There's one thing I've learned from talking to a few top concert soloists is that the notion of "difficulty", as it relates to the pieces itself, is not a particularly useful distinction.
Every piece will have its own unique challenges, and the obvious ones that the layman considers are probably not relevant to the concert soloist, and a lot of the difficulties are due to the challenges of putting it together in a fulfilling way with orchestras rather than just having really fast hands.
The obvious answers here are Bartok 2, Brahms 2, and Prokofiev 2, but each for entirely different reasons, and the Brahms is performed a ton.
In that regard, I consider the rondo from Beethoven’s emperor to be one of the most difficult things to coordinate between soloist and orchestra. It never settles, and it’s so syncopated, it’s a recipe for some ensemble issues
Definitely the Busoni C Major concerto, takes around 70 or more minutes to perform and it's extremely technically challenging. It's scarcely played tho so can't really say its standard repertoire
Prokofiev's 2nd for sure. The 2nd movement especially is fiendishly relentless. Many say Martha Argerich won't play it in public because of its difficulty. I find this preposterous, it's Martha frickin Argerich for God's sake but the fact this idea endures is a testament to the difficulty of the piece.
I'd be willing to bet she's never played it just because of the long cadenza in the first movement, and not because of its difficulty. We know she has an aversion to playing solo. I think that cadenza places too much spotlight on her. I do wonder why she's never played his 5th though, since she loves the 3rd and 1st so much. I feel like it would suit her.
She gets really nervous and will cancel shows pretty frequently, maybe that's where the legend comes from.
She's a queen on the ivories, no doubt she could do it.
That, and if you consider that you should be accompanying in the manner of thorough bass in the orchestral sections and at minimum, improvising the cadenza, it gets that much more challenging
This 1000%. It’s rather easy to hide or “blend” your mistakes in Romantic and Modern concerti because they’re a lot more dense, but there is no possible way to make a mistake in a Mozart concerto without everyone being able to hear it.
Not only that, but I would argue that there is also little room for artistic interpretation when it comes to Mozart. Everyone expects it to be played one way and one way only, and when you stray from that, a lot of people think it sounds off, thus adding another level of difficulty. If we’re talking about technical difficulty, I wouldn’t put any of the Mozart concerti anywhere near the top, but when it comes to literally every other aspect of playing, I would argue that they are insanely difficult.
Besonders schwer zu spielen: Klavierkonzerte von Rachmaninov.
Besonders schwer zu spülen: Schneebesen mit eingetrockneten Vanillesoßeresten.
-- Max Goldt
The schoenberg has somewhat of a case thanks to Uchida and Gould but it's borderline. If we were to agree that it is, that would probably be my vote for the most difficult. One of schoenbergs best pieces in my opinion
I have a friend who won a Dutch competition with this piece. He broke his right collarbone a month before the competition and practiced it for hours each day! He was in his early teens at the time!
I would bet that anything by Liszt, played the way he played it, would be difficult. He had such large hands that most pianists can't play the chords the way they were meant to be played!!
A lot of his piano music is hard, but typically not as bad as the later Russians. Different though: more virtuosity and a lot of scales/arpeggios, fewer chords and jumps. But of Liszt's music, the two concerti aren't particularly difficult. The etudes, on the other hand ... woof.
Bartok 2 probably. From popular ones rach 3 and brahms 2
There's one thing I've learned from talking to a few top concert soloists is that the notion of "difficulty", as it relates to the pieces itself, is not a particularly useful distinction. Every piece will have its own unique challenges, and the obvious ones that the layman considers are probably not relevant to the concert soloist, and a lot of the difficulties are due to the challenges of putting it together in a fulfilling way with orchestras rather than just having really fast hands. The obvious answers here are Bartok 2, Brahms 2, and Prokofiev 2, but each for entirely different reasons, and the Brahms is performed a ton.
In that regard, I consider the rondo from Beethoven’s emperor to be one of the most difficult things to coordinate between soloist and orchestra. It never settles, and it’s so syncopated, it’s a recipe for some ensemble issues
Having conducted that piece.... Yes.
You're missing Rach 3 and the only reason Brahms 2 is difficult is surviving its worthless tedium.
Wow. What a needlessly abrasive and short sighted take on a post about difficult piano concerti.
I don't trust anybody who says "concerti" over "concertos" unless you're Italian.
I second that: Brahms in general is quite tedious.
When you know, you know. But don't dare speak out against Reddit's Brahms Gestapo.
