Hardest piece you know?

Originally Posted by Nicola Canzano

And yet, unless you're following with a score or have it memorized, or are 99% of all listeners, NOBODY WILL NOTICE IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE.

That's, uh. Sorry to say, either incredibly ignorant or just downright retarded. If we'll go in that direction, might as well improvise half of all modern pieces since nobody's going to be able to tell the difference.

Jesus, what the hell. It doesn't MATTER if anyone doesn't notice you made an error. That's not the point, and clearly if it were why even bother reading scores properly or studying? Since "nobody will notice if you make a mistake" just do something around what is written and that's it.

I suppose that if you were the composer of one such pieces, you'd settle for a mediocre performance since "99%" of the people won't be able to tell. Furthermore, if the musician playing such serialist piece understands the concept of serialism, they would demand of themselves a flawless performance regardless of the difficulty involved. It's unrealistic to expect it to be that way in a concert, as if there's an error the entire piece is compromised. So, nobody really wants to play these sort of pieces because it's a lot of responsibility studying 3 or 4 years just to play one piece and have it screw up in concert because of a single note and fail.

Again, that's why a lot of people moved to trying to do this in electronic music, since a perfect finished recording doesn't make mistakes no matter how many times you play it. If you're a composer looking for 100% accuracy every time, because it's NEEDED, then that's a good way to do it.

Originally Posted by Gardener

Schönberg and Webern would probably have thwapped you on the head with a heavy stick if they had to listen to you playing their pieces!

Well...my point really was just, it's far from your traditional melodic lines like that of Beethoven...a normal human, who is non musically trained, would not be able to listen to a Schoenberg melodic line (and im talking about the yucky stuff here), and then sing it back to me...and actually enjoy it. Whereas, with a melodic line like that of Mozart, it could be easily achieved...most times.

Another thing, how can you be the judge of how i play their music? Can you sit there, in front of Weberns Variations for piano, and play it after the first 3 tries...correctly bringing out the right melody whilst following every other pianistic idiom as well? Probably not. I mainly stated that it requires intensive studying to perform. Sorry if I have offended your all-mightyness in saying that they are a random succession of notes. I know very much so that they are well planned and thought about sequences...It was just to get the point across...they are not easily enjoyed, or found. I take back, however, my comment

which makes it look like you know what you are doing.

. This is something that should not really be said about the music of Contemporary greats such as Schoenberg and Webern.

Now ive ranted on for long enough. Perhaps next time, i will word my sentence better before posting...to avoid any misinterpretations by Gardner.

Originally Posted by goodridge_winners

Well...my point really was just, it's far from your traditional melodic lines like that of Beethoven...a normal human, who is non musically trained, would not be able to listen to a Schoenberg melodic line (and im talking about the yucky stuff here), and then sing it back to me...and actually enjoy it. Whereas, with a melodic line like that of Mozart, it could be easily achieved...most times.

I certainly agree that singing back a Schönberg piece is usually much harder than Mozart. I'm not sure how far it actually is from traditional melodic lines though. Whenever I hear Schönberg it sounds like an extension of "romantic" melodic expression to me, not something entirely new. It may be atonal, but the melodic gestures aren't much different from composers like Strauss.

Another thing, how can you be the judge of how i play their music? Can you sit there, in front of Weberns Variations for piano, and play it after the first 3 tries...correctly bringing out the right melody whilst following every other pianistic idiom as well? Probably not. I mainly stated that it requires intensive studying to perform. Sorry if I have offended your all-mightyness in saying that they are a random succession of notes.

I'm not sure where in my intendedly rather humourous post I appeared to be offended, but anyways: Likewise sorry if I have offended your pianistic abilities I just meant that those pieces certainly weren't meant to be played "just" as a succession of notes, but definitely expressive. (Their style is called expressionism after all.) It's something entirely different than the serial pieces of the 1950s (where "just playing the notes" is probably adequate), even though those later serialists were of course heavily influenced by Webern.

And I certainly didn't say playing it was easy.

Originally Posted by SSC

That's, uh. Sorry to say, either incredibly ignorant or just downright retarded. If we'll go in that direction, might as well improvise half of all modern pieces since nobody's going to be able to tell the difference.

Jesus, what the hell. It doesn't MATTER if anyone doesn't notice you made an error. That's not the point, and clearly if it were why even bother reading scores properly or studying? Since "nobody will notice if you make a mistake" just do something around what is written and that's it.

