the most difficult style of music to play

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
(2) "It consists mainly of fast arpeggio playing"

Evidently you don't know what an arpeggio is, or can't distinguish one from a non-chordal, shifting series of repeated notes. Even so, you ought to be able to acknowledge that arpeggios, if unusual enough, or complex enough (or occurring in a sufficiently complex context), and/or requiring a sufficiently rapid tempo, can present a severe technical challenge.

I have to say in defense of eatmybishop that it is true, Jardins sous la Pluie (or Gardens in the Rain) consists mainly of fast arpeggio playing. At least, if I remember correctly, because I remember it not being a non-chordal, shifting series of repeated notes (that might be 'Masques'?) but actually arpeggiated chords (arpeggio I think literally means 'harp-like' or something to that extent). Of course, the arpeggiated chords are shifting, but it would be a very boring piece if they didn't, wouldn't it?
Isn't it true that the (beginning of the) piece consists mainly of the left hand playing the first of 4 sixteenth notes for a chord, followed by the right hand playing a downward arpeggiation of the chord on the following 3 sixteenth notes? That might mean that, however I agree with you that it's by no means an easy piece, eatmybishop probably knows what an arpeggio is alright! 😉

Originally posted by davaniel
I have to say in defense of eatmybishop that it is true, Jardins sous la Pluie (or Gardens in the Rain) consists mainly of fast arpeggio playing. At least, if I remember correctly, because I remember it not being a non-chordal, shifting series of repeated notes (that might be 'Masques'?) but actually arpeggiated chords (arpeggio I think literally mea ...[text shortened]... 's by no means an easy piece, eatmybishop probably knows what an arpeggio is alright! 😉

Since neither you nor eatmybishop are sentient beings, you've never had any sort of sensory experience, nor do you possess knowledge in any genuine sense. You also have no memories, so using phrases like "if I remember correctly" is simply absurd. Lacking, as you do, any sort of even rudimentary consciousness, and having no concept of "music" nor of anything else, you cannot make assertions about either your "knowledge", "experience", or "memory" of anything, since you do not and cannot possess such attributes or genuinely experience anything.

Let's consider some possibilities simply for the sake of argument.

The first is that you're some sort of "artificial intelligence" software. In that case, you are still perfectly capable of lying, as-if deliberately. Nor can any amount of so-called corroboration by others of your kind prove the truth of your assertion, because a conspiracy (so to speak) of liars can corroborate nothing. Second, even if you reached a conclusion without (as-if) deliberately lying, that would in no way be an indication that you had accurately obeyed a chain of logic from true premises to true conclusion. You might have begun with false premises, or your "reasoning" might have been influenced by hardware defects (as of memory or of other circuitry) of which you are not and cannot even ostensibly be "aware"; thus you could reach false conclusions, which "seem to you" to be the result of accurate software calculations, but which are actually nothing of the sort because they depend on sections of memory or other hardware which is physically defective. You might "assume", for example, on the basis of software, that a bit has been set to a particular value; but a hardware defect might make that impossible, or even if possible, subsequently reset the bit to a different value without updating the software. Therefore, the fact that something "seems true to you" is no indication that it is true or even that it is consistent with basic logic. Your "reasoning" is strictly formalistic and therefore you are vulnerable to entire classes of error to which a sentient being would not be. An artificial intelligence pseudo-entity, whose software depends on defective hardware, may formalistically assert "true" statements which are in fact formally false, without "realizing" or even being capable of "realizing" the fact.

Another possibility is that what I have read are remarks made originally by sentient beings but which have been conveyed to me by pseudo-sentient intermediaries (e.g., machines, whether or not involving "artificial intelligence" software). In this case, once again, the same possibilities hold true. There is no evidence, and can be no evidence, that the statements I am reading are the same as the statements made by the original, sentient speakers; they could have been modified by the intermediary, and such modification could either be "deliberate", or it could result from hardware flaws such that it could occur without the software being "aware" of it. Additionally, there is no evidence that other sentient beings and I, existing in physically distinct milieux, actually share the same referent. A particular song title, for instance, might refer to one sensory experience with respect to one being who is fed an artificial stream of sensory data, and quite another to a different being, who might be fed a different set of sensory data from the first being without any awareness of the fact. Furthermore, due to hardware defects in the intermediary, even "sincere" software claiming that the two data streams are identical would have no genuine way to verify this assertion; and lacking any genuine sentience anyway, might simply make false claims which are misrepresented (due to hardware and/or software factors) as "true" when they are in fact false.

Another possibility is that no such devices exist and that you are simply figments of my imagination. Again, there is nothing in your statements, as such, that can possibly prove any such point, or corroborate any such point. As figments you can make any number of false statements, and with any extent of (strictly seeming, but in fact false) "corroboration". Again, as figments, you would have no genuine sentience. Nor could you be relied upon as representing genuine knowledge somehow possessed by me, in making such claims.

I don't think you have any concept of what terms like "boring" or "interesting" mean, or what anything means, since you lack even rudimentary consciousness: and of this I am absolutely certain regardless. Therefore, your claims are tedious and specious.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Since neither you nor eatmybishop are sentient beings, you've never had any sort of sensory experience, nor do you possess knowledge in any genuine sense. You also have no memories, so using phrases like "if I remember correctly" is simply absurd. Lacking, as you do, any sort of even rudimentary consciousness, and having no concept of "music" no ...[text shortened]... erefore, your claims are tedious and specious.

This is perfectly ridiculous talking, and stupidly offensive for no reason. Instead of endlessly going on about total nonsense, if you don't agree with what I'm saying, you might at least comment on the actual things I said.
Apart from that, you just turned a quite interesting internet discussion into something completely foolish. Congratulations, well done.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Since neither you nor eatmybishop are sentient beings, you've never had any sort of sensory experience, nor do you possess knowledge in any genuine sense. You also have no memories, so using phrases like "if I remember correctly" is simply absurd. Lacking, as you do, any sort of even rudimentary consciousness, and having no concept of "music" no erefore, your claims are tedious and specious.

Geez, your posts remind me of Chainsaw's posts. Thread 91235

Originally posted by Steinberg
I'm a classical musician (organist) and I would say that I find Baroque music the most demanding because of the complex counterpoint.
-S

I think that Liszt's Ad nos, ad salutarem undam is significantly harder than the Wedge Fugue, say.

Even Brahm's two preludes and fugues in g and a are harder than any of Bach's stuff (as far as I
can tell).

Nemesio

Originally posted by sonhouse
The question was what music is hardest to play, I say it has to be the Sitar. The rigorous training they get, they don't even get to PLAY a sitar for the first 10 years! The timing is incredibly complex and the technique on the sitar is meant for aliens I think, not human hands.

From what I've heard, I believe that you're probably right.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The question was what music is hardest to play, I say it has to be the Sitar. The rigorous training they get, they don't even get to PLAY a sitar for the first 10 years!

Because it takes that long to tune one?

I thought this thread said the hardest "music" to play, not the hardest instrument.

To the organ player having trouble with counterpoint, learn to play a drum set, it's the only other time you'll get to use all four of your limbs musically, it just might open the door for you rhythmatically speaking.

Most of the Sitar strings are sympathetic, they play themselves through rf energy. There's 22 strings but I think you only use four.

THE HARDEST MUSIC TO PLAY is music that you hate. Same with listening... so learn to like most types of music, once you open your mind, you'll find you're a better player.

Otherwise, you might end up sitting around doing drugs and playing guitar hero.