Virtuosity

[eddie92099]

I don't think this word has been used correctly once on the entire forum.

vir·tu·os·i·ty    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vűrch-s-t)
n. pl. vir·tu·os·i·ties
The technical skill, fluency, or style exhibited by a virtuoso or a composition.

Therefore, saying piece a is more virtuosic than piece b is clearly incorrect. They are a different type of virtuosity. I don't want to single people out, but Hmoll just said in another thread "they tend to want to hear the virtuosic etudes, so stay away from Op. 10#3, 6, 9, and Op. 25# 1, 2, 7, 12 ". True, these are virtuosic, but so are the other etudes, just in different ways,
Ed

[thracozaag]

I don't think this word has been used correctly once on the entire forum.

vir·tu·os·i·ty    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vűrch-s-t)
n. pl. vir·tu·os·i·ties
The technical skill, fluency, or style exhibited by a virtuoso or a composition.

Therefore, saying piece a is more virtuosic than piece b is clearly incorrect. They are a different type of virtuosity. I don't want to single people out, but Hmoll just said in another thread "they tend to want to hear the virtuosic etudes, so stay away from Op. 10#3, 6, 9, and Op. 25# 1, 2, 7, 12 ". True, these are virtuosic, but so are the other etudes, just in different ways,
Ed

 Damn, Ed, shouldn't you be out chasing girls, or getting drunk instead of looking up words in the dictionary?
 Merry Xmas to all, in any event.

[eddie92099]

Damn, Ed, shouldn't you be out chasing girls, or getting drunk instead of looking up words in the dictionary?

We had a massive party last night and I drank too much and have been feeling ill all day. My family have now left me to go to another party, and I am sitting here eating chocolate cake and ice cream.
Happy Christmas to all,
Ed

[thracozaag]

We had a massive party last night and I drank too much and have been feeling ill all day. My family have now left me to go to another party, and I am sitting here eating chocolate cake and ice cream.
Happy Christmas to all,
Ed

 Chocolate cake and ice cream, the panacea to any hangover.  Cheers!

[Hmoll]

I don't think this word has been used correctly once on the entire forum.

vir·tu·os·i·ty    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vűrch-s-t)
n. pl. vir·tu·os·i·ties
The technical skill, fluency, or style exhibited by a virtuoso or a composition.

Therefore, saying piece a is more virtuosic than piece b is clearly incorrect. They are a different type of virtuosity. I don't want to single people out, but Hmoll just said in another thread "they tend to want to hear the virtuosic etudes, so stay away from Op. 10#3, 6, 9, and Op. 25# 1, 2, 7, 12 ". True, these are virtuosic, but so are the other etudes, just in different ways,
Ed

Well, don't listen to me. Below is taken from the auditon requirements for Juilliard:

"One virtuosic etude by Bartók, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, or Stravinsky. "

I guess if they can make a distinction between an etude being virtuosic or not, I'll allow myself to do the same.


Ed,

Thracozaag's suggestion about chasing girls might not be far off.

No matter how tiresome and pedantic you sometimes come across, it's laudable that you have taken it upon yourself to be the self-appointed Piano Forum sentinel defending the English language from fallacious and erroneous usage. However, the occasional post that contains a misspeling (whoops), possible misuse of vocabulary, or otherwise lack of clarity should be viewed in the context of the overall content, and the spirit of helping out our fellow pianists.

For example, my offending post was intended to provide advice regarding which Chopin etudes are preferable for college/conservatory auditions, and why.  If you object to using the term "virtuosic" in that context - btw, I will continue using it in that context - then consider the content of the post, which was to provide a "best practice" regarding which etudes make a better impression in an audition.

[eddie92099]

Well, don't listen to me. Below is taken from the auditon requirements for Juilliard:

"One virtuosic etude by Bartók, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, or Stravinsky. "

I guess if they can make a distinction between an etude being virtuosic or not, I'll allow myself to do the same.

It's your call. I would take that to mean any etude though, since they are all virtuosic. One could argue tortology (don't incorrectly correct this to tautology) perhaps.

it's laudable that you have taken it upon yourself to be the self-appointed Piano Forum sentinel defending the English language from fallacious and erroneous usage

Many thanks,
Ed

[Hmoll]

I would take that to mean any etude though, since they are all virtuosic.

Absolutely not. I know a lot of people who have been through Juilliard - as students and teachers -  and they all say that that sentence precludes Op. 10#3, Op. 25#1,2, and 7.  

[thracozaag]

Absolutely not. I know a lot of people who have been through Juilliard - as students and teachers -  and they all say that that sentence precludes Op. 10#3, Op. 25#1,2, and 7.  

