Why do people hate on virtuoso's?

[Rob47]

Look, this is a great site i just joined because its great fun talking about/discussing/arguing/bitching at each other about piano music and music in general.

I have one question here.  Forgive my arrogance but I love playing ridiculously hard songs...I mean in the "lots of notes lots of octaves" sense.....I cannot play mozart very well.

But I'm all over Liszt/Rach/Scriabin, and anything else which when played well is deemed "virtuoisic", and,  I dont know these songs seem to fit my hands fine once i learn the notes. And at that point it just becomes a matter of constantly pouring emotion into them.  Again yes this sounds very arrogant, but people are often saying u play well and thats incredible and whatever.(excuse the arrogance please). I love hungarian rhapsodies so far i've played 2,4,6,7,9,10,12,15, and 19(horowitz arrangement (who do i think i am???   ) all in the span of maybe 5 years.  

Yet people hate these songs. Not all people.  Love people love them too.  But what is it with people criticising works for being "made to order for the budding virtuosi" (to quote a newspaper article i read referring to Rach 3(which no I haven't played))

Are they upset they themselves can't play them? washed up performers?  I probably sound really stupid so feel free to rip on me and correct my impetuousness(  if thats the word.)

I like "hard" music(in the liszt not mozart sense) , I like playing it well and I like standing ovations.  Am i an a**hole?

Rob

[bop...boo]

this is a very confusing post.  Listen first stop interupting yourself by telling us how you sound arrogant and asking us if your an a**hole.  second you must stop using the term song because songs are sung.  third your post barley has a point but your question i think was why do some people hate the technically difficult pieces like you mentioned.  The reason is because most of them are just empty notes .  they are the cheesy hollywood action films of classical music.  Sure every body likes to endulge in one now and then, however for the most part they are shallow.

What you will find is that certain music such as Mozart or Chopin or Bach or Bartok when played well can excite more senses and leave a longer lasting high.  

In my opinion the best is when somebody plays extremely musically and can use their technique only to serve the music.  Good examples are Horowitz, Cziffra, Argerich, Richter, Rachmaninoff.  They still got show but they also can leave a long lasting smile on your face with even the simple pieces.  

Your not an A**hole but you are still immature musically.  Don't take that as an insult though because you are not alone.  Everybody has the fast and loud phase.  You get passed it though, unfortunantly for some people it can take a while.  Horowitz didn't fall in love with Mozart until his very late years and only then did he realize what he was missing.  Doesn't mean he was a bad musican though.

[Rob47]

Right on

[nad]

hard songs

Being a pianist or wanting to become one, i'd certainly refer to the music as pieces, not as songs. Just a tip  

First of all, it is harder to play Mozart well, than to play a piece that is loaded with octaves. I'd say those pieces are even easier and require less musicality when you want the general audience to be impressed.
I would not consider pieces that has lots of notes and octaves to be virtuosic per definition.
I notice that in general, lots of people not to mention people who play the piano, think that a piece is merely hard when it's a reasonable fast piece loaded with notes and preferably octaves. I just disagree with that. It doesn't mean you're an a**hole though.

[comme_le_vent]

stop saying ***, the word is arsehole

and why is liking loud and fast music bad?
i enjoy slow and quiet music too, but i listen to loud and fast music mostly, this isnt a *** phase, this is my musical taste.

and about the mozart thing, is it really more difficult to play a mozart sonata well, than to play a very 'physically' demanding piece.
yes, and no.
to some people playing musically is more difficult, for others its more difficult to perform physically difficult pieces. it is all really a different kind of difficulty.

you ARE an arsehole if you only like hearing the physical accomplishmetns of the performers, you arent if you just have a taste for fast and loud music and enjoy listening to pianists with great techniques injecting the music with all the passion they can muster(nice word).

[Rob47]

Well, thank you all for making very intereseting points and I thoroughly will consider everything mentioned.  

Please if possible, Bop boo (or anyone)  elaborate on what is meant by hollow empty notes in say hungarian rhapsodies for example.   I think I understand you: you're saying they can be musically rewarding when a performer of outstanding "technique" (such as horowitz) performs it, because then the technicallity of the piece "serves the music?" to quote you?