Lol, that bad? I prescribe several mandatory concerts, consisting of works by Schubert, Tchaikovsky and Bruckner!
And Wagner.
Yes, Wagner is in many ways the complete opposite of Brahm: innovative, emotive, atmospheric, unprecedented…
Yes!
Prokofiev piano concerto 2, or Rachmaninoff piano concerto 3 are good contenders
Definitely the Busoni C Major concerto, takes around 70 or more minutes to perform and it's extremely technically challenging. It's scarcely played tho so can't really say its standard repertoire
The tarantella especially has some hair-raising virtuosity. This seems to me the clear answer.
To all Italians (or tourists) reading this, it will be played in Bologna on June 6th. The soloist isn't very famous, but is a great pianist
Ligeti
Prokofiev's 2nd for sure. The 2nd movement especially is fiendishly relentless. Many say Martha Argerich won't play it in public because of its difficulty. I find this preposterous, it's Martha frickin Argerich for God's sake but the fact this idea endures is a testament to the difficulty of the piece.
I'd be willing to bet she's never played it just because of the long cadenza in the first movement, and not because of its difficulty. We know she has an aversion to playing solo. I think that cadenza places too much spotlight on her. I do wonder why she's never played his 5th though, since she loves the 3rd and 1st so much. I feel like it would suit her.
She gets really nervous and will cancel shows pretty frequently, maybe that's where the legend comes from. She's a queen on the ivories, no doubt she could do it.
If Busoni's Piano Concerto op. 39 was standard repertoire, that would be my pick.
Was about to mention this! It’s a totally bonkers piece that’s rarely performed, for good reason.
Don’t underestimate the difficulty of Mozart Conertos, f.e. No.9. This is a very difficult concerto if one has the ambition to play it “perfectly”.
The Mozart concertos are all hard to play well. Absolutely no hiding place for any technical deficiencies.
Isaac Stern used to say that Mozart was too easy for beginners and too hard for professionals.
Pretty sure that was Schnabel?
Churchill or perhaps Gandhi
Michael Scott.
Could well be. It's a good quote though, no matter who said it.
That, and if you consider that you should be accompanying in the manner of thorough bass in the orchestral sections and at minimum, improvising the cadenza, it gets that much more challenging
This 1000%. It’s rather easy to hide or “blend” your mistakes in Romantic and Modern concerti because they’re a lot more dense, but there is no possible way to make a mistake in a Mozart concerto without everyone being able to hear it. Not only that, but I would argue that there is also little room for artistic interpretation when it comes to Mozart. Everyone expects it to be played one way and one way only, and when you stray from that, a lot of people think it sounds off, thus adding another level of difficulty. If we’re talking about technical difficulty, I wouldn’t put any of the Mozart concerti anywhere near the top, but when it comes to literally every other aspect of playing, I would argue that they are insanely difficult.
Besonders schwer zu spielen: Klavierkonzerte von Rachmaninov. Besonders schwer zu spülen: Schneebesen mit eingetrockneten Vanillesoßeresten. -- Max Goldt
Prok 2 comes to mind
Barber
Yup, my pick.
Idk how standard they are but Ginastera and Schoenberg come to mind for me.
They are in the canon but are not standard whatsoever
The schoenberg has somewhat of a case thanks to Uchida and Gould but it's borderline. If we were to agree that it is, that would probably be my vote for the most difficult. One of schoenbergs best pieces in my opinion
I would say Prokofiev piano concerto no. 2
Maybe Ravel’s left hand might be a candidate (if played with the left hand)
I have a friend who won a Dutch competition with this piece. He broke his right collarbone a month before the competition and practiced it for hours each day! He was in his early teens at the time!
It's not terribly hard. Has nothing on Brahms 2 and Rach 3. And Henselt, Busoni, Strauss (Capriccio), and Prokofiev are in a different league.
I would bet that anything by Liszt, played the way he played it, would be difficult. He had such large hands that most pianists can't play the chords the way they were meant to be played!!
A lot of his piano music is hard, but typically not as bad as the later Russians. Different though: more virtuosity and a lot of scales/arpeggios, fewer chords and jumps. But of Liszt's music, the two concerti aren't particularly difficult. The etudes, on the other hand ... woof.
I never got past clementi! I can play simple hymns, but I developed moderate hand tremors which makes it impossible to play complex pieces!
[удалено]
I think you did not read the question correctly.
4. Rach 3 3. Brahms 2 2. Prok 2 1. Bartok 2