do you enjoy/appreciate virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity?

[stevie]

even if you find an interpretation musically lacking, can you appreciate and even enjoy a performance for it's purely technical aspect?

for example, you can be disgusted by the tempo with which richter takes the chopin op10/4 MUSICALLY, but still be awed and enjoy the stunning virtuosity on display.

i, for one, am fascinated with the purely technical aspect of piano playing, and can enjoy a performance on a technical level even if i dont find it musically satisfying.

my musical taste does help however, i do veer towards the more fast and furious sides of piano playing, so virtuosity is a very welcome side-effect to this! 

[Skeptopotamus]

yeah i'm the same ^^

I used to hate schumann's toccata until I relalized how difficult it was.

[chromatickler]

yeah i'm the same ^^

I used to hate schumann's toccata until I relalized how difficult it was.

meiting sun's playing of that is amazing!

[donjuan]

Its like junk food, i suppose, listening to "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity" as Kissin phrased in that "Great Pianists of the 20th century"

I have to admit, listening to Cziffra bang out Grand Galop Chromatique or listening to Horowitz's arrangement of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 is sooo much fun and i get such an adrenaline rush from watching people show off.  Of course, its only worth it if the person showing off has the right to do so.  Nothing is more frustrating than watching someone try (and fail because of lousy technique mostly) to reenact another peformance simply for the way it looks. 

[piazzo23]

Cziffra was not a virtuoso for the sake of being a virtuoso!

[donjuan]

well duhhh of course - Cziffra's interpretation of many of my favorites is phenominal.  But Grand Galop Chromatique is just a joke!

[grazioso]

I think there are altogether to many people that can just play technically hard things.
What differnetiates a goo dpianist from a great one is there musicality

[Skeptopotamus]

I'd be more impressed with someone who bombed OC than aced fur elise.

[grazioso]

Obviously to a ertain extent but if they played OC like a robot then i could easily be more impressed with fur elise

[ted]

No, I don't think so, not now, although forty years ago physical virtuosity might have impressed me. Nowadays sound is everything for me, regardless of who or what produces it (might be a computer) or how it is produced. I regard extreme physical virtuosity as rather like somebody who can jump seven feet in the air or multiply twelve digit numbers together in his head. It is vaguely interesting, even laudable in the novelty sense, but of no profound importance. That is not to say I do not enjoy the physical yoga of playing in general, far from it, but the relevance of excelling in it per se has vanished. 

[stevie]

well duhhh of course - Cziffra's interpretation of many of my favorites is phenominal.  But Grand Galop Chromatique is just a joke!

depends what you mean by a joke, what cizffra does MUSICALLY in that piece is what cannot be replicated.

sure there are a small few pianists nowadays to match his technique and bravura, but the dynamics and stunning rhythmic colours are uniquely cziffra, its a whirlwind of colour.

[hannon_freek]

Well I know I couldn't stand listening to C-3P0 play Chopin's rain prelude like a marching snare drum, bless him. For the same reason I cannot stand people playing Hanon's excercises like a finely tuned R2-D2 screwdriver...why not play them musically!!!! This is what I tell my students everyday. Of course the musicality cannot get in the way of technical aspects, but then once again we find this 'fine line' (hmm it pops up everywhere, coincidence??) between the two. Personally I think it all stems back to Freud's Oedipus Complex but that is a whole different ball game

[bwv772]

Virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity?  Well not for me.  Music, or musicality, does it for me.  I've attended a few concerts by this pianist (who shall remain nameless) who is awesome by his ability to trill, play super quick scale passages, his octaves are bold, quick and solid.  He plays all the notes in the Prokifiev's Toccatta, never misses one. Everything technical is there but the *music* is missing.  After a while is just sounds like a series of notes, no 'music', no tension, nothing, blah.  After the concert people usually comment on how just fast he can play, "you couldn't even see his hands they moved so fast" and all.  But it's annoying. You just want to walk away. His Liszt somehow misses the point, so does his Chopin. Beethoven's a big deception everytime.  His Bach is good though. 

This is in sharp contrast to another concert I've attended, one entirely dedicated to Debussy.  No virtuosity a-la-Liszt there, intensely musical performance, a few of us were so stunned and moved by the concert we were the last ones to leave the hall, we were just a few sitting in this empty hall after the concert saying absolutely nothing, dead silence, like if we were waiting for something, or like if we needed some time to take it all in. Ten minutes probably went by until some staff member silently entered the room, closed the piano lid and left.  We left maybe five minutes after that.

[Derek]

It's not very important to me. I think I like a moderate amount of virtuosity, since some of my favorite pieces of music are virtuosic, I want to be able to play these. That includes some Rachmaninov Etudes-Tableaux, but in those cases I think virtuosity is wedded perfectly to musicality.

So my answer is, no I don't appreciate virtuosity for its own sake, but I do find virtuosity impressive if it is used in conjunction with something that sounds wicked or awesome and moves me.

[chromatickler]

a musical performance instills appreciation and emotional satisfaction
a virtuoso performance instills jealousy

[stevie]

a musical performance instills appreciation and emotional satisfaction
a virtuoso performance instills jealousy

jealousy in those who cannot replicate that virtuosity

for me, i feel pity for those with a lesser technique.

[jeremyjchilds]

I like it for about 10 minutes untill I get bored

[Dazzer]

jealousy in those who cannot replicate that virtuosity

for me, i feel pity for those with a lesser technique.

Thanks... i can always use more pity.

[prometheus]

No I don't. I already heard everything. I don't care about it. Plus most classical pianists don't have that much virtuosity anyway.

