Supervirtuoso

[chopininov]

What is the difference between a Virtuoso and a Supervirtuoso? And while we're on the topic, why does society feel the need to make a distinction between the elite and the "super" elite?

[leonidas]

The difference is around 5 seconds in your average Chopin etude.

[sevencircles]

What is the difference between a Virtuoso and a Supervirtuoso?

A supervirtuoso is capable of playing harder pieces like for instance the most demanding works by Godowsky and Sorabji

A supervirtuoso is also more accurate and can play faster

[invictious]

well
Taking chopet 10/4 for example
an average pianist will clock in at 150 seconds or so
a virtuoso will clock in a 120 seconds
a supervirtuoso will clock in at 90 seconds

YEpp

[bob3.1415926]

It's the way of modern society. Years ago people were just happy to be great musicians. Then we needed a elitist term, so started calling people virtuosos.
However, in our bigger better modern world, we continually need a way to tell people that they're the best. I wouldn't be surprised if before I die, it's gone a stage further and we have super-duper virtuosos, or ultra-hyper-quantum-level5-virtuosos, and I'll just be happily remnicsing about Street Fighter II.
In my opinion the difference is nothing, it just depends how much you want to suck up to someone.

[thorn]

i dont think ive ever heard the term supervirtuoso in my life.

my definition of the two would be that a virtuoso is someone who has amazing technical skill, and a supervirtuoso is someone who knows what to do with that skill.

and society has to make such distinctions because the majority of humans these days exist through their relation to other people- being above someone in any way makes them feel good about themselves and being below someone in any way gives them the forward drive.

i think its quite sad how virtually all of the replies are concerned with timings. since when has music ever been a race?

[richard black]

Virtuoso - someone with a better technique than you

Supervirtuoso - someone who plays music so difficult, and so pointless (as it seems to you), that you don't know why they bother but you feel you probably ought to admire them for it.

[leonidas]

A supervirtuoso is capable of playing harder pieces like for instance the most demanding works by Godowsky and Sorabji

A supervirtuoso is also more accurate and can play faster

The 'harder pieces' part is almost irrelevant, if a pianist has a sizeable repertoire of fairly complex romantic pieces, for example, they have the mental capacity to play the more complex works.

More complex works take longer to work on because of the information load.

A short complex piece is as difficult to learn as a longer simpler piece.

This has little bearing on the technical skill of the pianist though, you may have heard of Madge? He wouldn't even pass his first grade.

[bob3.1415926]

if a pianist has a sizeable repertoire of fairly complex romantic pieces, for example, they have the mental capacity to play the more complex works.

I'm not sure about this, I did only get this from wiki, but apparently Horowitz tried and failed to learn Godowsky's Passacaglia (declared that it requires not 2 but 6 hands). His repertoire of fairly complex works is sizeable by anyones book.

[leonidas]

Think about what's difficult about that piece.

I'm very familiar with it, and the score is very complex for a tonal piece, but I know that I could learn it myself if I applied the time.

The thing is, a work like that demands alot of time, and Horowitz made that excuse in order to avoid playing it, he could learn dozens of Chopin Mazurkas in the same time, it's all about priorities.

[sevencircles]

This has little bearing on the technical skill of the pianist though, you may have heard of Madge? He wouldn't even pass his first grade.

I don´t really consider Madge capable of playing many of the pieces he has performed in public.

You have to be able to play the pieces uptempo and with only a few notes to be called a supervirtuoso I think

[leonidas]

I actually think he has the mental grasp, just utterly crap fingers.

[franzliszt2]

Why are we focusing so much on speed and amount of notes? True virtuosity is the abilty to control everything. Of course you have to have the facility to play like that...but you sort of assume most pianist who is famous has. Technique and facilty are different.

I think true virtusoity comes from total mastery of the instrument. Rcahmnainoff was a true virtuoso for example, perfect tone, total technical control, and a fasinating musical mind.