Thanks. Rob

[Beet9]

Actually, just because you can play fast and loud doesn't mean you are a good pianist.  
I find playing musically much more difficult than playing physically demanding pieces.  I work my arse off at trying to play more musically, but I just can't pull it off that well. It's easy for a lot of people to play fast or whatever.  So stop thinking your a frickin hotshot.

Also- most of the hungarian rhapsodies are only considered moderately difficult.  HAHA.

[Rob47]

Whoa....sorry to get you so upset beet9! (although thank you for being the first to call me an a**hole (see my first message))

I think you have misunderstood me...read some other posts of people before.  I wasn't saying anything about myself as a pianist except that I enjoy playing these works(the rhapsodies). I was trying figure out why it is people don't hold these sorts of songs in 'high' musical regard.  And by no means are the rhapsodies close to the difficulty of other songs (i mean pieces) out there.

Thanks
Rob
p.s  was it all the "forgive my arrogance" comments that got u upset?

[bop...boo]

Well, thank you all for making very intereseting points and I thoroughly will consider everything mentioned.  

Please if possible, Bop boo (or anyone)  elaborate on what is meant by hollow empty notes in say hungarian rhapsodies for example.   I think I understand you: you're saying they can be musically rewarding when a performer of outstanding "technique" (such as horowitz) performs it, because then the technicallity of the piece "serves the music?" to quote you?

Thanks. Rob

well it's good to look at the hungarian rhapsodies as an example cause they are typically considerd merely flashy music.  the fact is Liszt (and even more so Horowitz's transcriptions) do not need the notes they have.  you know you'll be playing a trill and and a melody in one hand and leaps and what not in the other and the question is, is all those notes nessasary.  It's like ultra stimulous their is so much happening that you think the pianist has 4 or 5 hands (like a great car chase when everything is blowing up for 2 or  3 minutes and at the end of the scene your sitten back dazed and confused)

But you know their is some great things about music like that.  When played well the piano can sound very orchesteral and fun.  None the less compare a Liszt rhaposdy to a Chopin Scherzo or Ballade.  Both are very difficult technically but in the hands of a good pianist you would never know th Chopin is as difficult as it is.  and every note would speak and have meaning even though it's extremely difficult to play.  

since I have been using movies as an analogy for music why don't I use another.  If the Liszt rhapsody is a cheesy action movie like Triple X...well maybe not that bad maybe it's The Hulk then I would say the Chopin would be like Lord of the Rings.  Both have an incredible amount of visual effects and action scenes, but which one leaves a longer lasting impression.  

[minsmusic]

 If the Liszt rhapsody is a cheesy action movie like Triple X...well maybe not that bad maybe it's The Hulk then I would say the Chopin would be like Lord of the Rings.  Both have an incredible amount of visual effects and action scenes, but which one leaves a longer lasting impression.  

Depends on who's watching.  

Compare Saving Private Ryan with Gone with The Wind - which one would you rather watch?  Does that make one less of a movie - only in the eye of the beholder.  Why compare anyway, they're DIFFERENT.  

Imagine just eating banans all the time.  Yeah, they're great, but watermelon every now and then is just as good - but very DIFFERENT.  Thank goodness for variety.
Some people love watermelon, some people hate it.  Are you going to criticise the watermelon lover just because it's not as "filling" as a banana.   Bot good fruits, there to be enjoyed by whoever likes them.

mmmm.... starting to feel a little peckish.  Might grab an apple.  

[liszmaninopin]

I think that why many pianists look down upon showpieces is because they are just that, showpieces.  They make a circus out of the performer, and out of the music-it becomes "see how fast I can hit the notes."  It is true that sometimes speed is necessary to communicate a musical idea or emotion, but it is not an end in itself. "Music is born only in the heart, and it appeals only to the heart." This is one of my favorite music quotes, by S. Rachmaninoff.  I think it applies here; the heart isn't touched by flashy frills, so the showpiece ends up hollow and unsatisfying after the first performance.  The more you listen to it, the less the music becomes.  With a true masterpiece, the music becomes greater with each listening.

