What, exactly, is virtuosity ?

[Mayla]

It has always seemed like something I can spot in people, but not explain.  And, before I asked this question here, I thought that perhaps it has mainly to do with mastery -- but, of what ?  Each pianist is still unique and each pianist will still be better at certain elements than another, even if they both express virtuosity.

(Have we talked about this before ?)

[pianistimo]

i expect that opus10#2 will say 'skilz'  or something like that.   

[Mayla]

Well, okay, but what are your thoughts ? 

[counterpoint]

playing faster than everyone else 

[Mayla]

I am thinkin' it's a madeup thing ... a word treated like a secret handshake or something, but not anything truly concrete.

[pianistimo]

i attempted virtuosity with the brahms paganini variations and ended up impressing only a handful of people that knew the variations.  after all that work and technical study of thirds/sixths/etc - most people wanted to hear fur elise or something 'pretty.'  kicked the bucket of virtuosity and went with 'classical/romantic' music mostly.  although, i think the waldstein is fairly virtuosic.

i would say - things that are harder for the average pianist to play - and things that you can actually feel good about performing.  a piece that you had 'inspiration' with.  and perhaps would feel 'moved' by and moved others by.

ps virtuosity is only part of the full picture isn't it?  i mean if you are musical AND virtuosic - then you've got a good combination.  but virtuosity alone is just sort of 'fluff.'

[Mayla]

playing faster than everyone else 

So, you are saying there is only one virtuoso in the world ? 

[Mayla]

ps virtuosity is only part of the full picture isn't it?  i mean if you are musical AND virtuosic - then you've got a good combination.  but virtuosity alone is just sort of 'fluff.'

I am not sure how virtuosity could be exempt of music and therefore stand alone  .

[andyd]

Isn't it the ability to play fast AND nice?  

Technique and artistry = mastery


Regards

Andy 

[pianistimo]

you would think so - but the general public is sometimes more impressed with fluffy virtuosity.  i think there are several shades of it.

[counterpoint]

So, you are saying there is only one virtuoso in the world ? 

There are many, many fast pieces - so every "virtuoso" gets his chance 

[Mayla]

Well, maybe rather than mere speed, it has to do with efficiency -- efficiency of motions and movements and this ability to depict the musical concept.  Because, doesn't it have to do with "musicality" at all ?  I know that technique and music are inseparable, but one can be fast without being musical (and is that still considered virtuositic ?  Maybe that's what you meant, pianistimo).

[Bob]

.

[Bob]

.

[faulty_damper]

Having a lot of technique and having ease with that technique.

Not necessarily expressive or "musical."

Sometimes meant as a compliment.  Sometimes an insult.

Maybe what you mean is "empty virtuosity".

I'd rather think of virtuosity to mean someone of virtue.  Virtue has meanings of goodness. 

But what is an "empty virtuoso"?  Someone who is not virtuous.  Id est: Someone who can play extremely well, but is only a pianist, not a musician.  Someone who serves himself and the piano first, at the expense of music.

A virtuoso is then someone who is a musician primary, pianist secondary.  Someone who serves the music first.

[opus10no2]

Virtuosity, like technique, can exist without music.

I think of great sportsmen as virtuosi of their disciplines.

It's just excelling at a discipline...and with a subjective thing like art, it's pointless trying to bring musicality into the equasion.

Virtuosity is command, but what is command without a creative spark?

The kind of Virtuosity that most excites me, is when outstanding technical skill and thrilling 'sport-like' attributes are married to a spontanious and exciting musicality.

[Mayla]

spaghetti

[quasimodo]

carbonara

[Mayla]

Well, the only reason I put the word "spaghetti" is because I had posted something that I decided to erase.  Originally I just left a period, but then I thought "why just leave a period when anything else would be just as useless ?"

You see.

[quasimodo]

Oh okay, I thought it was a new word thread.

[prongated]

...

[excerpt]Noske and Petrobelli suggested the 12th century as the earliest time where virtuosity is considered in the performing arts arena. There is a more explicit historical account relating virtuosity to music in the 14th century, where “rapid development of rhythmic complications and subtleties of style [demanded] highly developed virtuosity from the performer” (1970:114). There is an implication here that there are two essential facets in a virtuosic performance – the mastery of rhythm and style.[end]

Virtuosity is derived from the word "virtue". In music, technical brilliance was never considered a particularly 'worthy' virtue - at least, not as an end in itself. [excerpt]For example, Gerig, in his book, Famous Pianists and Their Technique, generally accepts the importance of technique in achieving artistic purposes. He named Mozart as the earliest great pianoforte player, whose technique “defined the ideal Viennese piano technique in superlative fashion” (1974:52).[end]

Musicians such as Busoni despised the technical kind of virtuosity. Stephen Hough likened it to driving 200mph in a Ferrari and missing all the sceneries. It is also normally accepted (at least in the world of musicologists) that virtuosity is often misinterpreted as technical bravura, despite music history having little focus on this aspect.

There is also a strong notion that there are different levels virtuosity, which are determined, among other things, by difficulty. Herein, I think, lies the room for various perception in regards to what constitute virtuosity: which is more difficult, technical playing or musical playing?

To illustrate:

[excerpt]Mitchell outlines an account of a performance by Liszt where he supposedly performed in a manner similar to Chopin’s in a darkened room. The audience thought he was Chopin – until the light was lit. Surprised, they questioned whether Chopin could play like Liszt the way Liszt could play like Chopin.[end]

...anyway, IMO essentially, the more virtuous, the more artistically valuable it is.

(excerpts taken from a recent paper I wrote)

[nick]

Well, the only reason I put the word "spaghetti" is because I had posted something that I decided to erase.  Originally I just left a period, but then I thought "why just leave a period when anything else would be just as useless ?"

You see.

and i was getting hungry.

Nick

[rc]

Fork

[quasimodo]

tritone

[Mayla]

Now you guys are just being rude 

[opus10no2]

I know that technique and music are inseparable

You do? Expand on that

[hodi]

total control

[Mayla]

You do? Expand on that

You're so smart.  Why don't you just go ahead and expand on that. 

[Mayla]

total control

hmmm... I have seen/heard plenty of "virtuosi" *not* maintain this in the performance of even a single piece, let alone a complete recital.

[opus10no2]

You're so smart.  Why don't you just go ahead and expand on that. 

What exactly do you wish to be expanded?

[Mayla]

What exactly do you wish to be expanded?

Oh, thanks for asking.  Actually, nothing at all, really.

[opus10no2]

I like the way you 'jerk' 

Anyway, I think technique and music can be seperated.

I mean..technique is a way of doing something, in this case a way of playing piano.
As you've observed, much of the appreciation and enjoyment that comes from piano playing isn't really about music at all.

[keyofc]

I think it's a snobbish term, meaning "I'm the best"

[nick]

Now you guys are just being rude 

i love spagetti, no rudeness from me. I agree with virtuosity having to do with speed and clarity irregardless of how musically played. The question for me is, why is this important to you, what relevance does it have in your life.

Nick