Defining a virtuoso

[Kapellmeister27]

I wad recently reading a book about the greatest pianists of all time.  I noticed that frequently the authoer would describe one as being a virtuoso of the highest order or another as being a talented player but not a true virtuoso.
When i looked up virtuoso in a music dictionary, it was described as a player with superior technical ability.
Using this definition, at what point could a pianist be labeled a virtuoso?

Also, the author probably described about two dozen pianists as be one of, if not the best technicians ever.

Since all of these pianists were obviously great musically and each had their own interpretive style, and they could all play expressively as they wished,he seemed to be referring as some being better from a technical standpoint.

How would someone be described as having better technique.  To me, all concert pianists i have seen or heard have had perfect technique. 

What are examples of some great vs average technicians and what makes the difference noticable?

[thierry13]

Keep up the same speed without collapsing one millisecond, having perfect clarity and pedalling, having each fingers independants ( i saw a lot of concert pianists wich created tension in other fingers of the hand when not using them).And how well they can play the hardest technical pieces like : feux follet, rach prelude no.9, liszt's opera transcriptions, etc.

[lostinidlewonder]

A virtuoso to me is someone who can make the piece that they play their own. That means that when I hear the piece being played i can say, oh yes that is so and so. Listen to Horowitz for instance, you can almost always tell it is him playing.

[thierry13]

Gould's playing of bach too is particular, we can say it's his when we hear it ! I remarked Horowitz's playing too ! I can recognize my playing too , how strange 

[pianonut]

i think it's a talent you are born with.  there is much work involved in piano performance, but there has to be an innate talent of immediately recognizing what you want to bring out in piece, how you want to shade it's meanings, and how well you relate to an audience in terms of your musical understanding.  to be a virtusos, to me, means understanding different cultures (as meanings can be multicultural - and 'manipulated' if you want to say that-for the audience that you are playing for)  also, virtuosos tend to have a very large repertoire.  maybe that would be the first thing i would notice (the largeness of repertoire) second only to musicality and technique.  lastly, to me, is great attention to detail.  the average musician is not as likely to be bothered by imperfection, but the 'greats' all seemed to instinctively know when something wasn't correct.

[hodi]

virtuoso is an artist with a superior technique. end of story.

[Daevren]

I think that in the classical piano area most good pianists could be called a virtuoso.

Virtuoso isn't just technique, its making the instrument dissapear. Expressing music directly, not hindered by the indirectness of brain moving muscle, muscle moving finger, finger moving key, key moving hammer, hammer moving string, string moving air, air moving ear drum, ear drum moving ear bone, etc.

And about recognition. On other instruments, like a violin, or guitar. It is very easy to recognize anyone playing. I am a guitarist, I can instantly recognize Mark Knopfler, or Eddie Van Halen, or BB King or Stevie Ray Vaugh. I could make a list with 100 of guitarist, all easily recognizable.

I can imagine that with the violin it would be even easier. Its just the nature of the instrument.

No one is born with virtuosity. Its all learned.

[hodi]

virtuoso is ONLY about technique.. check the dictionary or encyclopedia.. there isn't much to define here..

[willcowskitz]

virtuoso is ONLY about technique.. check the dictionary or encyclopedia.. there isn't much to define here..

Which dictionaries/encyclopedias?

Do you understand that language and communication existed before the first dictionary or other collasion of most common meanings of words?

I don't think anybody deserves the title "virtuoso" in music before they prove extraordinary artistic capabilities.

lostinidlewonder is on the right track, but merely being recognized isn't the only important aspect.  If on the other hand one can give such a perfect rendition of a piece that people will start to associate this piece with the performer, it requires great visionary skills from the pianist, and crystal clear vision is one thing that makes a virtuoso.

[jas]

Virtuoso isn't just technique, its making the instrument dissapear.

I love that way of putting it!

But I agree with those who say that virtuosity is purely technical. No one would consider someone with gorgeous expressive capabilities but mediocre technical skills to be a virtuoso, but if it was the other way round -- technically outstanding but not particularly moving -- no one would think twice about calling them a virtuoso. That to most people is what defines "virtuoso."

Back in the 19th c. when the fascination with virtuosity got underway there were people who did virtuosic cooking contests, virtuosic sewing, there was virtuosic everything! It's really just a word used to describe how "impressive" something is. That's why the term came to have quite derogatory connotations towards the end of the 19th c. People began to equate it with shallow musical showing off. They wanted more from their music than that.

But times have changed. That might not necessarily be true any more.

Jas

[Kapellmeister27]

so what would be an example of a virtuso pianist vs simply a good one?

or a virtuoso piece vs simply a hard one?

when could you start to label someone a virtuoso?