 And 10 #6, and to a lesser degree, 10 #9.

[eddie92099]

Absolutely not. I know a lot of people who have been through Juilliard - as students and teachers -  and they all say that that sentence precludes Op. 10#3, Op. 25#1,2, and 7.  

While we all know what Juilliard are trying to say, they fail to do so in correct English unfortunately,
Ed

[dinosaurtales]

I am going back to the chocolate cake and ice cream binge on a hang over.  That is way gross, ed!  You have more stamina than me!

Merry Christmas to all of you!

Mindy

[eddie92099]

But it is late at night here already. In fact, it is now officially Christmas. I am so not in the spirit this year...
Ed

[Hmoll]

While we all know what Juilliard are trying to say, they fail to do so in correct English unfortunately,
Ed

If you know what they are trying to say, why did you bring up the subject in the first place? The fact is, you didn't know what they were saying, or you would not have suggeted that they mean all etudes.

The poster who was asking about audition programs was  looking for advice on repertoire, not an English lesson, which is why you would be better off paying attention to the content of what people write, rather than picking on semantics. If you have anything to add of a musical nature, you might be able to help the poster out.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[eddie92099]

If you know what they are trying to say, why did you bring up the subject in the first place? The fact is, you didn't know what they were saying, or you would not have suggeted that they mean all etudes.

There are ways of saying things incorrectly whilst still getting the correct meaning across. I didn't pick up on it in that particular thread as I didn't want to disrupt anything. Anyway, what is so wrong about teaching people to speak correct English?
Ed

[Jemmers]

This is where there is a major glitch in your argument, ed.
There is ambiguity where the word "virtuoso" is concerned to the degree that there is enough ambiguity for there to be 2 opposing sides in an argument.

In other words, you might not be teaching us "correct english". Dictionary definitions vary, and most importantly, language evolves--dictionaries don't.

[Jemmers]

With regards to dictionaries not evolving... I'm not referring to new editions. I'm referring to a dictionary, just sitting on a desk. It doesn't change.

[eddie92099]

There is only ambiguity in the usage of the word, not the definition of it,
Ed

[Noah]

Ross: There is nothing wrong about speaking correct English!

Rachel (taking the piss): Indeed, there isn't.

[Hmoll]

There is only ambiguity in the usage of the word, not the definition of it,
Ed

This is starting to be a thread that should be moved to that folder - whatever it's called - with the religion threads.

At any rate, you're wrong again. Usage determines definition, and usage evolves. Editors of dictionaries know this. If you don't know this, you don't know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive definitions/dictionaries.

The word "virtuosic" is particularly ambiguous. For you to state that it is not correct to say one piece is more or less virtuosic than another just shows your lack of understanding that an adjective can be used comparatively - not to mention what it says about your knowledge of piano music.

[Rach3]

A four-year old playing Chopin 10/4 is not  being virtuosic. But, when performed reasonably within the directions of the printed score (as by a virtuoso), the result usually exhibits lots of technical skill and fluency, or else they can't play the notes. The piece in itself is conducive to very showy and technically skilfull performance (it's a virtuosic etude). My $0.02.

"Virtuosic" being used to describe a piece, or compare two pieces, is common usage. Dictionaries are supposed to represent common usage, not archaic usage. You said:

I don't think this word has been used correctly once on the entire forum.

. By your own admission then, the "incorrect" usage is VERY common and universal practice. As Hmoll pointed out, JULLIARD (where EMANUEL AX teaches!!!)
sees this as correct usage, even for their FORMAL application documents! Stop berating the whole world, write to Merriam-Webster, they'll appreciate the advice.

We had a massive party last night and I drank too much and have been feeling ill all day.

This thread provides concrete and specific examples of how Ed is leading the whole forum with 1,237 posts.

[eddie92099]

Ross: There is nothing wrong about speaking correct English!

Rachel (taking the piss): Indeed, there isn't.

Monica: Always "whom, whom whom". Sometimes it's "who"!

At any rate, you're wrong again.  

I don't ever remember being wrong before (or indeed, this time).

Usage determines definition, and usage evolves. Editors of dictionaries know this.

Then would we not expect the most up to date definition to be one which allows the word to be used correctly the way you use it? If you could find me that definition I will stop the argument.

A four-year old playing Chopin 10/4 is not  being virtuosic. But, when performed reasonably within the directions of the printed score (as by a virtuoso), the result usually exhibits lots of technical skill and fluency, or else they can't play the notes.

So the performance is virtuosic...

The piece in itself is conducive to very showy and technically skilfull performance (it's a virtuosic etude). My $0.02.