People these days practice for speed and perfection, so it's no wonder they can all play fast. For example...if I was to play Liszt sonata in public, I'd practice all the hard parts, and use methods. I usually only apply methods once or twice to a section, and then do different methods, doing each method once or twice.  That for me solves the problems. If I was to do it in a competition I'd do each method 10 times. And it would no doubt be as clean as possible, and fast. But I wouldn't be really touching the music's soul. I'd be churning out the notes liek a machine, Thats what the piano world has come to.

well
Taking chopet 10/4 for example
an average pianist will clock in at 150 seconds or so
a virtuoso will clock in a 120 seconds
a supervirtuoso will clock in at 90 seconds

YEpp

I have never heard that etude at 90 secs in my life, it isn't possible. 150 secs is a nice speed, and can still be musical. 120 is far to fast and sounds stupid. You miss the essence of this etude if speed is your aim. It's easy to play this fast. Hard to play legato. Thats where facillity will help you play fast, but technique will make you play legato.

[term]

The difference is around 5 seconds in your average Chopin etude.

Everything has been said.

but I know that I could learn it myself if I applied the time.

There's a difference between talking about it and actually doing it.

[leonidas]

There is, but you must also acknowledge the different between the desire to impress and the natural aquisition of skillz.

[yuc4h]

I have never heard that etude at 90 secs in my life, it isn't possible.

well, now you have

[steve jones]

A supervirtuoso is capable of playing harder pieces like for instance the most demanding works by Godowsky and Sorabji

A supervirtuoso is also more accurate and can play faster

I think the point is that they can play demanding works more easily, allowing them to put more into actually performing musically. They have greater control over the instrument, bottom line.

If a virtuoso feels like expressing themselves by shaving seconds of 'lap time records', then good for them. But I think there are better demostrations of virtuosity. For instance, I really like it when I get that sense of 'effortlessness' in even the most demanding phrases. I get this feelings from Hamelin so much. Its as if he's not even thinking - the piano is playing him!

Timing Chopets? Why not just have a nob measuring contest?

SJ

[term]

There is, but you must also acknowledge the different between the desire to impress and the natural aquisition of skillz.

[leonidas]

I think the point is that they can play demanding works more easily, allowing them to put more into actually performing musically. They have greater control over the instrument, bottom line.

If a virtuoso feels like expressing themselves by shaving seconds of 'lap time records', then good for them. But I think there are better demostrations of virtuosity. For instance, I really like it when I get that sense of 'effortlessness' in even the most demanding phrases. I get this feelings from Hamelin so much. Its as if he's not even thinking - the piano is playing him!

Timing Chopets? Why not just have a nob measuring contest?

SJ

The effortlessness factor is like when a sprinter who can run 100m in 10 seconds tries running it in 11 or 12.

It's still impressive, but flows easily to them because they aren't pushing it.

Fact of the matter is, Hamelin and all of the great virtuosos would be next to nothing without their fast fingers

[steve jones]

The effortlessness factor is like when a sprinter who can run 100m in 10 seconds tries running it in 11 or 12.

It's still impressive, but flows easily to them because they aren't pushing it.

Fact of the matter is, Hamelin and all of the great virtuosos would be next to nothing without their fast fingers

Ofcourse.

My point, though, is that such displays are fine for the practice room. Or maybe when larking around with friends. But I find it often quite tasteless in performance. Like, I love Argerich, but I feel she can be guilty of this sometimes. Iv heard her treat music quite bashufully at times. Knowing that she can do quite the opposite and give a really profound performance makes that burn all the more!

One thing I do love about Hamelin is the fact that he can keep that ego i check and let his virtuosity facilitate a tasteful performance. I love his recording of Scriabin Op 53 for instance. It sound effortless to me, and I love the treatment of rhythm and tempo. Sometimes he holds it back, other times really letting it rip. Having fantastic virtuosity facilitates this. And no land speed records in sight!

SJ

[leonidas]

Just as you bring the word 'taste' into this - objectivity goes out of the window.

Argerich is a fiery woman, and she plays that way, she may have a show-off in her, but I have little doubt that her musical tastes are in tune with her physical unleashings.

There are absolutely no prizes at all for 'child molestation' - Ie. playing everything, even easy passages fast.

This kind of thinking has been around forever, if an interpretation sounds too fast for your taste, you can easily assume that they have a non-musical agenda in sight, but equally - when I hear many performers indulging in performances that are too slow - I often feel it may be either a concious attempt to avoid a 'show-off' label and sound 'profound' or simply a necessity because of a lack of technical ability, passing it off as 'poetry'!

[steve jones]

Just as you bring the word 'taste' into this - objectivity goes out of the window.

Argerich is a fiery woman, and she plays that way, she may have a show-off in her, but I have little doubt that her musical tastes are in tune with her physical unleashings.

