# What are the composers known for being also piano virtuosos?



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

This is something I'm not very knowledgeable about.
I can think of some name in any case:

Liszt
Rachmaninov
Mozart
Beethoven
Busoni
Alkan
Chopin
Saint-Saens


feel free to add


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

I'm going to expand my list to general keyboard instruments, as to be more inclusive of the Baroque era:

Sweelinck
Buxtehude
Telemann
D. Scarlatti
Handel
Bach
Couperin
Mozart
Beethoven
Czerny
Moscheles
Thalberg
Schumann (until he damaged his fingers)
Mendelssohn
Kalkbrenner
Brahms (until he became old and focused on composing)
Franck
Reubke
von Bulow
Grieg
Moszkowski
Reinecke
Scriabin
Debussy
Godowsky
Feinberg
Ives
Rubinstein
Bartok
Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Bernstein
Rzewski

And this list is by no means exhaustive. While not all of these composers were exactly "known" for being virtuosos (not all of them had concert careers), I chose composers that showed a lot of talent from a young age and had the capability to perform in concert even if they chose not to.

One can see that instrumental talent is highly conducive to compositional efforts, so it'd be easier to name composers that did _not_ have a large amount of talent at the keyboard.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Albéniz and Rodrigo are a couple others that come to mind also Bruckner and Messiaen, though the latter two were more known as organists. Then there are those like Gould and de Larrocha, who were primarily pianists but also composed, but I suspect you are referring to individuals that are primarily known as composers.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Weber
Scharwenka
Chaminade
Gottschalk
D'Albert
Busoni
Reger
Dohnanyi
Grainger
Casella
Casadesus
Lutoslawski
Britten
Bolcom


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Quicker to make a list of the non-keyboard virtuosos.

Berlioz
Dvorak
Sibelius

Is that it?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

GraemeG said:


> Quicker to make a list of the non-keyboard virtuosos.
> 
> Berlioz
> Dvorak
> ...


Decent pianists who weren't virtuosos:
Schubert
Haydn
Ravel
Tchaikovsky
Mussorgsky

Non-piano players:
Rimsky-Korsakov
Borodin (but he made up for it by being an excellent chemist)


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Schoenberg was a violinist non-pianist


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Franz Schmidt didn't just compose: he was a virtuoso pianist, organist and cellist.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> Quicker to make a list of the non-keyboard virtuosos.
> 
> Berlioz
> Dvorak
> ...


Wasn't Luigi Boccherini a cellist?


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

A few of the women who deserve mention:

Maria Szymanowska
Clara Schumann
Amy Beach
Teresa Carreño
Fanny Mendelssohn
Louise Farrenc


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

*Max Reger* was a concert pianist and wrote some quite advanced keyboard works.
*Sergei Bortkiewicz* reportedly astounded the (Viennese?) public with his skill as a pianist when he gave concerts as an old man
*Dimitri Tiomkin* premiered some works by Rachmaninov
*John Williams* was an excellent pianist in his youth, attending an elite Julliard class with just about half a dozen others, including Van Cliburn.
In 1982 he stepped down from the conducting podium and played this from memory without making any mistakes, just to demonstrate the interpretation to the hired pianist. The orchestra was very surprised.





It's a common theme with some of the great composers that they seemed to onlookers to be pianists that came out of nowhere. Others assumed that since the virtuosi spend their entire time on practicing to be as great as they are, surely composers, who spend their time creating, must be much worse. This was often not the case.

I am most impressed with the stories of sight-reading feats of Saint-Saens and Beethoven.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

There is something that we modern 21st century players, listeners and maybe composers should note. Many of the aforementioned great keyboard virtuosos were not just great pianists for its own sake. They excelled in improvisation, a lost art today, that many pianists are so weak at today. Likewise, many of them composed out of improvisation and were creative thinkers and artists at the keyboard. They sat at the keyboard of their day, improvised based on a theme or afresh with spontaneous creativity. It is certainly not done today if at all, apart from banging at the keys if you are a "modern avant-garde" pianist.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Lukas Foss
Chick Corea


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

GraemeG said:


