What, exactly, is virtuosity ?

[m1469]

It has always seemed like something I can spot in people, but not explain.  And, before I asked this question here, I thought that perhaps it has mainly to do with mastery -- but, of what ?  Each pianist is still unique and each pianist will still be better at certain elements than another, even if they both express virtuosity.

(Have we talked about this before ?)

[pianistimo]

i expect that opus10#2 will say 'skilz'  or something like that.   

[m1469]

Well, okay, but what are your thoughts ? 

[counterpoint]

playing faster than everyone else 

[m1469]

I am thinkin' it's a madeup thing ... a word treated like a secret handshake or something, but not anything truly concrete.

[pianistimo]

i attempted virtuosity with the brahms paganini variations and ended up impressing only a handful of people that knew the variations.  after all that work and technical study of thirds/sixths/etc - most people wanted to hear fur elise or something 'pretty.'  kicked the bucket of virtuosity and went with 'classical/romantic' music mostly.  although, i think the waldstein is fairly virtuosic.

i would say - things that are harder for the average pianist to play - and things that you can actually feel good about performing.  a piece that you had 'inspiration' with.  and perhaps would feel 'moved' by and moved others by.

ps virtuosity is only part of the full picture isn't it?  i mean if you are musical AND virtuosic - then you've got a good combination.  but virtuosity alone is just sort of 'fluff.'

[m1469]

playing faster than everyone else 

So, you are saying there is only one virtuoso in the world ? 

[m1469]

ps virtuosity is only part of the full picture isn't it?  i mean if you are musical AND virtuosic - then you've got a good combination.  but virtuosity alone is just sort of 'fluff.'

I am not sure how virtuosity could be exempt of music and therefore stand alone  :-.

[andyd]

Isn't it the ability to play fast AND nice?  

Technique and artistry = mastery


Regards

Andy 

[pianistimo]

you would think so - but the general public is sometimes more impressed with fluffy virtuosity.  i think there are several shades of it.

[counterpoint]

So, you are saying there is only one virtuoso in the world ? 

There are many, many fast pieces - so every "virtuoso" gets his chance 

[m1469]

Well, maybe rather than mere speed, it has to do with efficiency -- efficiency of motions and movements and this ability to depict the musical concept.  Because, doesn't it have to do with "musicality" at all ?  I know that technique and music are inseparable, but one can be fast without being musical (and is that still considered virtuositic ?  Maybe that's what you meant, pianistimo).

[Bob]

.

[Bob]

.

[faulty_damper]

Having a lot of technique and having ease with that technique.

Not necessarily expressive or "musical."

Sometimes meant as a compliment.  Sometimes an insult.

Maybe what you mean is "empty virtuosity".

I'd rather think of virtuosity to mean someone of virtue.  Virtue has meanings of goodness. 

But what is an "empty virtuoso"?  Someone who is not virtuous.  Id est: Someone who can play extremely well, but is only a pianist, not a musician.  Someone who serves himself and the piano first, at the expense of music.

A virtuoso is then someone who is a musician primary, pianist secondary.  Someone who serves the music first.

[opus10no2]

Virtuosity, like technique, can exist without music.

I think of great sportsmen as virtuosi of their disciplines.

It's just excelling at a discipline...and with a subjective thing like art, it's pointless trying to bring musicality into the equasion.

Virtuosity is command, but what is command without a creative spark?

The kind of Virtuosity that most excites me, is when outstanding technical skill and thrilling 'sport-like' attributes are married to a spontanious and exciting musicality.

[m1469]

spaghetti

[quasimodo]

carbonara

[m1469]

Well, the only reason I put the word "spaghetti" is because I had posted something that I decided to erase.  Originally I just left a period, but then I thought "why just leave a period when anything else would be just as useless ?"

You see.

[quasimodo]

Oh okay, I thought it was a new word thread.

[prongated]

...

[excerpt]Noske and Petrobelli suggested the 12th century as the earliest time where virtuosity is considered in the performing arts arena. There is a more explicit historical account relating virtuosity to music in the 14th century, where “rapid development of rhythmic complications and subtleties of style [demanded] highly developed virtuosity from the performer” (1970:114). There is an implication here that there are two essential facets in a virtuosic performance – the mastery of rhythm and style.[end]

Virtuosity is derived from the word "virtue". In music, technical brilliance was never considered a particularly 'worthy' virtue - at least, not as an end in itself. [excerpt]For example, Gerig, in his book, Famous Pianists and Their Technique, generally accepts the importance of technique in achieving artistic purposes. He named Mozart as the earliest great pianoforte player, whose technique “defined the ideal Viennese piano technique in superlative fashion” (1974:52).[end]

Musicians such as Busoni despised the technical kind of virtuosity. Stephen Hough likened it to driving 200mph in a Ferrari and missing all the sceneries. It is also normally accepted (at least in the world of musicologists) that virtuosity is often misinterpreted as technical bravura, despite music history having little focus on this aspect.

There is also a strong notion that there are different levels virtuosity, which are determined, among other things, by difficulty. Herein, I think, lies the room for various perception in regards to what constitute virtuosity: which is more difficult, technical playing or musical playing?