There are absolutely no prizes at all for 'child molestation' - Ie. playing everything, even easy passages fast.

This kind of thinking has been around forever, if an interpretation sounds too fast for your taste, you can easily assume that they have a non-musical agenda in sight, but equally - when I hear many performers indulging in performances that are too slow - I often feel it may be either a concious attempt to avoid a 'show-off' label and sound 'profound' or simply a necessity because of a lack of technical ability, passing it off as 'poetry'!

Just to clarify, I wasnt called our darling Argerich distasteful. On her day, I feel she is a truly remarkable pianist. And on the topic of virtuosity, I feel she is extremely strong in this area.

I just feel that occassional she lets that get the better of her. Sometimes she uses fire where a gentle, warm summer breeze might be more appropriate!

This surprises me as she really has the full range of tools AND the judgement of when to use them. Sometimes I find myself wondering 'why'?

Not that this thread is about Argerich at all. I just felt she to be a good example of what I meant.

SJ

[wotgoplunk]

well, now you have

Seems pointless to me. It doesn't sound nearly as good played that fast...why are we all discussing technical virtuosity, surely there is musical virtuosity too?

[invictious]

Seems pointless to me. It doesn't sound nearly as good played that fast...why are we all discussing technical virtuosity, surely there is musical virtuosity too?

If we limit technical virtuosity to time of pieces..then it's something that's quantifiable, at least..

Musical virtuosity is...unquantifiable in all aspects, and it's very subjective, it's hard to explain.

I'll talk more about this after tomorrow, I'm tired, sorry.

[counterpoint]

why are we all discussing technical virtuosity, surely there is musical virtuosity too?

No, I don't think so. Musical playing has nothing to do with any sort of virtuosity.

[franzliszt2]

No, I don't think so. Musical playing has nothing to do with any sort of virtuosity.

then what is the point in playing a MUSICAL instrument? Virtuoisty is all about sound. Playing fast is not hard. Why not visit any conservatoire and you will find this out. People here are taught from the age of 6 with the best teachers....they have perfect technique. There is no shortage of people with huge techniques. And people who are like phoar look at the speed are clearly not educated. I mean look at Mr Leonidas... speaks volumes.

[bob3.1415926]

Playing fast is not hard.

I couldn't agree more. All it takes is practice. There's nothing special about being able to do it, other than that you had the commitment to put in the leg work.

There is a big difference between sport and art. I do not consider playing any instrument to be a sport, and would never treat it as such.

Musicality is really something special that defies strict definition. It is about artistry. Perhaps not everybody is aware of it, after all some people think the Mona Lisa is 'just a painting - doesn't even look like a photo,' while others could stare for hours and still not want to leave. To diminish musical performance to just a matter of technique is an embarrassing reflection on the hollowness of ones own approach, and the shallowness of ones listening capabilities. People shouldn't criticise things just because they don't understand them.

That said, there are pieces which are just soulless noises devoid of purpose other than displaying technique. I probably couldn't play any of these, but that doesn't matter to me, as I shall never try.

[franzliszt2]

I couldn't agree more. All it takes is practice. There's nothing special about being able to do it, other than that you had the commitment to put in the leg work.

There is a big difference between sport and art. I do not consider playing any instrument to be a sport, and would never treat it as such.

Musicality is really something special that defies strict definition. It is about artistry. Perhaps not everybody is aware of it, after all some people think the Mona Lisa is 'just a painting - doesn't even look like a photo,' while others could stare for hours and still not want to leave. To diminish musical performance to just a matter of technique is an embarrassing reflection on the hollowness of ones own approach, and the shallowness of ones listening capabilities. People shouldn't criticise things just because they don't understand them.

That said, there are pieces which are just soulless noises devoid of purpose other than displaying technique. I probably couldn't play any of these, but that doesn't matter to me, as I shall never try.

Totally agree. I mean look at all of the people who are arguing about speed....how many of them are in any sort of institution, or have any experience as a pianist. They are all self taught amateurs who think playing fast is hard becasue they have no technique! Sorry to be harsh....but it's true.

[counterpoint]

then what is the point in playing a MUSICAL instrument? Virtuoisty is all about sound. Playing fast is not hard. Why not visit any conservatoire and you will find this out. People here are taught from the age of 6 with the best teachers....they have perfect technique. There is no shortage of people with huge techniques. And people who are like phoar look at the speed are clearly not educated. I mean look at Mr Leonidas... speaks volumes.

