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.
These preludes and fugues move between meditative passages and tightly woven polyphonic sections: there is often a contemplative flow intertwined with fugal writing that demands clarity and articulation. You will face moments where the "Polyrhythm 2 against 3 (3.1/5)" is central, requiring precise subdivision of rhythmic groupings between the hands and steady tempo control, and the "Touch control (2.5/5)" which means bringing out inner voices without hardening the accompaniment through flexible fingering and nuanced dynamics. The set belongs to Kabalevsky’s modern period and sits in his output as a work that explores contrapuntal writing for piano with both pedagogical and concert aims. I do not provide reference recordings here because I am not fully certain of a single, universally recognized interpretation for this specific work.