[m]

virtuoso is ONLY about technique.. check the dictionary or encyclopedia.. there isn't much to define here..

What a strange theory!!!
Virtuoso is about braveness and valour. It is not about technique, but has to do rather with qualities of temperament and personality. There are a lot of pianists who has supreme technique, but I would not consider them virtuoso.
Virtuoso is about risk and taking chances.

[maul]

Marik, not about technique? Interesting...

From the dictionary:

-A musician with masterly ability, technique, or personal style.
-A person with masterly skill or technique in the arts.

It's all about skill and technique. Seriously. Don't look too far into this.

[pianonut]

you have to admit there are some things that people are born with (as mentioned: temperament, personality, risk taking individuals, ability to make the music their own) and say, large hands, maybe even a large head (to store info) or at least a healthy brain, and the possibility that their parents might be musicians and expose them to music early on. 

i don't think that technique alone makes a virtuoso OR a performing artist.  I don't know why, but i think of the two as compatable but separate.  To me, there are many performing artists but few virtuosos.

[Alfonso Van Worden]

easy!!! virtuoso= MARTHA ARGERICH 

[jlh]

Found this on Google... check the definitions and come to your own conclusions:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Avirtuoso

[pianonut]

i liked the ones that added artistry to virtuosity.

[m]

Marik, not about technique? Interesting...

From the dictionary:

-A musician with masterly ability, technique, or personal style.
-A person with masterly skill or technique in the arts.

It's all about skill and technique. Seriously. Don't look too far into this.

Without looking too far into this, let's take for example Alfred Brendel or Radu Lupu. There are some things they play very well. Both of them have masterly ability, some technique, plenty of personal style. Would you consider them virtuoso? I would not.

Or somebody like Efim Bronfman. Plenty of technique, so what?

[quasimodo]

To me, a virtuoso, in ideal terms, is someone who can do whatever he wants on his instrument.

Naturally nobody is capable of that absolutely but some pianists or other instruments out there are approaching that ideal.

Obviously, it takes, as a necessary condition, to have very high, outstanding technical skills, but it also needs a great musical insight and a dedication to art.

[Sketchee]

virtuoso is an artist with a superior technique. end of story.

Even if we accept that definition--which doesn't perfectly match the dictionary definitions either--questions are still left.  What makes an "artist"?  What makes their technique "superior"?  What is "technique"? 

[hodi]

you are going more philosophical.. the simple meaning of a virtuoso is an artist with superior technique.. that's al.. going deeper into the meanings with philosophy this discussion will never end...

[Sketchee]

This isn't asking what's the color "blue" is.  The question is more akin to various scientific explanations of the "sky".

Technique and what is superior technique is certainly a practical question.  Artistry and musicality are fairly subjective, but also quite practical for a pianist.

[Kapellmeister27]

So what is it that makes Argerich have better technique than Brendel?

I mean, can she really play THAT much faster? how much?

[tocca]

Many years ago (i think i was 13 or 14 at the time) at a student-concert i saw a guy who played Fantasie Impromptu. It looked and sounded very impressive, i remember thinking "wow, he's fast". It looked very difficult.

Just a short while afterwards, my teacher (who was quite a good pianist) played Fantasie Impromptu.... and it looked so easy! Almost effortless!

To me that is a virtuos, someone who can make something extremely hard look very easy.

[Corsair]

thats quite a difficult question; to me a virtuoso is a player who performs fast passages with a fiery panache and yet manages not to lose clarity/ miss or hit extra notes... having said that i've heard horowitz performing vallee d'obermann from liszt's annees de pelerinage and  dont think ive ever heard so many wrong notes in a professional performance... despite this the spirit of the music was there in an abundance and it would be wrong to describe the rendition as anything but virtuosic

[Daevren]

Many years ago (i think i was 13 or 14 at the time) at a student-concert i saw a guy who played Fantasie Impromptu. It looked and sounded very impressive, i remember thinking "wow, he's fast". It looked very difficult.

Just a short while afterwards, my teacher (who was quite a good pianist) played Fantasie Impromptu.... and it looked so easy! Almost effortless!

To me that is a virtuos, someone who can make something extremely hard look very easy.

I always close my eyes when the primary thing I do is listening music(unless I look at the score). Even at live performances.

So how does your theory work there?

[BoliverAllmon]

I think a virtuoso is one who accomplishes something that an overwhelming majority of people can't do and the virtuoso will do it with ease.

[chromatickler]

What a strange theory!!!
Virtuoso is about braveness and valour. It is not about technique, but has to do rather with qualities of temperament and personality. There are a lot of pianists who has supreme technique, but I would not consider them virtuoso.
Virtuoso is about risk and taking chances.

EXACTLY! it is about SPEEED