Estimated from our difficulty score, not taken from an exam syllabus. Checked against 333 works on the ABRSM syllabus: the exact grade is right 7 times out of 10, and within one grade 99 times out of 100.
Difficulty estimate by MusicCoach on a scale of 1 to 100.
Most works cluster between 45 and 65: a small score gap often marks a real step. The highlighted bar shows this work among those for the same instrument.
The MusicCoach difficulty measures a work's overall demands (technique, reading, stamina) on a shared 0-100 scale, consolidated from editorial and pedagogical reference points (Henle, exam syllabuses, curation) and our own analyses. It measures neither musical value nor the practice time YOU will need: two musicians of the same level can experience the same work very differently depending on their strengths (hands used to octaves, quick sight-reading…). The confidence reflects how many reference points sit behind the score and how well they agree — a lightly documented score is flagged “to validate”. For a truly personal bearing, the diagnostic and your space compare each work to YOUR estimated level, which the score alone cannot do.
Does this rating look right to you?
This rating is computed automatically from heterogeneous sources. It gets things wrong, sometimes badly. If you know this work, your answer is worth more than our computation: it tells us which ratings to review.
Each suggestion combines difficulty gap, risk, confidence and skill overlap. The first two cards in each column are the most useful pedagogically.
The safest next step.
A genuine step up, without a jolt.
A useful leap with guided practice.
The piece has a collage-like, abrupt character: hymn-like fragments are successively transformed with sudden dynamic contrasts and irregular accents, giving the music the feel of a jagged conversation. Technically, two specific challenges stand out: Connaissance des formes (3.8/5) requires following and clearly articulating the variation modules — you must identify the thematic cells and keep their coherence while making transitions perceptible — and Polyrhythmie 2 contre 3 (3.1/5) demands hand/limb independence to sustain a duple pulse against a triple subdivision, which calls for controlled wrist action and precise digital independence. Positioned in the modern period, the piece shows Ives's taste for variation form and formal experimentation within his solo piano output. I do not provide a reference recording because I am not sufficiently certain of a specific performer for this work.