What, exactly, is virtuosity ?

[opus10no2]

So, it is assumed that technical aspects of playing cannot only be defined, but separated from musical aspects.  To me this is absurd.  Every sound we make at the instrument is somehow filtered through our own "system," and we get that particular sound because of HOW we play.  If our mind is devoid of musical ingenuity, our playing will be, too -- it doesn't mean that somehow there is no "musical" interpretation happening, it just means that little creativity and thought went into it.  If we want it to sound dry and clear, we play it dry and clear by using a technique that produces this sound.

Well, the reason they can perceivably be seperated in our appreciation(though as you say, perhaps not our execution), is that it's perfectly possible to admire the way someone does things technically and still dislike their interpretation from a musical perspective.

[m1469]

Well, most of these words have definitions (which may vary slightly from dictionary to dictionay, so obviously there is some descrepency), but none of these words mean *anything* without some kind of living example for the person reading and trying to understand it.

So, what is "skill" ?  What is "art" yadda yadda ...

[m1469]

Well, the reason they can perceivably be seperated in our appreciation(though as you say, perhaps not our execution), is that it's perfectly possible to admire the way someone does things technically and still dislike their interpretation from a musical perspective.

Okay, I can "get" that -- however, in function, it still doesn't mean that they are actually separate things -- it still takes one to produce the other.  And, I tend to think that being a "virtuoso" has to do with how a person "functions" in musical thinking and at the keyboard.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think virtuosity, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. People have ideas as to what constitutes it, but they don't always agree about who has it. Take Cziffra - to some an almost unparalleled virtuoso, to others, a vulgar showman.

Never seen better definition, just don't remember who said that:

"Virtuosity is an ability to joyfully overcome pianistic difficulties".

I like that quote.

[opus10no2]

Anyway, what is "musicality" ?

If technique can be separated from musicality, what are all the "techniques" there are ?

Simply listing things like "3rds" and "scales" are not techniques, these are figurations which require a technique in order to play it and create sound -- they are musical/sound affects. If we want it loud, we need a technique that will produce loud, if we want it soft, we need a different technique.

There are so many techniques..they all come together to allow us to do what we want at the piano.
Our technique allows us to play the notes we wish to play, at the times and volumes we wish to play them. As pianists - that's actually all we have control over.

I've seen 'musicality' as being defined as the quality a 'musical' person has - the brain's fondness and skill with listening to and making up music.

[m1469]

There are so many techniques..they all come together to allow us to do what we want at the piano.
Our technique allows us to play the notes we wish to play, at the times and volumes we wish to play them. As pianists - that's actually all we have control over.

Yeah, there are as many techniques as there are musical passages  ... including all the ones that have never been thought of yet  --

So, let's take something out of these modern pieces -- putting one's butt on the piano is a technique.  Why does it exist ?  Because we want the SOUND of one's butt sitting on the piano, and that's it !

*off to practice butt scales*

I've seen 'musicality' as being defined as the quality a 'musical' person has - the brain's fondness and skill with listening to and making up music.

Yeah, okay.  That is about as definitive as describing the color orange would be 

[m1469]

m1469 Fox -- School of Butt Velocity and Buns Techniques

[opus10no2]

Okay, I can "get" that -- however, in function, it still doesn't mean that they are actually separate things -- it still takes one to produce the other.  And, I tend to think that being a "virtuoso" has to do with how a person "functions" in musical thinking and at the keyboard.

Yes, but there is no musical creativity involved in playing a 'straight' version of a piece with no musical input from the performer.

It depends what the pianist wants to do - some have perfectly credible aims to see a sequence of notes as a kind of obstacle course, a purely physical feat of 'sportsmanship'.
If one views a piece like this, it's perfectly possible to divorce the idea of technique being a means to a musical end, it's a means to a technical end in this case.

[m1469]

Yes, but there is no musical creativity involved in playing a 'straight' version of a piece with no musical input from the performer.

It depends what the pianist wants to do - some have perfectly credible aims to see a sequence of notes as a kind of obstacle course, a purely physical feat of 'sportsmanship'.
If one views a piece like this, it's perfectly possible to divorce the idea of technique being a means to a musical end, it's a means to a technical end in this case.

Not if "music" is intrinsically tied to sound.  In that case, all we have is a passage played with a certain sound -- just like the same passage that is played with a different aim in mind, it has its own sound.  As you said, it depends on what the pianist wants to do -- his/her intentions (or lack thereof) will be reflected in the sound.

