u/Different-External95

Might be a poorly worded question but I hope you understand what I mean.

Ill start:
"Theodor Kirchner was just a poor copy of Schumann and Brahms. There isnt much to find with him which hasnt been done. Also almost none of his pieces pose significant difficulties"
I know that this might sound a boit schizo, because most people dont know Kirchner or dont care but those who do, are often quick to judge him. Sure, he was a miniaturist and admired both Schumann and Brahms however his rhythmical sense goes beyond what Schumann did, and his way of modulating /dealing with harmonies in total feels quite a bit ahead of its time (not always of course).
One has to keep in mind, that he didnt have a stable life and probably put out that many works because he needed the money. His gambling addiction probably didnt help with that. So there is some bloat in his oeuvre but If you take your time, you'll find many gems.
For the difficulty argument I'd refer you to his op. 30 (youll find all 4 Books on "digicult"). The last volume has pretty advanced pieces that cannot be taken lightly.
My favorite things abiut his music are his outbursts and ecstatic moments probably aswell as the sudden shifts between moods.

2nd lie: "Skrjabin was a synesthete"
Very unlikely that he had the neurolical condition afaik. As there is no mentioning of this in his earlier life so its probably some kind of associative synesthesia which was "trending" in the early 20th century. Its very unlikely to get this neurological condition later in your life (but possible).
Also he could just have been tripping on drugs, lol.
Another thing thats frustrating is the whole theosophy and "I am god" misinterpretation.
It feels like people who repeat these things didnt take the time to read his letters but resorted to the more simple picture of "Skrjabin was just craycray" (which to be fair is partially true). So its the lack of nuance thats sometimes annoying when it comes to Skrjabin.

Might be a poorly worded question but I hope you understand what I mean.

Ill start:
"Theodor Kirchner was just a poor copy of Schumann and Brahms. There isnt much to find with him which hasnt been done. Also almost none of his pieces pose significant difficulties"
I know that this might sound a boit schizo, because most people dont know Kirchner or dont care but those who do, are often quick to judge him. Sure, he was a miniaturist and admired both Schumann and Brahms however his rhythmical sense goes beyond what Schumann did, and his way of modulating /dealing with harmonies in total feels quite a bit ahead of its time (not always of course).
One has to keep in mind, that he didnt have a stable life and probably put out that many works because he needed the money. His gambling addiction probably didnt help with that. So there is some bloat in his oeuvre but If you take your time, you'll find many gems.
For the difficulty argument I'd refer you to his op. 30 (youll find all 4 Books on "digicult"). The last volume has pretty advanced pieces that cannot be taken lightly.
My favorite things abiut his music are his outbursts and ecstatic moments probably aswell as the sudden shifts between moods.

2nd lie: "Skrjabin was a synesthete"
Very unlikely that he had the neurolical condition afaik. As there is no mentioning of this in his earlier life so its probably some kind of associative synesthesia which was "trending" in the early 20th century. Its very unlikely to get this neurological condition later in your life (but possible).
Also he could just have been tripping on drugs, lol.
Another thing thats frustrating is the whole theosophy and "I am god" misinterpretation.
It feels like people who repeat these things didnt take the time to read his letters but resorted to the more simple picture of "Skrjabin was just craycray" (which to be fair is partially true). So its the lack of nuance thats sometimes annoying when it comes to Skrjabin.

Hey,
I usually like to check piano library when thinking about getting sheet music or seriously playing a piece while not near a piano to try it out myself, or maybe not seeing certain hidden diffiulties.
Henle is a good indicator too but sometimes a little strict and it doesnt have as many pieces as piano library that I am interested in (lookin at you skrjabin).
But what really made me wonder are the gigantic differences in ratings some pieces have.
Take skrjabins op. 42 no.3 (the "mosquito" sounding etude 😛 ) according to henle its on a 4/9 but piano library gives it a whopping 4/5 which is a huge difference and I "cant understand" where this discrepancy comes from.

Rating difficulty is subjective and the "musicality" that poses its diffiulties on itself is extremely dependend on the performer. If uve played a lot of bach pieces as u progressed u might not struggle so much with different voices in a different piece, than someone who played more mozart (simplified example).
Now since im not home, what do you think about this piece? I feel like it shouldnt be a 4/5 just by looking at it, but I might be completely off here.

Edit: The difficulty most likely stems from the light touch during the trills, not giving to much weight on the notes but still its one of the things I have never tried so i struggle to determine the difficulty for me without playing it...