Could you please explain, what is the connection of your arguments with my statement

"No, I don't think so. Musical playing has nothing to do with any sort of virtuosity."

[yuc4h]

Totally agree. I mean look at all of the people who are arguing about speed....how many of them are in any sort of institution, or have any experience as a pianist. They are all self taught amateurs who think playing fast is hard becasue they have no technique! Sorry to be harsh....but it's true.

This is a clear example of the general arrogant elitist bs. Good to hear that being in an institution has at least boosted up your confidence. If you would ever become a supervirtuoso you wouldn't need an institution to back you up nor you would need other people to tell you how to play your pieces.

Playing fast is not hard.

Waiting for you to back up your claim by playing the chop 10/4 up to the performance standard at 90sec speed.

[bob3.1415926]

If you would ever become a supervirtuoso you wouldn't need an institution to back you up nor you would need other people to tell you how to play your pieces.

Can I just ask how many 'supervirtuosos' you know of, who weren't trained one of these institutions?

[bob3.1415926]

I want to make it clear. I myself am not at one of these institutions. Piano is a hobby of mine.

However I recognise that the teachers at these places, in addition to everything they learned from the many gifted pianists they've met through these places, were themselves taught by the best teachers (a generation ago) at similar places, who also met their generation's finest, and were themselves taught by the best teachers (another generation ago) at these places, etc.

The knowledge that is passed down through this chain contains the experience and wisdom of hundreds if not thousands of piano virtuosos going back hundreds of years. No one person on their own can independently hope to come close to being the pianist they could have been, if they'd taken advantage of this amazing resource. If you believe you're better or even as good as you would be if you had attended a conservatory, you're incredibly arrogant and foolish.

[yuc4h]

Well, maybe the thing is different in other bigger countries than Finland. Here, the conservatories teach mostly children and I could say that 50% of those teachers' teaching methods are rubbish. We also have only one university where you can learn music, "Sibelius akatemia" it's all about music but only takes in handful of pianist every year. Maybe studying in there would make a difference I don't know, but those smaller institutions tend to more or less suck because they usually have no quality control.

If you believe you're better or even as good as you would be if you had attended a conservatory

Well actually I am better than some who have attended in some of these but then again it doesn't prove you wrong as I could be supervirtuoso if I did .

[thalbergmad]

I mean look at all of the people who are arguing about speed....how many of them are in any sort of institution

Many of them are in an institution, but just not a piano one.

Thal

[bob3.1415926]

I find it amazing that there is only one university in Finland where you can study music, as there have been so many good Finnish composers recently (Kokkonen, Sallinen, Rautavaara, etc). I assumed there had to be loads.

But my comment was about the 'famous' world-class conservatories.

[mike_lang]

my definition of the two would be that a virtuoso is someone who has amazing technical skill, and a supervirtuoso is someone who knows what to do with that skill.

I believe that Thorn has hit the nail on the head with this.  If there is in fact such a term as supervirtuoso, it would describe the musician who is above and beyond that which constitutes a "mere" virtuoso - one with the brilliant mind to produce the musical ideas that his virtuoso technique allows.  In my opinion, Mikhail Pletnev, Vladimir Horowitz, Sviatoslav Richter, and Glenn Gould would fall into this latter category, while names like Lang Lang, Yundi Li, and Valentina Lisitsa belong to the former.

[n_n]

well, the word "virtuoso" was invented in the late renaissance early Baroque period if my music history knowledge hasn't totally slipped me.

It was when songs started to have a complicated solo section that required professionally trained singers to sing... so you see, technique really serves what the music requires, and the virtuosic part of the music was indeed composed for the sake of showing virtuosity, for wooing the audience...

Musicality and techniques in terms of virtuosity really aren't seperate things. They serve each other.

..and please tell me what "supervirtuoso" means... extremely fancy music that requires extreme technical facility?

[franzliszt2]

Virtuosity in 16th 17th and 18th century was maily used for compsers, artists, and scholars. It was not just used for music. Virtuosity means to be virtuous....not technical abilty.

It was opera that started virtuosity,. The Italian opera, Mozart etc...then he applied this to his concerto's, with highly virtuosic cadenzas...he imrpovised many of them 9amazing musicianship...and probably more interesting than say a Cziffra improv where he hammers the piano with no integrity). Bel canto style singing was one of the key factors to the development of virtuosity.