[m]

'the character, ability, or skill of a virtuoso'

..and virtuoso has differing definitions -

1. a person who has special knowledge or skill in a field.  
2. a person who excels in musical technique or execution.  
'A brillant, skillful performer.'

I'd conclude from this, that it's a quality which describes excellence in a field or discipline.

Artistic 'skill' is difficult to agree upon, so the 'technical' qualities are the ones most often attributed to the use of this word.

First, those definitions came from dictionaries and written by scholars who have very little idea as for what virtuosity means. Moreover, most of them have a very little idea as for what music is, at all.
They completely forget that the translation of Latin virtus menas not only skill or excellence. Many greatests artists, including Neuhaus, Feinberg, Cortot, Richter, Gilels, Harvey, etc. etc. etc. agree that in the main core of virtuosity is "courage" and "braveness", hence the word "joyfully" in the definition of virtuosity I wrote above.
BTW, definition of virtuoso in Russian includes those categories.

Second, artistic "skill" is not difficult to agree upon.

Third, you have very little understanding as for what "technical qualities" are, so let's not get there.

[opus10no2]

m1469 Fox -- School of Butt Velocity and Buns Techniques

Not all butts and buns are created equally, unfortunately, I'm sure yours is bigger than mine - which gives you an unfair advantage at playing your own works.

Yeah, okay.  That is about as definitive as describing the color orange would be  

Ok....well I see it as 2 things -

The level of a person's cognitive abilities with pitch relations and organisations of sound in time.

The personal musical disposition of a person - ie..their personal musicality dictates their musical instincts and choices.

[m]

Not if "music" is intrinsically tied to sound. 

And it is. Both, Liszt and Chopin defined technique as the "ART OF SOUND".

[opus10no2]

Not if "music" is intrinsically tied to sound.  In that case, all we have is a passage played with a certain sound -- just like the same passage that is played with a different aim in mind, it has its own sound.  As you said, it depends on what the pianist wants to do -- his/her intentions (or lack thereof) will be reflected in the sound.

Of course music is intrinsically tied to sound, I wasn't claiming what I described to be musical at all.

The sound, in this case, would only be an indicator of the skill, evenness, and accuracy the pianist plays the notes with.

And it is. Both, Liszt and Chopin defined technique as the "ART OF SOUND".

Indeed, but at the piano we can think we are playing either of 2 things - a sequence of notes or a sequence of tones.

It takes technique to physically play a sequence of notes, and this has nothing to do with music or sound.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It depends what the pianist wants to do - some have perfectly credible aims to see a sequence of notes as a kind of obstacle course, a purely physical feat of 'sportsmanship'.

I don't think I have ever met a pianist who viewed music in such terms..

[m1469]

Not all butts and buns are created equally, unfortunately, I'm sure yours is bigger than mine -

Classic 


*off to rehearsal*


ciao 

[opus10no2]

First, those definitions came from dictionaries and written by scholars who have very little idea as for what virtuosity means. Moreover, most of them have a very little idea as for what music is, at all.
They completely forget that the translation of Latin virtus menas not only skill or excellence. Many greatests artists, including Neuhaus, Feinberg, Cortot, Richter, Gilels, Harvey, etc. etc. etc. agree that in the main core of virtuosity is "courage" and "braveness".
BTW, definition of virtuoso in Russian includes those categories.

Second, artistic "skill" is not difficult to agree upon.

Third, you have very little understanding as for what "technical qualities" are, so let's not get there.

I do have understanding, we just seem to disagree.

Anyway, that's an interesting definition, including 'personality' traits and qualities.

Courage and braveness can be seen as reasons people achieve hard-earned skill, so why not just concentrate on the resulting quality of skill and not the type of person it takes to get it?

After all, if a person can be couragous and brave at the start, while having no skill to exhibit it yet.

[opus10no2]

I don't think I have ever met a pianist who viewed music in such terms..

No doubt, I don't either.

I view a sequence of notes as a sequence of physical motions AND a sequence of musical tones.

The former doesn't really concern music.

[m]

Indeed, but at the piano we can think we are playing either of 2 things - a sequence of notes or a sequence of tones.

It takes technique to physically play a sequence of notes, and this has nothing to do with music or sound.

Well, for some yes, but people who understand in music at least something, play at the piano sequence of IDEAS. So the technique is not how to play sequence of notes, but how to make an idea out of sounds.
Needless to say, it is much easier to play one idea rather than to push 6 notes this idea consists of. Music and musical ideas dictate the technique. Such an approach is a fundamental of technique and that's what Chopin and Liszt were emphasysing.