I suppose that if you were the composer of one such pieces, you'd settle for a mediocre performance since "99%" of the people won't be able to tell. Furthermore, if the musician playing such serialist piece understands the concept of serialism, they would demand of themselves a flawless performance regardless of the difficulty involved. It's unrealistic to expect it to be that way in a concert, as if there's an error the entire piece is compromised. So, nobody really wants to play these sort of pieces because it's a lot of responsibility studying 3 or 4 years just to play one piece and have it screw up in concert because of a single note and fail.

Again, that's why a lot of people moved to trying to do this in electronic music, since a perfect finished recording doesn't make mistakes no matter how many times you play it. If you're a composer looking for 100% accuracy every time, because it's NEEDED, then that's a good way to do it.

You've taken the original comment wrong- What Nico meant to SAY was that if you're playing the piece and you accidentally flub in some way or another, hardly anyone is going to notice as long as the mistake wasn't huge (like forgetting the next section) or if you just go on and don't make any signs of the difficulty. He did NOT mean things like dynamics and other things (while usually the audience STILL won't know if it's wrong). And don't forget- most audiences are NOT concert musicians- most know music only as it is taught in school, and they just want to hear music. They aren't going to be mad if the performer misses a note in a chord or something so trivial. And isn't music intended for an audience?

Originally Posted by Alan

You've taken the original comment wrong- What Nico meant to SAY was that if you're playing the piece and you accidentally flub in some way or another, hardly anyone is going to notice as long as the mistake wasn't huge (like forgetting the next section) or if you just go on and don't make any signs of the difficulty. He did NOT mean things like dynamics and other things (while usually the audience STILL won't know if it's wrong). And don't forget- most audiences are NOT concert musicians- most know music only as it is taught in school, and they just want to hear music. They aren't going to be mad if the performer misses a note in a chord or something so trivial. And isn't music intended for an audience?

Fair enough, but the point was that to a composer, if 100% accuracy is necessary, then that's all that matters. Audience or not, the composer's intention comes first. This is what I mean.

Originally Posted by Gardener

I certainly agree that singing back a Schönberg piece is usually much harder than Mozart. I'm not sure how far it actually is from traditional melodic lines though. Whenever I hear Schönberg it sounds like an extension of "romantic" melodic expression to me, not something entirely new. It may be atonal, but the melodic gestures aren't much different from composers like Strauss.

I'm not sure where in my intendedly rather humourous post I appeared to be offended, but anyways: Likewise sorry if I have offended your pianistic abilities I just meant that those pieces certainly weren't meant to be played "just" as a succession of notes, but definitely expressive. (Their style is called expressionism after all.) It's something entirely different than the serial pieces of the 1950s (where "just playing the notes" is probably adequate), even though those later serialists were of course heavily influenced by Webern.

And I certainly didn't say playing it was easy.

so we were both struck with a case of misinterpretation then
lol its all good. its good getting different points of view out into the open. Forums are funny.

Sorabji is also hard...beacuse his pieces are long. thats the other guy i forgot to mention.

Yes, but Sorabji wrote his music specifically to be ridiculously hard. Opus Clavicembalisjtjbiocwocwwhatever is sometimes written on like 7 or 8 staves for one single piano player!! He seemed to have some sort of God complex...

But for truly nightmarish rehearsals of a piece, take it from me - Gyorgy Ligeti's Chamber Concerto for 13 instruments is by far the worst I've dealt with. Listening to it, you get the sense that Ligeti was going for a 'mass of sound' idea, and playing under a conductor along with the other 12 players, you indeed still get that sense. It is so freaking complicated because of this. Not to mention that I'm playing on a synthesizer I don't fully understand...!

good question....im going to have to say that the hardest piece of music i've performed is African Sanctus by Fanshawe, it's incredibly dissonant and the chords are very strange -- add some mixed meter in and it's tons of fun. However, close second is Chichester Psalms.

One that i want to do:
Symphony of Psalms....bring it on

Ligeti is a bitch any way you slice it. Sorabji is also a bitch-5 hour piece for the sake of making it five hours. Roar.
Personally Sequenza XII and Samuel Adler's Canto XII for solo bassoon gives me a headache. the serenade is a bitch (its a big rip off of the rite).
Stravinsky is a genius IMO.
Oh is there a good recording of the End of the World Quartett?

YouTube - Opus Clavicembalisticum Played Excatly as Written!
Opus Clavicembalisticum as written
YouTube - Opus Clavicembalisticum on a Virtual Piano
Even more maddening than the first link. ENJOY!