# Which is ''easier''? Rach's Gm Prelude or Scriabin's Etude Op.8 No.12?



## w00ster

Hi!
I've been learning to play piano for two years now, mostly by myself. I didn't learn the basics, I just went straight for it, and started learning random pieces that I enjoy listening to, most of which aren't necessarily for beginners. The first thing I learned was a part of Bordodin's Polovtsian Dances, then on to Mozart's Turkish March, Handel's Passacaglia and, most recently, Chopin's Funeral March. I know 5-6 other really short pieces as well. 

Obviously, I'm still nowhere near great with any of them, but I'm stubborn and I keep playing.

Now and again, I hear a piece that makes me go ''Oh!! I want to learn that one'', and stupidly, I go for it. So... All of this to say that my latest obsession is trying to learn either Rachmaninoff's Prelude in G minor, or Scriabin's Etude Op.8 No.12.

I know they are both pretty difficult, but still, indulge me: for those who know more about this than I do, which one would be ''easier'' to learn? I'm leaning towards Scriabin right now.

Thanks!


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

Both are very difficult tbh. I'd start with Rachmaninov's b minor moment musical and then try the famous c sharp minor prelude, which is not as technically demanding as the g minor. Best of all, get a teacher (unless you can't afford it).


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Two years is too early to play either piece. Here's my post if you had more experience and were gradually working up to the harder pieces:

I would say Sciabin 8/12 is more difficult. It probably looks less intricate on paper, but I think the very wide leaps in the left hand as well as all the octaves (maybe you have a thing for octaves but I really don't), and the overall coordination seems like it would be more difficult.

Rachmaninov 23/5 will fit in your hand even if your hands are not so big (ironically Scriabin had small hands and Rachmaninov had big hands), I played it in a recital and I'm not that good, so it can't be that difficult. The middle section might look hard if you are not used to arpeggios but it's a good piece to with which become acquainted with them.

My vote's for Rachmaninov being easier. I should add that I also used to play through Scriabin 8/12 so I know a bit about what it feels like to play it.


----------



## w00ster

Thanks!
I ended up going for Scriabin: I've put in about 6 hours of work and I can now play the first 10 measures from memory REALLY slowly. 
I intend to spread this out over the course of several months, but, once I got past the massive headache of just understanding what was going on with the left hand, it doesn't seem so impossible now.

As for a teacher, while I understand the benefits etc, I don't really want one. I have a friend who's a concert pianist that comes over and gives me great general advice on nuance and technique from time to time. I would not like to follow any other curriculum than the one I set for myself, otherwise I will lose interest. I'm fairly happy with my progress, and since this is just for fun and to challenge myself, I think a teacher would be more of a burden to me than anything else at this point.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Rachmaninoff's Prelude in G minor, or Scriabin's Etude Op.8 No.12"

IMO, neither. They are not just "pretty difficult." Both are all over the piano keyboard with fast and furious passages intended for the advanced pianist and not the novice. On the other hand, out of genuine respect for the difficulty of the other two, there's another great Scriabin Etude that can be played at the intermediate level if one works at it:


----------