> Quicker to make a list of the non-keyboard virtuosos.
> Berlioz


I thought Berlioz couldn't play any instruments



> Hector Berlioz was capable of writing a Fantastic Symphony. He could also spot a fantastic talent. "Come, " he said to a friend, "I am going to show you something you have never seen, and someone you shall never forget." That someone: a fellow named Fryderyk Chopin.
> 
> They say opposites attract. But with these two composers, it was more of a case of opposites respect. Berlioz: outsized personality, controversial public persona, and a pioneering - if erratic - symphonic genius. Chopin was none of these things. But both were stars in the remarkable creative constellation of artists that flourished in Paris at the time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I thought Berlioz couldn't play any instruments


*1816*
Berlioz learns to play the flageolet; earliest attempts at composition.
*1817*
Hector learns to play the flute.
*1819*
In January Dr Berlioz buys a flute and later a guitar for his son who begins lessons on the instrument with his new teacher Dorant.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> I am most impressed with the stories of sight-reading feats of Saint-Saens and Beethoven.


Other great sight-readers:

Georges Bizet -- legendary score-reader

Debussy -- sight-read the whole of the 2-pianist version of the _Rite of Spring_ with Stravinsky; then stood up and walked out without saying a word

Walter Gieseking

John Ogdon -- could sight-read anything -- maybe the greatest ever?

David Tudor -- John Cage's associate


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

GraemeG said:


> Quicker to make a list of the non-keyboard virtuosos.
> 
> Berlioz
> Dvorak
> ...


I don't think Dvorak was ever a virtuoso


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> There is something that we modern 21st century players, listeners and maybe composers should note. Many of the aforementioned great keyboard virtuosos were not just great pianists for its own sake. They excelled in *improvisation,** a lost art today, that many pianists are so weak at today.* Likewise, many of them composed out of improvisation and were creative thinkers and artists at the keyboard. They sat at the keyboard of their day, improvised based on a theme or afresh with spontaneous creativity. *It is certainly not done today if at all, *apart from banging at the keys if you are a "modern avant-garde" pianist.


Re the bold, none of that is true in my experience so far as composers are concerned. Improvisation is an essential, useful and oft times, fruitful quality for a composer and if it is not done at a keyboard or other instrument, it will be imaginative. I was personally told by one respected British composer (also considered to be one of the best current pianists), that he improvises for many weeks before starting a new work, honing his finds and expanding them until ideas solidify. Then the process of committing them to ms begins.

Only Roger has mentioned one of the finest pianists (and composer) of his generation in the 20thC, so I'll highlight him...Britten. Who, incidentally, rarely checked his work at the piano such was his acute ear. 
There are two more stand out virtuoso pianists in the younger British generation today who have made their name as composers, Thomas Ades and Huw Watkins. I'll also add John Mc Cabe, a composer/pianist famed for his Haydn recordings and Sally Beamish, but there are plenty more.


























There endeth my tribute post to hammeredKlavier.....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^It exists but it is not a widespread practice. Go to a concert that requires an improvised part at the end of a concerto, 9/10 it would have been just a practiced performance. Barely any composers today compose loads of new music because they improvised.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> ^It exists but it is not a widespread practice. Go to a concert that requires an improvised part at the end of a concerto, 9/10 it would have been just a practiced performance. *Barely any composers today compose loads of new music because they improvised*.


AM, there are no grounds other than your dislike of modernity to say or believe such a thing. It's patently not the case for many composers because improvisation (yes, at the piano too) and composing go hand in hand, but if your mind's made up, I'm not going to try change it for you. Even taking your bolded statement above at face value, so what if the music created is done so on paper rather than improvised? The process of committing to ms is where a lot of the real work is done.

Your comment about concertos has no real relevance these days imv and besides, relates to performers more so than composers (I understand that you are most likely referring to the classical composers who improvised cadenzas). Even so, there are modern works that require improv. in one form or another and there are performers willing to take on the challenge.

George Benjamin's partner once described how he came home to hear Benjamin improvising alla Brahms...it really is a thing no matter what your views on it are.

Btw, your position on this is not a strong rationale with which to denigrate new music, which appears to be your intent. I'm sure you can do much better than that...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Roger Knox said:


> Other great sight-readers:
> 
> Georges Bizet -- legendary score-reader
> 
> ...


