the THRILL of virtuoso pianism

[stevie]

im sure many of you are aware, i am a fan of virtuosity, even for its own sake, i love the thrill of athletic pianism.

but yes, i am a huge fan of music too!

and this is the precise reason why virtuoso pianism is the most thrilling thing in the world to me.

the combination of art - emotion and sensual pleasure coming from the music, and the 'sport' element, the atheletic display of amazing feats of speed, endurance, and juggling the most difficult of pianistic figurations with FURY and technical command.

this combination of the physical thril and the musical thril is what i love so much about virtuoso pianism.

i just felt like saying that....

[zheer]

I like to drive my car very fast.
 
Just felt like saying that.

[rc]

There's a lot of great virtuosic music, but I've never liked virtuosity for its own sake.

I heard a Liszt bravado piece a few weeks ago on the radio. The first minute impressed me, 'wow, that's some fantastic playing', after the novelty wore off it became so much road noise to me. I actually got a little irritated after a while when I realized the piece hadn't ended yet.

Still, I'm not a very good pianist yet so I'm not able to experience playing such a thing. I do get a certain rush when I pull off fast passagework (for my level)... Slipping into a fast state of mind, quickened pulse, sort of an adrenaline rush. I like that.

[stevie]

well, i guess thats the difference, its not a novelty but a way of life for me.

[rc]

well, i guess thats the difference, its not a novelty but a way of life for me.

Did you like virtuosity before you could play, or was it something you grew into?

[stevie]

since before i could play, and i havent 'grown out' of it

to me, piansitic virtuosity is as legitimate a skill on its own as footballers, golfers, etc.

[rc]

since before i could play, and i havent 'grown out' of it

to me, piansitic virtuosity is as legitimate a skill on its own as footballers, golfers, etc.

Yes, the sport element, as you said earlier.

I wasn't implying it as a phase to grow out of. I meant as something you came to like while getting into piano.

In guitar I could get into the sport of it. I wasn't interested in difficult fretwork when I took up guitar. It was more like as I got better I craved more challenges, eventually needing virtuoso playing as a challenge (then I found classical ). Somewhere along the line it became a little abstracted from the original intent, music. In the guitar world they use the term "wankers" for players who are technically amazing but are awful to listen to, musical masturbation. It's a source of controversy.

So that's how I see it, an element slightly removed from the music. To challenge oneself and push the boundaries.

Right now it's not an issue for me, I couldn't play it if I wanted to, but it's hard to say, I might get into it once that level seems feasible for me. I still have the challenge aspect, part of me doesn't like playing a piece that isn't a challenge.

Virtuoso playing is something that can only be appreciated to piano-ears too, the average person can't tell whether something is difficult or not, which is why I put music first.

[ramseytheii]

This from Alfred Brendel:

Q: ...none of your three chosen pianists - Cortot, Fischer and Kempff - were exactly overpowering virtuosos.

BRENDEL: I would like to invite you to spend an evening listening to virtuoso pieces represented in the "Great Pianists" series on CD... Listen to.. the Spanish Rhapsody, for example, played by Arrau and Gilels, or the second Rhapsody played by Josef Hofmann, and then compare that with Cortot's reading of the second Rhapdsody; you will be amazed!  Although not so note-perfect, it is in a completely different league of music making.  And Fischer's recording of Bach's A minor Fantasy is technically a masterly performance that I would like to hear matched by one of my colleagues!  There is a control of the long line and the most subtle nuance - this, after all, is also part and parcel of technique.  I should then like to single out Kempff's performance of Liszt's first Legend in the early 1950 recording, which is on an unsurpassable pianistic loevel.  And I would say that this technical mastery is unsurpassable precisely because it serves the poetic purpose...

Walter Ramsey

[rimv2]

I heard a Liszt bravado piece a few weeks ago on the radio. The first minute impressed me, 'wow, that's some fantastic playing', after the novelty wore off it became so much road noise to me. I actually got a little irritated after a while when I realized the piece hadn't ended yet.

That's how ah feel about almost every liszt piece over 5 minutes

[stevie]

Yes, the sport element, as you said earlier.

I wasn't implying it as a phase to grow out of. I meant as something you came to like while getting into piano.

In guitar I could get into the sport of it. I wasn't interested in difficult fretwork when I took up guitar. It was more like as I got better I craved more challenges, eventually needing virtuoso playing as a challenge (then I found classical ). Somewhere along the line it became a little abstracted from the original intent, music. In the guitar world they use the term "wankers" for players who are technically amazing but are awful to listen to, musical masturbation. It's a source of controversy.

So that's how I see it, an element slightly removed from the music. To challenge oneself and push the boundaries.

Right now it's not an issue for me, I couldn't play it if I wanted to, but it's hard to say, I might get into it once that level seems feasible for me. I still have the challenge aspect, part of me doesn't like playing a piece that isn't a challenge.

Virtuoso playing is something that can only be appreciated to piano-ears too, the average person can't tell whether something is difficult or not, which is why I put music first.

well, im not sure about it, but some 'wankers' must exist in the piano community.

listening to wankers is pointless unless they are truly special.

if there is a person of equal technical proficiancy to them, with the added musical bonus, of course id prefer the musical one.

anyway, this topic isnt so much about virtuosity alone, its about the awesome combination of the musical and the technical/atheletic of pianism.

something like berezovsky's liszt TEs DVD is one of my most watched videos.

people like me are the kind of people who love piano VIDEOS, because the visual element is extremely entertaining, and can virtually be considered an art in itself.

[hinski]

Have you ever gone to some concerts where the entire program is just to demonstrate the virtuosity (here I mean loud and fast)? It can be a thrill at first, but if the pianists just possess technique, nothing else, I feel after a couple of pieces that I was bombarded by a whole bunch of noise; at that point I long for some moments of silence. Finally I walked out of these concerts. But if the pianists have something to say, with impeccable virtuosity, it is sensational. However, the greatest ones are the ones who have virtuosity but you are not aware of it. That is called QUALITY. Virtuosity is just one of their tools to interpret pieces.

Would you like to buy a sleek looking sports car with an unreliable engine which breaks down all the time?

Many great pianists start their careers with showy virtuosity but later with life experience they transformed into heartfelt pianists.  They probably finally discovered who they are or came to a greater understanding of the essence of music (depending on the repertoire) in order to communicate with sophisticated audiences.