Chopin's opus 10 no. 3 is just as conducive to technical skill and fluency than opus 10 no. 4. We are not just talking about the speed one can play notes when we talk about virtuosity, but also balance of notes, control of melodic lines etc.
Ed

[Rach3]

But the technical difficulties of 10/3 don't cause listeners to go into convulsions and scream. Liszt's performance pieces did.

[eddie92099]

But the technical difficulties of 10/3 don't cause listeners to go into convulsions and scream. Liszt's performance pieces did.

Where is the relevance in that?
Ed

[Rach3]

Chopin 10/1 is termed a "virtuosic etude". Most of the forum uses this linguistic convention, as you yourself said. We have been shown that the Julliard faculty presumably sanction the school's use of this convention, at least applied to chopin etudes (which were your specific complaint). You have demonstrated that according to a literal defintion from a dictionary, this usage is incorrect. Accepted. More relevantly, however, it has been demonstrated that "common usage" among pianists, especially internet-connected pianists and Julliard faculty, differs subtly from proscribed usage in said dictionary. You accuse them all of being incorrect. I maintain that the dictionary does not accurately reflect a commonly accepted denotation.

Perhaps your argument would be stronger if you mentioned which dictionary you referenced. I consulted MW Int., they differ in wording but your point is still valid.

The most important thing is, it is now 3:18 AM.

[eddie92099]

Perhaps your argument would be stronger if you mentioned which dictionary you referenced. I consulted MW Int., they differ in wording but your point is still valid.

Why does my argument need to be stronger when you have just accepted it?
Ed

[Rach3]

You have demonstrated that according to a literal defintion from a dictionary, this usage is incorrect. Accepted.

Key words, "literal", "dictionary". The purpose of dictionaries is to document standard, common usage of words and their various denotations. I agreed with you that the dictionary differs from what everyone is saying. The thing is, your primary point was that the whole forum was wrong. I still maintain that, given the proven universality of the specific "incorrect" usage of "virtuosic", it is become "common usage" and thus should be entered into your (still nameless) dictionary. Furthermore, this usage's absence thereof marks a defiency in the dictionary, and not laziness on the part of the pianists in question.

I was merely giving a suggestion on how to make your point more convincing, namely by using proper sources. As proclaimed "self-appointed Piano Forum sentinel defending the English language from fallacious and erroneous usage", it would help to play the part. As it is it doesn't really matter anyway... your point is archaic and trivial. Furthermore, it is unimportant.

It is now 3:57 AM.

I move this threat be relocated to the other folder, the one with the religions and stuff. -R3

[Dave_2004_G]

My $0.02 is that this is probably the most pointless argument I've seen in a long time!

Sorry but it really is I can't believe it's even gone on this long I'm not even gunna say anything about it

Dave

[Jemmers]

I think ed is simply one of THOSE people who refuse to lose an argument.

Here's my thoughts: Ed, you're right. Everyone else, ed's right. But whatever. We'll use "virtuosic" our way. We'll do it wrong. As long as we don't mind...

[eddie92099]

Many people worldwide refer to piano pieces as songs. Does this represent a deficiency in the dictionary regarding the definition of the word "song"? No.
Ed

[eddie92099]

I think ed is simply one of THOSE people who refuse to lose an argument

...when I know I'm right. Do you think I would be making this point if there were any doubt of me not being so?
Ed

[Hmoll]

 

Here's my thoughts: Ed, you're right. Everyone else, ed's right. But whatever. We'll use "virtuosic" our way. We'll do it wrong. As long as we don't mind...

The problem is Ed quoted a definition of one word 'virtuosity" - which is a noun - and used that definition to show that the word "virtuosic" - an adjective - should not be used comparitively. I other words, besides comparing apples to oranges, he's negating the basic functions of adjectives - description and comparison.

Anyway, I'm with you. Tell Ed he's right, and he'll think so until he gets some English lessons. In the mean time, I'm making an executive decision, and allowing all other posters to use the word "virtuosic"as it was intended, and as it is universally understood.

[eddie92099]

Virtuosic: adj.
Exhibiting the ability, technique, or personal style of a virtuoso

Story still applies,
Ed

[leemay001]

Hehe, not even Jerry Springer could best this. I'm not going to take sides but why does any of it matter? Sure enough Ed debated against what you said and your telling him that it doesn't matter if you use it your way because people still understand the meaning but if so then why continue arguing? How about we call it a tie?
  ~Lee~

[bernhard]

I don't ever remember being wrong before (or indeed, this time).