To illustrate:

[excerpt]Mitchell outlines an account of a performance by Liszt where he supposedly performed in a manner similar to Chopin’s in a darkened room. The audience thought he was Chopin – until the light was lit. Surprised, they questioned whether Chopin could play like Liszt the way Liszt could play like Chopin.[end]

...anyway, IMO essentially, the more virtuous, the more artistically valuable it is.

(excerpts taken from a recent paper I wrote)

[nick]

Well, the only reason I put the word "spaghetti" is because I had posted something that I decided to erase.  Originally I just left a period, but then I thought "why just leave a period when anything else would be just as useless ?"

You see.

and i was getting hungry.

Nick

[rc]

Fork

[quasimodo]

tritone

[m1469]

Now you guys are just being rude 

[opus10no2]

I know that technique and music are inseparable

You do? Expand on that

[hodi]

total control

[m1469]

You do? Expand on that

You're so smart.  Why don't you just go ahead and expand on that. 

[m1469]

total control

hmmm... I have seen/heard plenty of "virtuosi" *not* maintain this in the performance of even a single piece, let alone a complete recital.

[opus10no2]

You're so smart.  Why don't you just go ahead and expand on that. 

What exactly do you wish to be expanded?

[m1469]

What exactly do you wish to be expanded?

Oh, thanks for asking.  Actually, nothing at all, really.

[opus10no2]

I like the way you 'jerk' 

Anyway, I think technique and music can be seperated.

I mean..technique is a way of doing something, in this case a way of playing piano.
As you've observed, much of the appreciation and enjoyment that comes from piano playing isn't really about music at all.

[keyofc]

I think it's a snobbish term, meaning "I'm the best"

[nick]

Now you guys are just being rude 

i love spagetti, no rudeness from me. I agree with virtuosity having to do with speed and clarity irregardless of how musically played. The question for me is, why is this important to you, what relevance does it have in your life.

Nick

[m1469]

Well, I don't know that I agree with that definition of virtuosity, but, as far as speed and clarity go, it's really fun to play that way  .  And anyway, sometimes I just want something to be really fast and clear because ... I think it sounds good that way.

[opus10no2]

Sounds good, feels good, looks good.

[counterpoint]

Sounds good, feels good, looks good.

That's a good definition! 

[jabbz]

I think it can be a number of things. Say a 16 year old decided to learn to play the piano, and within a year he's attempting (and working on) say, the Bach preludes, does that count? Maybe not the hardest rep, but still challenging, especially for the experience of the pianist.

[m1469]

The question for me is, why is this important to you, what relevance does it have in your life.

Nick

Also, in thinking about it a little more (hee hee ... you surprised me by asking me this  ), I have a desire -- which I have had all my life, more or less -- to be as good as I possibly can be with piano; I want to know everything I can possibly know about it.  And, I guess "virtuosity" is often related to the idea that a person is "well-accomplished" and as though this is the highest form of playing/musicianship that one can achieve.  Right now, that automatically makes me ponder what it is, exactly.

I suppose I am rethinking a bit more about "where" and how to set my sights/goals.  No matter what though, I just want to be ME.

[opus10no2]

'In a composition, a focus on exceptional technical demands; in a performance, a focus on exceptional technical display.'

This is a definition I found.

I'd actually tend to agree, but 'technical' covers alot, and the word 'virtuosity' is more associated with certain types than others.

[m]

It has always seemed like something I can spot in people, but not explain.  And, before I asked this question here, I thought that perhaps it has mainly to do with mastery -- but, of what ?  Each pianist is still unique and each pianist will still be better at certain elements than another, even if they both express virtuosity.

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

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

[opus10no2]

But if it is intangible, it is artistic, and if it is artistic - a greatest 'virtuoso' cannot be calculated.

The thing with speed and the more obvious elements of technical accomplishment is - they can obviously be measured, and there *can* be a greatest.

So you can satisfy yourself with the intangible, but you have to satisfy the timer and computer with the tangible elements of speed, accuracy, and evenness.

Is a MIDI player not the perfect virtuoso?
Thing is, it plays not only a preconcieved composition like all of us, it plays a preconvieved interpretation - and *PERFECTLY*.

So if we don't associate virtuosity with interpretation, and only with execution, is the MIDI not the greatest virtuoso performer?

[m]

Is a MIDI player not the perfect virtuoso?
Thing is, it plays not only a preconcieved composition like all of us, it plays a preconvieved interpretation - and *PERFECTLY*.

So if we don't associate virtuosity with interpretation, and only with execution, is the MIDI not the greatest virtuoso performer?

In case you have missed it, the original question was not "Who is the greatest virtuoso", but "What exactly is virtuosity".

[opus10no2]

Well, asking the former question of oneself is a key to understanding the latter....which is what the rest of my post was about.

[m1469]

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

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

hmmm... actually, I really love this 

[m]

Well, asking the former question of oneself is a key to understanding the latter....

Agree. In your post I just did not see the understanding of either one.

[opus10no2]

The thing is, people have claimed definitions of what it means to them here in this very topic.

There is a dictionary definition, so I'm just curious how some people can try and dispute that.

[m]

The thing is, people have claimed definitions of what it means to them here in this very topic.

There is a dictionary definition, so I'm just curious how some people can try and dispute that.

So what is the dictionary definition of virtuosity?

[m1469]

According to the dictionary definition, it has to do with the "technical aspects of playing," and sometimes only that (as it reads).

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.

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.

[opus10no2]

'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.