Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Method of determining difficulty: useful or bogus?

Hi, guys. I decided to undertake a somewhat 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, articulation, musicality, and coordination with ensemble (if applicable). A cohesive performance of the Appassionata requires very advanced understanding of the music (17).

Total: 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. 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: 17-17-21-17-16-88
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.

Chopin's etudes as a gauging point:

Etudes Op.25/10 (as a set): 26-18-16-22-17-99
Etudes Op.25 (as a set): 26-18-10-20-17-91
Etude No.1 "Aeolian Harp": 11-0-7-9-10-37
Etude No.2: 12-0-4-6-12-34
Etude No.3: 17-0-5-12-10-44
Etude No.4: 2-10-17-6-10-44
Etude No.5: 12-5-6-5-12-40
Etude No.6 "Thirds": 26-4-6-18-9-(Double notes, thirds)-63
Etude No.7: 11-4-3-3-15-36
Etude No.8: 18-0-8-14-7-(Sixths)-47
Etude No.9 "Butterfly": 10-10-10-7-7-44
Etude No.10 "Octaves": 4-18-2-13-10-47
Etude No.11 "Winter Wind": 20-3-7-17-8-55
Etude No.12 "Ocean": 17-0-16-14-7-54

Etudes Op.10 (as a set): 22-9-9-25-17-86
Etude No.1: 17-2-16-16-5-(Arpeggios)-58
Etude No.2 "Chromatic": 22-0-10-17-7-59
Etude No.3 "Triste": 9-5-6-4-16-40
Etude No.4 "Torrent": 21-6-6-15-10-58
Etude No.5 "Black Keys": 15-9-7-9-4-44
Etude No.6: 6-3-0-3-17-28
Etude No.7:17-2-5-12-10-47
Etude No.8: 15-3-7-9-9-43
Etude No.9: 16-4-9-9-8-46
Etude No 10: 14-8-6-9-7-44
Etude No.11: 10-0-8-7-12-(Arpeggios)-37
Etude No.12 "Revolutionary": 14-7-4-8-9-42

? I don’t understand your system. Henle system is at least simple. The best system is to your teachers advice or to play and try.

Seems to me way too complicated. If you are going to get into details like endurance or fingerwork, might as well simply write the comments and explanation about the piece. The numbers are confusing. It is simplier to directly give a level of difficulty 1 to 10, or 1 to 5. Then to a large extent the ratings are related. A piece that is intermediate would not have fingerwork at beginner level. And if a piece is at intermediate level, a beginner would not tackle it. It is actually more interesting to know what are the specific difficulties of a piece which would above the overall level of that piece.

That's incorrect. An intermediate piece could easily have beginner fingerwork. In fact, a very difficult piece could have no fingerwork at all, if it is a technical study like an octave etude. If I am good at octaves but my fingerwork is not advanced, then a single number doesn't tell me anything about whether or not I am good enough to play a piece.

Specific difficulties would be seen in the individual numbers. That's why I said the overall difficulty doesn't matter as much as individual difficulties.

Interesting. In your system how would you rate the Tchaikovsky Meditation op. 72 no. 5?

Can't really say- as a general rule, I play a piece thoroughly before giving it a rating. But just from listening only, the piece has a sizable amount of octaves and arpeggios in the middle. It would place at least in the 40s if not low 50s; decidedly advanced.

Beautiful piece, by the way. I haven't heard of it until you mentioned it.

Who is going to go through all - or at least a goodly portion of - the piano repertoire considering all these factors and rate repertoire on each of these criteria? Moreover, subjectivity may well take over in some cases: one person's octave stumbling block is in another person's relative comfort zone.

I can't see the practicality of such a complex grading system. In that respect, trial and error may be even more efficient. Two minutes with a piece will tell me if it's too difficult for me while it might take considerably more time to consult the table of ratings and assign a number to each technical/artistic element.

Regards,

Food for thought:

1. You've described a very complicated system to solve a minor problem. Is it worth all the effort?

2. The benefits of your rating system are theoretical and based on a lot of assumptions. Do you have proof of concept that your rating system is significantly better than what's already out there or is it only marginally better?

3. As others pointed out, you are ignoring major complexities in the problem you're trying to solve. Do most people actually pick pieces this way or do they pick pieces some other way? How do you account for the fact that many of the supposed problems are based on the wide variance in the skills of piano players, rather than the availability of a repertoire rating system?


... as an old mentor once told me, "make sure you've defined the problem accurately or you'll be solving the wrong problem".

John Cage's One5 would be a beginner's piece in this system.

It turns music into something like gymnastics. We can get so caught up in ooohing and ahhhing over technical demands and prowess that music itself gets lost in the judging. Not for me.

Not for me. I can generally read through a score to determine difficulty but use Henle and my teacher as adjuncts
Please note that my teacher has said ‘that section is more difficult than it seems’. That is something that would be missed if I did my own involved scoring.

Not having fingerwork and having easy fingerwork are 2 different situations. Of course if there are no arpeggios in a piece, they are easy. What's the point ? I am not disputing that it is interesting to have a differentiated level by some broad categories of technical difficulties. My main point is that students are assumed to progress different areas in parallel. They may be more profficient in some, but if an assumed intermediate student is a beginner in fingerwork then he is not at an intermediate level. The interesting part in an average rating is that it gives people a broad indication of the piece difficulty. What is interesting in a more detailled rating of the piece is to highlight what are the specific technical components present in the piece and which one are more difficult than the level assumed in the piece. If i start a piece in level henle 5 i would not expect to encounter arpeggios that would require a level 7 but they may be more difficult than what most pieces in level 5 would have.

1.There is already a 1200 page book that rates the difficulty of most pieces in the standard piano literature and also has a written discussion of the difficulties of each piece.

https://www.amazon.com/Pianists-Rep...=1566439936&s=books&sr=1-1-spell

2. I don't think either individual category rankings or total rankings should be two digit numbers. How can one justify rating the fingerwork in one piece a 20 and the fingerwork in another piece a 21?

The problem here is that a piece that's 9/10 in every category will get a higher score than one that has low scores in all areas but one, but which is on the verge of unplayable.

Another thing is, why are Chopin's etudes as sets at a "transcendental" rating, but yet not one single etude is? It seems to me you'd have to average all the individual "total rating" numbers. Sorry, it's just so subjective as to be unworkable.

Each set when played as a whole combines the most difficult attribute found in whichever etude; for example Op.10's most difficult etude in terms of fingerwork is rated 22 so 22 is the overall fingerwork difficulty rating for the set; that is the level one should theoretically be at to play the entire set. The figures for endurance and interpretation are then increased based on the time and effort required for the entire set to be played cohesively. Yes, it's very subjective but if the figures seem accurate to a general consensus then the subjectively doesn't matter so much.

My intention was not to turn music into gymnastics; it is more of a studying tool for students finding prospective pieces. There are definitely problems even on that regard, as I am now aware. Thanks for the feedback.

That's right, which is why I added that individual difficulty is much more important than overall difficulty. This can be seen in etudes which test particular skills which is why some of the Chopin etudes are rated lower than the Schumann repertory despite being technically more difficult. Although I would be hard-pressed to find somebody who thinks that any Chopin etude is actually more difficult than, say, Kriesleriana...

I've played the complete Kriesleriana and some of the Chopin études, and I'd say that I can't play a few of the latter satisfactorily, but have no problems with the Schumann.

This kind of thing is just way too subjective. There is more than one way to play the piano, and if you play a piece the wrong way, it will seem far more difficult than it needs to be. This also greatly affects "endurance".

Regarding "interpretation", I would say that whether something is a "cohesive performance" is more in the mind of the listener.