# A method for determining the difficulty of piano works: useful or bogus?



## chu42

*before commenting, I kindly ask that you read the explanation thoroughly*

Hi, guys. I decided to undertake a rather enormous and perhaps controversial project-I created a fairly simple system to rate the difficulty of piano works and I am now in the process of assigning a difficulty number to as many piano works as possible, with the help of my peers (I know that many of you guys may already hate this, but hear me out).

No rating system concerning an artistic pursuit can ever be perfect. But the goal here is to help students/teachers figure out what they should try sight-reading next without having to ask all sorts of questions and reading through music they may or may not be ready for.

Using this system, a student or teacher can take a casual glance at a piece of their choosing and gauge whether or not it is within their level. People (as well as music societies such as Henle and ABRSM) already rank pieces often but ranking them only by order or level gives the reader no gauge on what particular points in a piece are difficult.

One more hope is that this kind of difficulty rating can help clear up the ever-present questions:
"What should I play next?"
"Am I ready for *insert work*"
"What pieces are the most difficult?"
"Rank *insert pieces* by difficulty."
Et alia.
If any such questions do still arise just redirect the discussion to this thread so they won't be a bother to anyone else.

The rating system works as follows:
Composer+name of piece: fingerwork rating - octave rating - jump rating - endurance rating - interpretation rating - total rating

e.g. Schumann Op.7 "Carnaval": 16-15-_17_-13-16-*76*

*Individual rating guide:*
0-1: Beginner 
2-3: Novice
3-6: Intermediate
7-10: Early Advanced
11-14: Advanced
15-18: Very Advanced
19-22: Expert
23+: Master
*
Total rating guide:*
0-10: Beginner
11-20: Novice
21-30: Intermediate
31-40: Early Advanced
41-60: Advanced
61-70: Very Advanced 
71-90: Expert
91+: Transcendental

Let's say a student wants to play the entirety of Beethoven's Appassionata.

Beethoven Sonata No.23 "Appassionata": _17_-9-7-14-_17_-*64*

*Explanation of figures*

Fingerwork: Difficulty of rapid passages such as scales, runs, and double notes. Fingerwork in the Appassionata is very advanced; it received a 17.

Octaves: Difficulty of octave passages throughout the piece. Octaves are present but not particularly difficult; having early advanced octave technique is adequate(10).

Jumps: Difficulty of leaps between notes. Leaps are not a difficult factor; it received a 7.

Endurance: The mental and physical strain on the performer. Performing the Appassionata in all 3 movements requires fairly high endurance (14).

Interpretation: Difficulty of performing in a musically cohesive manner. Includes rhythm, musicality, and coordination with ensemble (if applicable). A cohesive performance of the Appassionata requires very advanced understanding of the music (17).

Total (in bold): The previous rating total. Not a great relative indicator of difficulty but a good indicator of how many difficulties are present. Individual difficulties are the most important (the highest one in each set is italicized). Overall, the Appassionata is very advanced (64).

Further comments: Difficulties not discernible from the ratings such as the presence of specific techniques (3rds, double notes, octave glissandos, etc.)

Further examples:
Beethoven-Liszt 9th Symphony: 17-17-2_1_-17-16-*88*
Schumann Symphonic Etudes: 
_17_-15-15-16-16-*79*
Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody No.6: 12-17-14-17-9-*69*
Chopin Etude Op.10-2 "Chromatic": 22-0-10-17-7-*59*
Beethoven Sonata No.13 Pathetique: 9-4-5-10-15-*43*
Chopin Minute Waltz: 8-0-4-4-_9_-*25*
Satie Trois Gymnopodies: 2-0-3-2-_10_-*17*

In these examples, one can see which pieces are more "balanced" in terms of difficulty versus ones that specialize in a certain difficulty. For example, Schumann's Symphonic Etudes are fairly difficult throughout while Chopin's Op.10-2 is very difficult, but only in two areas-fingerwork and endurance. So despite being rated lower, a student could be at the level to play the Symphonic Etudes without having hands nimble/strong enough to play 10-2, which is exactly why I stress the importance of individual ratings. However, there is still no doubt that Schumann's work is a more difficult piece overall, which is why it is rated more difficult. Thus, when comparing the difficulty between two pieces, it is important to consider the highest individual difficulties as well as the total difficulty.


----------



## Taggart

Nice idea. You've missed out pedalling and to a lesser extent articulation. Satie, for example, may be a beginner piece in many ways but the pedalling makes it more difficult. 

The ABRSM publish teaching notes which indicate the particular difficulties of their pieces and what skills might be needed. They also run a forum where people can discuss the particular difficulties of specific pieces both technique and musicality.


----------



## chu42

Pedalling/articulation would probably be under interpretation- I gave the Satie a 10 which would be on the high end of early advanced (it's usually played by beginners but not effectively). It's very possible to play all the notes correctly while missing the articulation/pedalling, which is why I would consider these two to be under interpretation.


----------



## Bwv 1080

So what rating is Richard Barrett’s Tract?


----------



## chu42

Bwv 1080 said:


> So what rating is Richard Barrett's Tract?


No clue, haven't played it. Guess it would be along the lines of most New Complexity works- high 90s into 100s.


----------