[opus10no2]

Don't make the claim I do not understand music.
I just don't only understand music, I understand and appreciate something else, which you either can't or are in denial of.

The interesting thing is - what happens when a pianist places their focus on technical display?

Surely all the 'musical' facets of technique - principally control of the volume of each note - would be best 'shown off' by serving the musical idea.

Correctly so... but what about the purely physical facet of finger athleticism?
Is it best 'shown off' by serving the rubati of one's own musical whim?

It depends on the piece and passage of notes, of course, but in pieces like my delightful namesake - it's best to go AFAP and let one's sense of physicality dictate the way it is played more than one's musicality.

I'm not saying I can't play it with a musical mindset, just it's perfectly possible to play a piece respectably without any musical intent at all.

[goldentone]

Maybe it would help to look to "the greats" to help define virtuosity. 

Evgeny Kissin is obviously masterful as far as his technique.  But what about his musicality?

I think Kissin is more of a machine than a pianist.  Zimerman as well has a superb technique--such clarity--but I hear more music in his playing.  And then Marik!  I couldn't believe his Spanish Rhapsody.  Passion, excitement, majestic technique.  That is what I want to achieve.

[opus10no2]

Kissin's musicality?

From a cognitive standpoint, his brain is on a veryvery high level, I mean this is just proven alone by how good his ear is, and the amount of repertoire he has.

From the other area of musicality - taste and inclination, it's just personal taste, is it not?

Personally, I find his playing to be a mixed bag, I certainly enjoy alot of it.

[goldentone]

"From the other area of musicality - taste and inclination, it's just personal taste, is it not?"

Well, if musicality is not part of virutosity, then we are left with technique
alone.  Something else must be there, something intangible.

Perhaps what this thread is really about is greatness, not just virtuosity.

I agree a lot comes down to personal taste.  I think we need to be able to discern between personal taste and things that are actually true.  It's true that Martha Argerich plays with energy and intensity.  But one may or may not like her playing.  Who would say she is not a virtuoso? 

[opus10no2]

Well, if musicality is not part virutosity, then we are left with technique
alone.  Something else must be there, something intangible.

It depends.

The general concencus seems to be divided -

Virtuosity is technical skill.

Virtuosity is technical and 'intangible' musical skill

[timothy42b]

Virtuosity is a competition with other players.

With any given piece, whoever gets to the end first has the most.  You can even quantify it by timing it, if you are so inclined.

Musicianship is a partnership with the composer.  With any given piece, whoever ascertains and produces the composer's intent most closely has the most.  Quantifying it is neither necessary nor, usually, possible.

These two approaches can sometimes produce the same results but with different intentions.

Beginners tend to think they'll never become a technical virtuoso but they can interpret the heck out of a piece.  Probably the truth is exactly the reverse. 

[piano32]

This is a great question: to me, it's making what is hard look easy. Have you seen Roger Federer play tennis? Then you know what I mean. And playing fast and loud is a very small part of virtuosity, making a Debussy Prelude sound like the piece is reinventing the instrument you play on is true virtuosity. Can Lang-lang do that? Who knows.

[pianowolfi]

The more you are able to express what you want through your instrument the more virtuoso you are, in my book. Plus having the ideas or inspirations that you want to express, of course. The richer and faceted these ideas are, and the better you can express them, the more virtuoso you are.

[timothy42b]

The more you are able to express what you want through your instrument the more virtuoso you are, in my book. Plus having the ideas or inspirations that you want to express, of cpourse. The richer and faceted these ideas are, and the better you can express them, the more virtuoso you are.

So is that distinct from musicianship, or not?  To my mind virtuosity is a high degree of technical skill that may or may not be accompanied by musicality.  There are slow easy pieces which one can give a great deal of musical expression and interpretation even in the absence of much technical skill.  Richer ideas to me are outside the scope of virtuosity. 

[pianowolfi]

Yeah that are the different concepts of a "virtuoso". To me it includes a broad spectrum of musical qualities. Richter for instance is a true virtuoso to me. Or Hamelin. People that put music in the center of their intentions.

[andyd]

The other night I was looking at various performances of La Campanella on youtube. 

Firstly it struck me that it is a virtuoso piece.  Difficult?  Attractively flashy?

Secondly that some of the performers are virtuosos.  Masterfully competant?  Expressive?


Among the few I bothered to listen to properly were Yundi Li, Kissin, Lisitsa, Gekic, and Cziffra.
The last three gave (for me) truly virtuoso performances.
Yet I didn't actually like Lisitsa's version too much, however technically competent she is.
I found Gekic's version wonderfully expressive and masterful.
Cziffra's version is simply fabulous.
The latter two make the piece sound almost easy to play(ha ha).

