t say that 3/4 is necessarily the better notation; I say that Brubeck`s conception of the strangeness of his rhythm here was exaggerated and unrealistic.

I don`t know what you`re trying to prove, but your pedantic posts lead me to believe that you are only trying to start an argument. In my first post, I only wanted to point out some very difficult pieces, just like the rest of you here have been doing. I don`t know why that seems to bother you so much.

You say that you doubt that Martino and Xenakis intended to write the most difficult music they could... well, both Martino and Xenakis SPECIFICALLY stated that they had written their works Pianississimo and Evryali to be difficult. If you refuse to do a quick Google search, that`s up to you - however, if you don`t know what you`re talking about, I suggest that you don`t try to argue about it.

I`m done.

Scotch, I`ve read your replies again, and I take back some of what I said. However, can we at least agree that the pieces I posted are considerably more difficult than most of the music posted earlier in this thread? If you know of any works that are more difficult than the ones I mentioned, could you tell me what they are? I`d be interested in hearing them.

Re: "I don`t know what you`re trying to prove, but your pedantic posts lead me to believe that you are only trying to start an argument."

Argument, discussion....Call it what you will.

Re: "In my first post, I only wanted to point out some very difficult pieces, just like the rest of you here have been doing. I don`t know why that seems to bother you so much."

I rather object to the very premise of the thread. I have very young students who always pester me to demonstrate how fast I can play, and I always refuse. That`s not the point of the piano.

Re: "You say that you doubt that Martino and Xenakis intended to write the most difficult music they could... well, both Martino and Xenakis SPECIFICALLY stated that they had written their works Pianississimo and Evryali to be difficult. If you refuse to do a quick Google search, that`s up to you"

Just post the quotes here--verbatum. Thank you very much.

Re: "- however, if you don`t know what you`re talking about, I suggest that you don`t try to argue about it."

I do know what I`m talking about. Everything I stated as fact is.

Re: "I`m done."

Don`t be a wimp.

Re: "Scotch, I`ve read your replies again, and I take back some of what I said. However, can we at least agree that the pieces I posted are considerably more difficult than most of the music posted earlier in this thread?"

It`s a long thread, and I`ve not been all through it, but since you qualify this remark with "most", then I suppose we can. A cursory examination of the fragments you provided makes these look damn difficult, ridiculously difficult, I`m tempted to say.

Re: "If you know of any works that are more difficult than the ones I mentioned, could you tell me what they are? I`d be interested in hearing them."

Should I WANT to know any more difficult ones?

Again: Re: "You say that you doubt that Martino and Xenakis intended to write the most difficult music they could... well, both Martino and Xenakis SPECIFICALLY stated that they had written their works Pianississimo and Evryali to be difficult. If you refuse to do a quick Google search, that`s up to you"

Imagine a courtroom. The prosecutor says, "I have evidence that proves conclusively that the defendant is guilty, and I thus request that he be sentenced immediately." The defendant’s lawyer says, "You have evidence? Let`s see it." The prosecutor replies, "Look, pal, if you refuse to do a QUICK search for the evidence proving conclusively that your client is guilty, well, that`s up to you. Your honor, how`s that sentencing coming along?"

YOU made the assertion; YOU back it up.

http://www.eroica.com/ewood-reviews.html

I typed "martino pianississimo" into Google, and this is the FIRST result found. In this it clearly states that Martino had written Pianississimo because someone requested that he write the most difficult piece he could.

Now stop wasting my time. Please.

Beethoven`s Hammerklavier, all four movements, and at using the metronome markings by Beethoven himself