Ed

Just curious. Are you Maddox?

https://maddox.xmission.com/

[schnabels_grandson]

https://maddox.xmission.com/

LOL, that site is so damn funny.  What an ass!

[eddie92099]

Just curious. Are you Maddox?

It would explain a lot  ,
Ed

[cziffra]

if you don't use your language properly, you'll end up like George Bush.  So listen to Ed!  Please!

[eddie92099]

Thanks for the support. To quote George Bush, "they misunderestimated me",
Ed  

[Rach3]

Unfortunately Ed, your "apples and oranges" analogy is very, very wrong. Most of the forum clearly understands the proper usage of the word "song" and shows great animosity towards any who abuse it. This has been amply demonstrated in the past. Only a handful of uneducated misanthropes abuse the word "song", whereas  the whole forum (with one exception) accepts the correct usage of "virtuosity". No comparison.

[IgnazPaderewski]

If people understand what you mean when describing op.10 no.1 as virtuosic, then what is the problem? what phrase would you have in place of virtuosic for the Julliard repertoire List; mechanically taxing? you could makethe same point for that -  that Opus 10. no.3 is just as mechanically taxing as the next - I certainly find this, if not more. For 99.99% of the time, those who use the word have the same idea of its meaning as do those hearing it, so why bother debating some obsolete dictionary definition if we all can communicate and understand each other just fine?

[meiting]

Jesus... don't you guys have anything better to do? like maybe practice?

[Jemmers]

Well said.

[eddie92099]

if you don't use your language properly, you'll end up like George Bush.  So listen to Ed!  Please!

Wise words,
Ed

[Ktari]

As my teacher would say, "virtuosic etude" simply means a fast etude, as opposed to Chopin Op. 10 No. 3, for example. This is just recognized convention.

A piece 'a' being more virtuosic than piece 'b' can just mean that it requires more virtuosity.

... there is SO MUCH language griping on this forum

[eddie92099]

This is just recognized convention.

Which doesn't make it correct,
Ed

[chopinetta]

well, well, well... probably the next time we type the word virtuosity we'll have to specify what we mean by it.

[Jemmers]

just to throw more stuff into the soup (which is always fun), try this:

We start by stating that a certain piece can be more difficult than another piece. (Think "Twinkle twinkle little star" in one hand, versus Islamey)

Then we go on to say that it is impossible for every one of Chopin's etudes to be of identical difficulty (As far as I'm aware, the songs have to be identical for that to be true)

So we establish that some of Chopin's etudes are harder than the others. The hardest of these etudes are difficult to the point that simply playing them would require VIRTUOSIC ability. That is, one who is not a VIRTUOSO is unable to play it.

The simplest of his etudes may be played by one who is not a VIRTUOSO (though this does not exclude a VIRTUOSO from playing it better).

Thus I have (hopefully) established that it IS possible for a piece to be more VIRTUOSIC then another (Although, purely in this context)

[eddie92099]

(As far as I'm aware, the songs have to be identical for that to be true)

With the same lyrics? Not a great start...

So we establish that some of Chopin's etudes are harder than the others.

You leave out the crucial factor - harder than others for different people.

The hardest of these etudes are difficult to the point that simply playing them would require VIRTUOSIC ability. That is, one who is not a VIRTUOSO is unable to play it.

Although this is wrong*, it applies to opus 10 number 3 as much as it does to opus 10 number 4.

The simplest of his etudes may be played by one who is not a VIRTUOSO (though this does not exclude a VIRTUOSO from playing it better).

*Anything may be played without technical skill or fluency.

Thus I have (hopefully) established that it IS possible for a piece to be more VIRTUOSIC then another (Although, purely in this context)  

Better luck next time,
Ed

[chopinetta]

according to webster's dictionary, virtuosic means of or like that of a virtuoso. so how can you say that a piece is virtuosic??

let's take the sentence, "chopin etude no, 5 is moe vituosic than chopin etude no. 3."

virtuoso=person with great skill
virtuosic=like that of a virtuoso=greatly skilled

by transitivity, we have:

chopin etude no. 5 is more like that of a virtuoso than chopin etude no. 3... or chopin etude no. 5 is more greatly skilled than chopin etude no. 3

but they definitely do not sound correct. i think eddie is right at establishing that virtuosic should be applied to the way a person plays the piece. ex. he is virtuosic played chopin etude no. 5 like that of a virtuoso... or he played chopin etude no. 5 with great skill/with virtuosity

[eddie92099]

,
Ed

[chopinetta]

he is virtuosic played chopin etude no. 5 like that of a virtuoso...

oh sorry about that example!!!

that's : he is virtuosic at playing chopin etude no. 5