[ilovemusic]

Speed etc. sometimes does serve the music very well. The fast runs in, for example, sonet 104 del Pertrarca really make me shiver, and I think most work of Liszt sounds very refreshing as opposed to the pre-romantic music. But then again, I have not been listening  to classical music a lot yet.

But comparing it to the guitar: guitarist tend to show of a lot (Malmsteen), and get carried away with it, playing so fast and showy it is completely over the top. But still, when dosed properly, can be very effective. I do think the Hungarian rapsodies are very cool. But I also like cheesy action movies sometimes (not the Hulk, but "Once upon a time in the West" (for example <sigh>)) .

Joost

[anda]

saves time

no really, nobody hates a pianoplayer for just having a good technique. now, if that's all you got...  

i was confronted with the same problem about 5 years ago - everybody told me my technique was "too good". took me some time to understand that wasn't the problem, showing it off was. try playing what you're playing while learning some really simple works and concentrating on musicality, on what the work should say - i don't think there is a work that's just show off, they all have something to say other than "see how fast and loud i can play", once you find the real message in that work maybe people will stop calling you an a...

[kosjenka]

Hello ***!
First of all nobody dislike virtuosos  but you apparently dont seem to be one.
I think so because playing fast doesnt make one a virtuoso.
This Kalkbrener bullshit is not music ( maybe you dont know who was Kalkbrener). Yes, everyone can play  Liszt   in tempo but the quality changes according to the abilities of a pianist why do you think  that  there are differences between   one of the great pianists and students. I mnean, the metronome shows the same speed, right?
And my last point is that you should  work on your musical culture  because  Liszt rapshodies are not  SONGS  as you call them. A  SONG  has its definition  and trust me it is different  from the one of the Etudes, Ballades or Rapshodies.
I

[rachlisztchopin]

well i believe the what-so-called "hollow and not needed" notes are very important...they give the music the color it needs...i believe playing out the harmony is just as important as the melody...in fact, often listening to piano pieces, its not the melody that usually catches my attention, but the harmony and extra notes/voices added into the pieces...thats why i love liszt so much

[chopiabin]

Having a chromatic scale between every note is not colorful, but busy and annoying. Scriabin's harmonies are infinitely more interesting than Lizst's, but he was never flamboyant for its own sake.

[rachlisztchopin]

well im just now begiinning to get into scriabin (iv only been playing for a year) and i find his music quite interesting...liszt does overdue it on some pieces but i love the harmonies he adds in pieces like his hungarian rhapsodies

[stevie]

Whoa....sorry to get you so upset beet9! (although thank you for being the first to call me an a**hole (see my first message))

I think you have misunderstood me...read some other posts of people before.  I wasn't saying anything about myself as a pianist except that I enjoy playing these works(the rhapsodies). I was trying figure out why it is people don't hold these sorts of songs in 'high' musical regard.  And by no means are the rhapsodies close to the difficulty of other songs (i mean pieces) out there.

Thanks
Rob
p.s  was it all the "forgive my arrogance" comments that got u upset?

hahahaha, rob

[counterpoint]

That's the bad image of piano virtuosos: they play fast and loud

Loud and fast playing is very tiresome, not only for the pianist but also for the audience. Therefore you shouldn't do this for longer than a few minutes.

Playing fast and soft has a very astonishing effect.

Playing slow and strong likewise.

There are not so many people, who like it to be tortured...

[franz_]

I haven't read all the comments but... You can have a standing ovation with a Mozart Sonata too.

[lostinidlewonder]

But I'm all over Liszt/Rach/Scriabin, and anything else which when played well is deemed "virtuoisic"........  I love hungarian rhapsodies so far i've played 2,4,6,7,9,10,12,15, and 19(horowitz arrangement (who do i think i am???  ) all in the span of maybe 5 years.

So are you over them or do you love them?

maybe 5 years.... ... or maybe more.... or maybe its in the future.

Why do people post these provoking posts ahahha, its so funny. Its so obvious he overstated SONG and then pump himself up to annoy everyone.


Is there actually question in this post? I'm so confused.