Nadia Boulanger - incredible sight-reader - she used to sight-read new scores from her students, adding her critiques and appraisals as she played.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

chu42 said:


> Decent pianists who weren't virtuosos:
> Schubert
> Haydn
> Ravel
> ...


And a useful cellist, by all accounts


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> AM, there are no grounds other than your dislike of modernity to say or believe such a thing. It's patently not the case for many composers because improvisation (yes, at the piano too) and composing go hand in hand, but if your mind's made up, I'm not going to try change it for you. Even taking your bolded statement above at face value, so what if the music created is done so on paper rather than improvised? The process of committing to ms is where a lot of the real work is done.
> 
> Your comment about concertos has no real relevance these days imv and besides, relates to performers more so than composers (I understand that you are most likely referring to the classical composers who improvised cadenzas). Even so, there are modern works that require improv. in one form or another and there are performers willing to take on the challenge.
> 
> ...


I disagree, in art schools, the art of improvisation is a secondary subject and in practice. A shame.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> ^It exists but it is not a widespread practice. Go to a concert that requires an improvised part at the end of a concerto, 9/10 it would have been just a practiced performance. Barely any composers today compose loads of new music because they improvised.


I don't think that pianists are necessarily improvising less because they are worse at improvisation today. It's because the standards of music are higher and a written cadenza is inevitably better thought out than an improvised one.

If you listen to the _written_ music of the 19th century virtuosos, much of it is just fluff and style over substance. Back then it was enough to impress audiences because they had never heard anything like it before. After all, people thought Paganini was the devil but musically speaking his written works are nothing special. Just competent and incredibly virtuosic.

So if the written music of these piano-composers is already so shallow, I can hardly imagine an interesting, imaginative, improvisation by the musical standards of today. I'm no concert pianist but I could sit down and easily improvise something with equal or superior musical content to half of the works that Thalberg, Czerny, Cramer, Kalkbrenner, etc. were churning out by the dozen.

Based on their written music alone, I'd say that only Liszt, Chopin, and _maybe_ Mendelssohn could improvise something that would be of any interest at all to today's concert-goers. That's three pianists out of hundreds at the time.

So I don't think it's a "lost art". I think it's an art that did not age well for classical music. If you want to hear excellent improvisation, listen to jazz.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I disagree, in art schools, the art of improvisation is a secondary subject and in practice. A shame.


Disagree with everything? 
Granted, improvisation is not of primary concern in an academic course (at least it wasn't in mine unless one joined the Jazz course). Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes but I wasn't really debating in my posts.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't see it performed much at all. I'm talking about in art music, not jazz.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't see it performed much at all. I'm talking about in art music, not jazz.


I'm talking about art music too, wasn't that clear? I was also talking about composer/pianists.
ok, so you are just bemoaning the fact that you can't hear an improvised cadenza or work performed by a composer at a concert.
Well music today - tonal and non-tonal - does not rely on, nor need that earlier convention. It does not mean that improvisation is a completely lost art..it isn't.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I don't think that pianists are necessarily improvising less because they are worse at improvisation today. It's because the standards of music are higher and a written cadenza is inevitably better thought out than an improvised one.
> ...


That's self- contradictory: "of *course* pianists today can.improvise, but since they improvise badly it's better to rely on a written score".
ArtMusic is right that classical improvisation is a skill that for the most part died out, maybe as a result of taking scores as unalterable texts and the academic standardization of performance. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Chopin and Liszt were said to be superb at improvisation. No, we don't hear that today, no matter how much one may deny the obvious, but it does seem to be making a comeback via HIP.
(edit)...all of which is not to say that musicians today wouldn't be able to improvise. I think most could. It just isn't cultivated anymore. Maybe it also is partly due to the rise of recorded music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

A few not mentioned, including some who were mainly pianists:

Dussek
Vorisek
Field
Ries
Mosonyi
Hummel
Medtner
G. Gould
Sorabji
Palmgren
E. Erdmann
Erkin
Tveitt
Ernst Levy
John McCabe
N.V. Bentzon
H.D. Koppel
Previn
Fazil Say
Finnissy
Svetlanov
Nikolayeva
Kapustin


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Radames said:


> Wasn't Luigi Boccherini a cellist?


