Variations on a Theme of Paganini, for 2 pianos
Variations Two pianos
In brief

This two-piano work projects a character that is sharp and slightly ironic, with virtuosic figures presented in a percussive relief rather than a lyrical romantic line. From a technical standpoint you will particularly work on Analyse harmonique (3.8/5): you must quickly map modulations and harmonic shifts to anticipate accents and altered appoggiaturas, and on Contrôle du toucher (2.5/5), which requires a precise balance of clear attacks and held resonance so as not to overpower the partner piano during dialogues. The piece occupies a place in Lutosławski’s catalogue as an example of his engagement with the variation form and with exploiting instrumental mechanics within chamber textures. I do not provide a recommended reference performance here because I am not sufficiently confident about a specific, widely recognized recording for this two-piano version.

Formation

Two pianos · 2 performers

Required forces
Piano 2 performers
Playable parts
Piano I Piano II
MusicCoach difficulty
85/100
Master repertoire
Likely range : 73–97/100
Confidence : 40% · to confirm
BeginnerIntermediateAdvancedVirtuoso
Exam grade
About grade 8

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.

Where this work sits
050100

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.

Add a note (optional)

Your note is not published on the site: it is read in review.

Relative difficulty
83%
Among Witold Lutoslawski
97%
Era
67%
Genre
Estimated skills
Theory
Harmonic analysis
1
Theory
Knowledge of forms
1
Tone
Touch control
1
Technique
Hand independence
1
Technique
Fast passages
1
What to play next?

Each suggestion combines difficulty gap, risk, confidence and skill overlap. The first two cards in each column are the most useful pedagogically.

See the whole progression