I don't believe that many compositions were for the sake of virtuosity by any of the great composers. Chopin etudes etc...are all amazing pieces of music.

In my experience supervirtuoso is a term used by people who think speed is the key to technique.

[schubertiad]

Here we are again, arguing with people who measure the value of a performance with their watches instead of their brains and ears. The idea that fast playing is good playing has been spouted so often on these forums that it has almost gained currency. This is a complete joke. I wonder whether there are any thespian forums where people argue about who the world's greatest actor is by counting how quickly they can deliver Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' monologue. Applying this notion to music does not make it any less preposterous.

[leonidas]

Much of virtuosity has little to do with music, that's the point.

Playing piano is a physical skill, making it sound good is a musical one.

[jakev2.0]

Hamelin's inability to play a proper pianissimo trill in op. 111 is an astonishing technical as well as musical failing.

[lazlo]

It's so funny how you have something bad to say about almost every pianist ever born Jake! Seriously. 

[jakev2.0]

I'm trying to get people thinking about what virtuosity really is.

For all Schnabel's ridiculous technical slip ups, rushing, wrong notes, he has an utterly mesmerizing degree of control in the playing of certain passage.  Hamelin sounds like a beginner next to him if these passages are compared side by side, yet Hamelin is almost always mentioned in discussions of the "greatest virtuosos" and Schnabel is almost forgotten. Virtuosity is more than faking over the keys at high speeds. It's about the creation of sounds and the exciting and lucid communication of music. 

[mephisto]

I'm trying to get people thinking about what virtuosity really is.

For all Schnabel's ridiculous technical slip ups, rushing, wrong notes, he has an utterly mesmerizing degree of control in the playing of certain passage.  Hamelin sounds like a beginner next to him if these passages are compared side by side, yet Hamelin is almost always mentioned in discussions of the "greatest virtuosos" and Schnabel is almost forgotten. Virtuosity is more than faking over the keys at high speeds. It's about the creation of sounds and the exciting and lucid communication of music. 

That's because Schnabel greatness isn't up for debate any more. We all love his Beethoven playing. There's nothing there to discuss anymore.

[richard black]

Why have so many people got this thing about poor Marc-André H? If you don't like the way he plays fine, I couldn't care any more than I dare say he does, but saying he's not a good pianist is ridiculous. His degree of control is as good as anyone's and he moves his fingers as adroitly as anyone. Anything beyond that is purely taste. I say this having heard him live doing all sorts of stuff from Alkan/Godowsky/Rzewski 'drop-dead-virtuoso' pieces to the absolute simplest song accompaniment. We all have favourites and, er, whatever the opposite of favourites is among pianists, but calling someone a bad pianist just because the way they play is not to your taste is like saying someone has a speech defect because you don't like the words they are saying.

And actually I wouldn't describe Schnabel as a virtuoso because his technique was demonstrably unreliable. He was, however, a consummate musician and his technique was at any rate plenty good enough for that to come over.

[mephisto]

I agree, why all this nonsense about how bad MAH is supposed to be. He is just amazing.

[franzliszt2]

How on earth is Schnabel not a virtuoso? MAH is a great pianst in a lot of ways, and of course he is a virtuoso. But he is no more virtuosic than anyone else. You can't base a virtuoso on the repertoire he's played. The one thing that I miss in Hamelin's playing is the singing tone. If he sorted that out I'd like him 

[ahinton]

I agree, why all this nonsense about how bad MAH is supposed to be. He is just amazing.

I have no idea why. People should just use their ears rather than the things that they read in various places - but all too often they don't.

Best,

Alistair

[richard black]

How on earth is Schnabel not a virtuoso?

What I said earlier. There are plenty of subcategories of pianist, after all, of which virtuoso is merely one (others might include lyricist and accompanist, for instance) and while the 'perfect' pianist would presumably fit all of them, it is only necessary to be very good at one to be considered a great pianist. Schnabel, to my mind, is perfect proof that you don't need to be a virtuoso to be a great pianist.

[franzliszt2]

To play Beethoevn sonatas like him requires great virtuosity! His tone and sense of musicianship is where his virtuosity lies.

There is no such thing as the perfect pianist. Every pianist has faults