[pianistimo]

whatever u do - don't copy another person's interpretation.  as long as u have ur own distinct personality and 'feel' noone will care if u are playing virtuosic pieces or non-virtuosic pieces.  maybe a combo is good. 

audience sophistication is probably more the issue, imo.  if u are playing for children - don't play something too far above their heads.  if u are playing for the girlfriend - play everything virtuosic - that's ok.  if u are playing for ur pianistic friends - maybe a combo of both so u can show u are equally comfortable.  (wish i was - just looking at the liszt pieces i once knew - like the 2 ballade - oh dear, what has happened to my virtuosity?)

but, i can shock people by playing the fuge (last mvt) of the english suite #3 and basically kick it.  also, i can play beethoven pretty well and mozart.  do i suddenly obsess at night about chopin and liszt.  no.  i have eyesight to deal with.  all these small notes.  i like the freedom to just kick back play through my 103 easy favorites with added notes - and the neighbors think i'm some genius.  also, i like to quietly play bach's organ preludes and stuff.  ravel, faure.  bedtime stuff.  just to make myself tired and fall asleep.  someday i will be on stage again.  i will learn the rest of granados spanish dances (i love those) and maybe a few hungarian dances.  and, lots of transcriptions (making my own of course). 

u know, i think all people really want is to hear the real u.  whatever is really an expression of urself at the moment u are playing.

ps whoever said chopin preludes are easy - are deluded.  that's my two cents.

[pianistimo]

when i'm practiced, i feel like a rubber band about to snap to the other side of the room. 

[steve jones]

Do I think you are arrogant?

No.

Do I think you are an arsehole?

No.

Do I think you are full of sh*t?

No comment...

SJ

[stevie]

That's the bad image of piano virtuosos: they play fast and loud

Loud and fast playing is very tiresome, not only for the pianist but also for the audience. Therefore you shouldn't do this for longer than a few minutes.

why are thrash/death metal bands so popular? 

[franz_]

why are thrash/death metal bands so popular? 

So you wanna play trash/death metal on your piano?
And do you think those bands would be popular when they play a nocturne from chopin on an electric guitar with a beat?

[counterpoint]

why are thrash/death metal bands so popular? 

Thats a good question!

I don't know. It's a real mystery to me 

[brewtality]

hahaha one of the many deleted Rob47 accounts. Randomly he is actually really *** good, seriously I wouldn't have expected him to as good as he is. respect da 47! 

[bennom]

It's the critics who hate liszt rhapsodies and similar.  Audiences appreciate this kind of music, and most pianists too, as long as it is well written and well performed. Some critics, at least in my country, think that they have to define their own good taste by saying "liszt is crap" and similar stupidities.

I don't know what Rob47 is actually asking, but my answer is: Liszt is good music, of course. But you will learn to love mozart as well, in time.

[stevie]

So you wanna play trash/death metal on your piano?
And do you think those bands would be popular when they play a nocturne from chopin on an electric guitar with a beat?

Thats a good question!

I don't know. It's a real mystery to me

because, to many poeple ; fast and loud music can be sustained for periods of time while sustaining interest...

just arguing the point that its the same with piano

[tds]

virtuosity vs musicianship resembles iq vs wisdom

both virtuosity and iq are "raw" materials, tho no one should downgrade their positive potentials, as the way i see it, both of them make excellent ladder to higher purpose ( read: musicianship and wisdom ). and with this so called higher purpose, we sure can hope for the best to get ourselves more in line with humanity, art, and spiritualism.

ok, i know we're all confused now, aren't we? fine, let's go back to pianostreeting....hah!

tds

[tds]

I don't know what Rob47 is actually asking, but my answer is: Liszt is good music, ........

 yeah, a percentage of his music, i'd say.

[steve jones]

hahaha one of the many deleted Rob47 accounts. Randomly he is actually really *** good, seriously I wouldn't have expected him to as good as he is. respect da 47! 

Really?

Well then, I take back my 'no comment' and replace it will solitary no!

Many apologies, he just sounded like someone who knew how to play his face slightly better than he did his keys. But I stand corrected!

SJ

[mephisto]

yeah, a percentage of his music, i'd say.

Read Alan Walker`s bio.

[tds]

Read Alan Walker`s bio.

care to summarize it for lil tds?

[musicsdarkangel]

i eat glue!