[stevie]

No I don't. I already heard everything. I don't care about it. Plus most classical pianists don't have that much virtuosity anyway.

what do you mean everyhting?

and if most classical pianists dont have that much virtuosity...who does?

[prometheus]

They don't improvise. You also get automatic good tone and intonation out of a piano. It's hard to judge their control over the instrument.

[stevie]

They don't improvise. You also get automatic good tone and intonation out of a piano. It's hard to judge their control over the instrument.

let me guess....you are a jazz pianist and piano isnt your primary instrument?

improvisation doesnt necesarily have anything to do with virtuosity, it depends how you define virtuosity...

if you define it as a 'high degree command over an instrument', then id say technically classical pianists are superior in quite a few ways, especially regarding piano technique.

i mean this in terms of technical vocabulary and variety of figurations, jazz pianists rarely have to cope with etude-style textures, constant barrages of octaves and 3rds/6ths etc.

[quantum]

If virtuosity is used as a means to express musical ideas, I am extreemly attracted to it. 

If virtuosity is for the sake of virtuosity, I would rather listen to a jackhammer.  At least a jackhammer has musicality. 

There are a very few performers I have heard where virtuoisty for the sake of virtuosity have made the music seem somewhat attractive.  Richter's Chopin Op.10/4 is insane,  but that maddness and super-human impossibility is what I was attracted to.  Horowitz playing Scriabin's Vers la Flamme, verry showy, not exactly how I would interpret it, but it is an intense performance. 

[burstroman]

Yes, for about 5 minutes.

[da jake]

Virtuosity that doesn't contribute to musicality is pretty useless, isn't it?

Take Yingdi Sun, the winner of the last Liszt competition, for instance. 

[chromatickler]

They don't improvise. You also get automatic good tone and intonation out of a piano. It's hard to judge their control over the instrument.

virtuoso improvisation consists of the application of pianistic techniques that suit the player n the music at that moment. in improvised (or even prepared) technical figurations, the fingers (and eyes) lead the ears. only in basic melodic material do the ears lead the fingers. this applies to fugal improvisation too. what's seemingly impressive is nothing but controled randomness with respect to key and harmony, dictacted by the most natural and comfortable finger response. and for those of you who pride yourselves on fugal improvisational abilities, try this simple experiment: pick 2 random tunes with the same meter that you've known since you were 4 years old. first play them simultaenously (one in each hand). then play one tune in one hand and improvise your own counter point in the other. then improvise both hands. now tell me which was harder.

and back to the matter of technique. saying that improvisers possess a 'higher technique' is like saying psychics and mediums are a higher science. however, just as mediums and psychics are encouraged to prove themselves through scientific tests with proper controls, jazz improvisers can prove their technique through standard virtuoso repertoire where objective comparison is possible. the outcomes are likley to be the same in both cases. after all, you dont see many chopin op10#2s improvised on the spot do you?

[prometheus]

I didn't say improvisors have better technique. I am just saying that the ability to play 'where your fingers follow your ears' is I skill that is part of controlling the instrument. So for me it is part of virtuosity. And people can do this at very high speeds.

[chromatickler]

I didn't say improvisors have better technique. I am just saying that the ability to play 'where your fingers follow your ears' is I skill that is part of controlling the instrument. So for me it is part of virtuosity. And people can do this at very high speeds.

i don't think you are talking about TONE controling technique, but that is the only thing that makes sense in relation to what you describe.

i believe what you WANTED to get across with 'where your fingers follow your ears' is the geographical command/finger reaction skill. However, this skill can only be objectively tested/compared by sightreading or 'sound reading' (hearing a specific piece and playing it back EXACTLY as written). and jazz improvisers don't stand a chance here. this is precisely due to the limited control over their instruments. 

[prometheus]

I don't understand what you mean.

[chromatickler]

well, the skill you describe is the ability to play some predetermined sequence and combination of notes (we'll call this the 'execution code') on the keyboard quickly and accurately on first attempt. to test one's prowess in this ability, there's only 2 ways:

sightreading a piece of written music -for those who best receives the execution codes visually
playing back a piece of music heard -for those who best receives the execution codes aurally.

and i've explained in my first post how improvisation have little to do with this skill.

[prometheus]

Playing what you hear in your head requires great skill. If classical musicians are better at this then they are also better improvisors. This would be strange because they never practice this.

This is not the same as sightreading. I don't see how being able to do one means you can do the other too.

[chromatickler]

this is EXACTLY the same as sightreading so far as technique is concerned. i have purposely ignored the "hearing from your own ears" part because it has nothing what so ever to do with technique, it is a compositional skill. the ability to replicate this sound on the keyboard is the part concerning technique. you have confused the two.

[prometheus]

No. If you play notes you don't play tones.

[chromatickler]

that distinction is not remotely related to the actual technique of playing the instrument

[prometheus]

Not to technique. Maybe you should have read my definition of 'virtuosity' more clearly.

[chromatickler]

i assumed you would be bright enough to realise that if 'virtuosity' included anything other than technique it would render this whole topic along with your replies completely useless and irrelevant, akin to "do u you enjoy a good performance for the sake of a good performance"

[prometheus]

Don't be childish. I can't help your replies are meaningless because you missed my definition of virtuosity. I am almost forced to assume you still didn't read it because now you equal virtuosity to a good performance.

[stevie]

i guess the dictionary definition might help :

'The technical skill, fluency, or style exhibited by a virtuoso or a composition'

[chromatickler]

Don't be childish. I can't help your replies are meaningless because you missed my definition of virtuosity. I am almost forced to assume you still didn't read it because now you equal virtuosity to a good performance.

we were both wrong in our respective assumptions