Yes, so was Offenbach.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Camille St. Saens was an outstanding violinist and wrote three concertos for the instrument.

Likewise Jacques Offenbach was a cello virtuoso and wrote much for the instrument including a so-called "military" concerto.

Offenbach was, with Richard Strauss, perhaps better known for doing anything for money and occasionally for writing a little and allowing others to finish his work.

Anton Bruckner was among the finest organists of his or any other time but oddly did not write a lot for the instrument. If you search you can find compositions he wrote for piano, however.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

larold said:


> Camille St. Saens was an outstanding violinist and wrote three concertos for the instrument.
> 
> Likewise Jacques Offenbach was a cello virtuoso and wrote much for the instrument including a so-called "military" concerto.
> 
> ...


Reminds me of an ancient conductor friend's comment about Britten:
"Ben was quite promising. On the viola"


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

So the album here is just because I love it and I think anyone who hears this will sign on to the statement that the Medtner is at least the equal of the Rachmaninov here. I actually much prefer the Medtner, including the concerti and sonatas as well as the fairy tales and other incidental music. I hear a real voice that I like.

And he recorded much of his own work. Sad that he only made one person's list in this series as far as I can see.

Russians, russians, the russians are coming. Prokofiev. Like a Formula One racer making a curve in the third concerto.

Hamelin composes.

Ravel an hilarious example, apparently awful pianist. I think Debussy might have been the real thing but as far as I know there's little recorded except some song accompaniment. He edited a Chopin for some publisher, don't know which.

But I'm in this for the Medtner, under recognized and a wonderful composer.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

larold said:


> Camille St. Saens was an outstanding violinist and wrote three concertos for the instrument.
> 
> Likewise Jacques Offenbach was a cello virtuoso and wrote much for the instrument including a so-called "military" concerto.
> 
> ...


I can't find any source for Saint-Saens as a violinist?

It's worth reading a little about Offenbach as a cellist, he played in theater orchestras and got into a lot of hot water for pranks, tying stands and chairs together kind of kid stuff but he was bored. There's a great book with lots of cultural history and his role, Offenbach, or the Secret of the Second Empire, by Siegfried Kracauer. Very, very rich stuff. That cello concerto was recorded by Minkowski's band, I think.

The tendency for French mid-late nineteenth century composers to head to organ composition had to do with the politics of the church and conservatory. No piano in Notre Dame.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> That's self- contradictory: "of *course* pianists today can.improvise, but since they improvise badly it's better to rely on a written score".


If you took the typical improvising of the 19th century and applied it to today's concerts, you would get bad reviews about the lack of substance in the improvisations. The fact that we don't even perform a lot of the music by Thalberg, Czerny, etc. because its "shallow" to us today speaks to the truth of this.



consuono said:


> ArtMusic is right that classical improvisation is a skill that for the most part died out, maybe as a result of taking scores as unalterable texts and the academic standardization of performance. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Chopin and Liszt were said to be superb at improvisation. No, we don't hear that today, no matter how much one may deny the obvious, but it does seem to be making a comeback via HIP.
> (edit)...all of which is not to say that musicians today wouldn't be able to improvise. I think most could. It just isn't cultivated anymore. Maybe it also is partly due to the rise of recorded music.


I would say that harpsichordists improvise a lot more than pianists. When I took a course on playing the harpsichord, a large part of the curriculum was on improvisation. It's not hard to improvise something that sounds "Baroque" compared to improvising in the style of a specific Romantic composer.

I would also say that almost all of the tools that pianists focus on today is centered around winning competitions. If major competitions scored a certain part of the contest on how well the performer was able to improvise, I suspect that we would have a surge in cultivating improvisation.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> If you took the typical improvising of the 19th century and applied it to today's concerts, you would get bad reviews about the lack of substance in the improvisations.


How would you know? You weren't there to hear any 19th century improvising. The 3-part ricercar from the Musical Offering may be an example of Bach's improvisational skills. Ditto Mozart's A minor Rondo.