If I had not heard Gekic or Cziffra, would I have thought Kissin's version amazingly virtuoso?


Regards

Andy

[jinfiesto]

In my humble opinion, virtuosity is the combination of superb technique and musicality. That actually should be the other way around, musicality first. And of course, there is the pre-requisite of being able to play what is considered "virtuouso music" well. For example, some of the chopin etudes, ballades, rondo capriccioso... etc....

[m19834]

Well, for some yes, but people who understand in music at least something, play at the piano sequence of IDEAS. So the technique is not how to play sequence of notes, but how to make an idea out of sounds.

Needless to say, it is much easier to play one idea rather than to push 6 notes this idea consists of. Music and musical ideas dictate the technique. Such an approach is a fundamental of technique and that's what Chopin and Liszt were emphasysing.

This particular post, made by Marik, stands out to me at this point.  How one goes about organizing sound into musical ideas plays a very large role in virtuosity, I think.  There are so many elements to balance out with piano playing, but there are immediate ones which come to mind.

Within this thread, we have discussed technical ability, musical ability -- and then there is left hanging something intangible.  Yes.  I think that intangibility is silence.  I think a great painter, for example, is constantly balancing many of the same things.  Balancing color and shape, in many ways, represents an "artistic" sense -- it is like the "musical" aspect of playing the piano.  The ability to stroke the paint onto the canvas, and knowing which brushes to use, the ability to create textures, this is technique and intrinsically tied to whatever colors (or sound for the musician) comes off of the brush (or out of the "fingers" for the pianist) -- or more accurately, whatever the balance of colors are that the painter is looking for.  But, a good painter is always keeping close at hand, that blank canvas.  Similarly, a good pianist keeping close at hand silence.  There is always a context, and the context must remain close at hand.

Perhaps mastery is a better endeavor than virtuosity.  A master keeps the balance of all three; sound organization (musical ideas), technical ability to produce the musical ideas, context/silence.  Well, either that, or I just enjoy the number three .

[opus10no2]

Just because music can be complex doesn't mean one's approach cannot be simple.

Technique books and posts on this forum can be so extensive, but I see any complex (often verbose) solution as a crutch-like alternative for a much simpler, true solution.

[goldentone]

How about this absolute definition:

Virtuosity is the ability to realize exactly the vision of the music as conceived by the player with technical ease--in power, clarity, and expression.

[franz_]

Volodos or Lang Lang are real virtuosos.
By saying that I think I show what a virtuoso is to me. A splendid technique, making wunderfull music, and being a real artist.

[pianochick93]

A virtuoso is someone who can make an audience - no matter how musically literate - go 'wow' and fall over in worship.

OK...well maybe not the last bit...but yeah.

[slobone]

A virtuoso is someone who can make an audience - no matter how musically literate - go 'wow' and fall over in worship.

OK...well maybe not the last bit...but yeah.

Hmm, only problem with that is that it makes the audience the authority, and let's face it, a lot of times audiences don't have a clue as to what they're hearing.

To me, virtuousity is a question of being "on top of the music." You not only have to get out all the right notes in the right tempo, but you have to make it sound easy (as opposed to difficult!). You can't sound rushed, or uneven, or anxious.

Every note should be given its due importance. The listener should be able to clearly hear each of the voices in the piece (as appropriate to the composer's style). You should have the feeling that the player could go even faster or add more ornaments if he/she wanted to (that might not be the case, of course.)

[m]

Just because music can be complex doesn't mean one's approach cannot be simple.

For the first time in a very long time I cannot disagree with you.

Technique books and posts on this forum can be so extensive, but I see any complex (often verbose) solution as a crutch-like alternative for a much simpler, true solution.

I would be more than curious to know as for what that "true solution" is.

Best, M

[tds]

The more you are able to express what you want through your instrument the more virtuoso you are, in my book. Plus having the ideas or inspirations that you want to express, of course. The richer and faceted these ideas are, and the better you can express them, the more virtuoso you are.

i am generally able to express what i want thru my instrument, BUT i dont see myself a virtuoso. i have ideas and inspirations as critics have often testified, BUT i dont see myself a virtuoso. one day i walk with richer, faceted ideas and inspirations than other days, BUT i dont see my level of virtuosity, or lack thereof, fluctuates. tds

[opus10no2]

For the first time in a very long time I cannot disagree with you.

I would be more than curious to know as for what that "true solution" is.

Best, M

That would be telling 

[tds]

That would be telling 

n would u like to proceed?