About the difficulty of music

This question has been brought up before on numerous forums, but since directing you to these forums wouldn't be the best way to advertise for yc, i'll just ask the question here! :) Does a good work really have to be difficult?

This question has been brought up before on numerous forums, but since directing you to these forums wouldn't be the best way to advertise for yc, i'll just ask the question here! :) Does a good work really have to be difficult?

No not at all! Adiago for Strings isn't a very difficult piece, but it's still one of the most amazing pieces I have ever heard. Difficult and good are not directly related. Sometimes a piece may have to be difficult to produce the sound or mood you want, but never make a piece to be difficult just to be difficult(etude excluded)

No not at all!

Barber's? My high school's orchestra didn't find that one easy at all. Difficult key signature, tricky entrances throughout, and then all that shifting near the end.

In the string quartet version (as part of Barber's String Quartet No. 2, which is the form it was originally written in), Adagio for Strings is probably the most insanely difficult piece of chamber music I've ever played. Because there's only one to a part, you have to be really careful changing bows. I was in a quartet of very good college level players, and we abandoned the whole Barber quartet because of that movement. (An indication of level: we ended up playing Borodin's second quartet instead.)

I agree absolutely. One of the hardest things in the world to do is play or sing something slowly and sustained like that for an extended period of time. It may look nothing on the page and not sound difficult, but it most certainly is.

My answer to the question at hand is: NO. There are a great many fine pieces out there that are not particularly demanding technically. When I was a about 10, I played a little piano piece from a set by Tchaikovsky (for children, I believe) that was called "Dolly Is Ill." It was easy, of course, because I'd been studying for only 2 years and I could play it handily...but it was perfectly lovely. Ripped my heart out, actually...as melancholy and mournful as anything he ever wrote. I continued to play it well into adulthood.

There is, conversely, a lot of extremely difficult, flashy music out there that isn't particularly great. A lot of music written by virtuosi (Paganini and Lizst come to mind, and my own forebear Gottschalk, sorry to say) often falls into this category, though certainly not always.

What I think a great piece of music should require of a musician is some kind of emotional connection and/or maturity.

What a silly question :P I'd much prefer the question, what about a piece can effect enjoyment? When I was in middle school (6+ years ago), and kept a big notebook in which I tried to figure out all things, I wrote down a bunch of words to answer that:

reverb (a recording from any good hall can get you that, but best experienced first-hand!)

harmony (i personally have very high standards for what constitutes gut-spasming harmony)

counterpoint (the most intellectual one of these)

vibrato (the low flute solo in the middle of Mercury from Holst's The Planets)

novelty (many feel guilty about enjoying this one)

groove (the comfortability of a piece of music fulfilling expectations that it itself created)

the-fact-that-YOU-wrote-it

tightness (could by rhythmic, I don't remember)

shockwave (I don't know what I meant by this)

intonation (wide major seconds, raised leading tones on violin...)

overtones (actually finding higher pitches inside of lower ones)

circle of fifths (the V-I relationship I think)

fast notes (virtuosity)

melody

monstrosity (here I WAS thinking of the Rite of Spring!)

The more routes to enjoyment open, the more intense the enjoyment, perhaps?

I'm of the understanding that many of Mozart's piano pieces can be quite easy. I believe he has a sonata in A major that is very famous, yet relatively easy to play.

It's funny though that you ask this question, because I remember having a discussion with my old guitar teacher... we both seemed to agree that playing slower pieces with true emotion was harder than playing any fast piece. When the notes are excessively fast, it may be hard to finger them, but they lose their meaning much of the time. Furthermore, a small mistake in a fast moving piece goes unnoticed compared to a small mistake in a slow moving piece... imagine having to sit on stage with a resounding note held for several seconds but you miss it and nothing comes out... that's never fun.

Anyway, back on topic, I have played many guitar pieces that are beautiful yet very easy to play. Pachelbel's canon comes to mind... come to think of it, that's not exclusive to the guitar... it's easy on all instruments.

Absolutely Not, a good piece of music has nothing to do with difficulty, it is to do with the music itself.

Yeah basically you guys have said it. The degree of technical expression really depends on the piece itself, for certain works a nice short burst of virtuosity can be captivating and will retain your intrest in it, constantly progressing rather then trudging, then on other pieces something technical has really no place in the song.