And wait a second...aren't you the one who's been writing these screeds on how everything is subjective anyway?? What is this "lack of substance"?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> How would you know? You weren't there to hear any 19th century improvising. The 3-part ricercar from the Musical Offering may be an example of Bach's improvisational skills. Ditto Mozart's A minor Rondo.


I'm sure Bach attended some classes on how to improvise three and four-part fugues out of nothing.

Oh, if only pianists could take these classes today-we'd totally be improvising fugues left and right!



consuono said:


> And wait a second...aren't you the one who's been writing these screeds on how everything is subjective anyway?? What is this "lack of substance"?


This is what I said, which you literally quoted:

"You would get bad reviews about the lack of substance in the improvisations."

I'm not saying whether there is an objective "lack of substance".

I said it would GET BAD REVIEWS.

If you disagree, that's fine. When I write or say an opinion, it's _my thoughts_ on the matter.

Which means it's _subjective._

It's exhausting, it's like you don't understand the words on the page and every tiny little thing has to be spelled out.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I'm sure Bach attended some classes on how to improvise fugues out of nothing, so if only pianists could take these classes today they'd all be able to do that.


Well, yeah. He studied. A lot.



> Did you read what I said? "You would get bad reviews about the lack of substance in the improvisations." I'm not saying whether there is an objective "lack of substance". I said it would GET BAD REVIEWS. If you disagree, that's fine. When I write or say an opinion, it's _my thoughts_ on the matter. Which means it's _subjective._
> 
> It's exhausting, it's like you don't understand the words on the page and every tiny little thing has to be spelled out.


Yeah, I read what you wrote. How do you know it would get bad reviews? Moreover, how do you know it would lack substance?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well, yeah. He studied. A lot.


Yes, Bach studied a lot. So did Einstein. Doesn't mean all scientists can be Einstein or even come close to accomplishing what he accomplished.



consuono said:


> Yeah, I read what you wrote. How do you know it would get bad reviews? Moreover, how do you know it would lack substance?


When I referred to "bad reviews", I was talking about the pianists of the 19th century. Bach wasn't a pianist, nor was he from the 19th century.

Furthermore, I consider Bach a far greater talent than almost any musician to ever exist, so he's not even relevant to the discussion for me. If you want to assume that most pianists today have the talent improvise like Bach, I'd say that's a severe underestimation of Bach's talent.

And how do I know that famous 19th century pianists like Moscheles, Czerny, Thalberg, Kalkbrenner would get bad reviews on their improvisation?

We don't even play their _written music_ anymore. Critics think their _written music_ is uninteresting and derivative, so you tell me how would they view their improvisations.

The only pianist-composers who would have a chance at getting recognized for their improv would be the composers that critics believe have a high quality of output-so that's Chopin, Liszt, and Mendelssohn.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

mparta said:


> But I'm in this for the Medtner, under recognized and a wonderful composer.


You will quite enjoy Medtner's own recording of his Third Piano Concerto-it is quite simply gorgeous.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> And how do I know that famous 19th century pianists like Moscheles, Czerny, Thalberg, Kalkbrenner would get bad reviews on their improvisation?


That isn't what I asked. You're great at putting words in people's mouths and then shrieking "strawman!".

Maybe all the above were good improvisers. Maybe some of their music is subjectively "good" but unjustly neglected. Or is it neglected because it's bad? They apparently got pretty good reviews on their lifetimes.


> Yes, Bach studied a lot. So did Einstein. Doesn't mean all scientists can be Einstein or even come close to accomplishing what he accomplished.


But Bach wasn't the only fine improviser nor was Einstein the only great scientist.


> So if the written music of these piano-composers is already so shallow, I can hardly imagine an interesting, imaginative, improvisation by the musical standards of today. I'm no concert pianist but I could sit down and easily improvise something with equal or superior musical content to half of the works that Thalberg, Czerny, Cramer, Kalkbrenner, etc. were churning out by the dozen.


So there's shallow, uninteresting, unimaginative music as opposed to profound, interesting and imaginative.

Incidentally, the "missing" middle movement from Bach's 3rd Brandenburg concerto might have been intended for an improvisation on the spot.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> That isn't what I asked. You're great at putting words in people's mouths and then shrieking "strawman!".


I didn't say you committed a strawman, even though you're shifting goalposts. Let's make things clear here. This is what I said:



> If you took the typical improvising of the 19th century and applied it to today's concerts, you would get bad reviews about the lack of substance in the improvisations.


And you directly responded:



> How would you know? You weren't there to hear any 19th century improvising. The 3-part ricercar from the Musical Offering may be an example of Bach's improvisational skills. Ditto Mozart's A minor Rondo.


This is an irrelevant counterargument because neither Mozart nor Bach were pianists of the 19th century.

So before you accuse me of "not doing what you asked", review your own responses to make sure that you're not committing fallacies of your own.



consuono said:


> Maybe all the above were good improvisers.


I already told you why they probably weren't by today's standards.



consuono said:


> Maybe some of their music is subjectively "good" but unjustly neglected.


What's the point of saying this? I explained to you why critics don't like their music. If someone thinks that their music is good and unjustly neglected, that's fine. It has nothing to do with how well it would be received today because they don't represent music critics.



consuono said:


> Or is it neglected because it's bad? They apparently got pretty good reviews on their lifetimes.


I already explained to you why people liked it back then. They all showcased new techniques and styles of piano playing that was unheard of at the time. People eventually got tired of their music once it was no longer the "new" thing.



consuono said:


> But Bach wasn't the only fine improviser not was Einstein the only great scientist.


Sure, but the point is that an genius like Bach is a once in a century kind of guy. We're talking about whether or not pianists today are able to improvise effectively. If Bach was alive today maybe his improvisations would be considering amazing but that doesn't mean a lot of pianists could do what he does.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Sure, but the point is that an genius like Bach is a once in a century kind of guy. We're talking about whether or not pianists today are able to improvise effectively. If Bach was alive today maybe his improvisations would be considering amazing but that doesn't mean a lot of pianists could do what he does.


So you are into artistic hierarchies after all. Good to know.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So you are into artistic hierarchies after all. Good to know.


I am into artistic hierarchies. I think Bach was the greatest, followed by Beethoven and Mozart. Then Brahms and maybe Schumann. I think that there's profound music and uninteresting music.

It doesn't mean I think my opinion is objectively correct. You quite literally still do not understand the definition of the word.

Learn the difference before you keep on pressing on with these dumb "gotcha" comments.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I am into artistic hierarchies. I think Bach was the greatest, followed by Beethoven and Mozart. ...


Nobody has to catch you with any "dumb gotcha comments". You do that all by yourself. :lol:


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Nobody has to catch you with any "dumb gotcha comments". You do that all by yourself. :lol:


If you say so. Especially when you fail to make counterarguments to anything I'm saying and routinely shift goalposts.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I already explained to you why people liked it back then. They all showcased new techniques and styles of piano playing that was unheard of at the time. People eventually got tired of their music once it was no longer the "new" thing.


That could be said of any new music.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> That could be said of any new music.


OK? Some new music disappears, and some new music doesn't disappear. We still play Liszt today, so obviously people didn't get tired of it.

But Czerny, Thalberg, Kalkbrenner, Moscheles, etc. all disappeared from the concert stage once it stopped being "new". So it's easy to assume that people got tired of it.

What's your point even?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> OK? Some new music disappears, and some new music doesn't disappear. We still play Liszt today, so obviously people didn't get tired of it.
> 
> But Czerny, Thalberg, Kalkbrenner, Moscheles, etc. all disappeared from the concert stage once it stopped being "new". So it's easy to assume that people got tired of it.
> 
> What's your point even?


What's yours? Your the one that came up with the Czerny-Thalberg-Kalkbrenner-Moscheles thing. Just letting you go on. Why would "they" get tired of those and not Liszt? Accident? :lol:


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> What's yours? Your the one that came up with the Czerny-Thalberg-Kalkbrenner-Moscheles thing. Just letting you go on. Why would "they" get tired of those and not Liszt? Accident? :lol:


Because audiences and critics back then considered Liszt to be more interesting or more creative...? Why do I need to answer this question? What's the purpose of it?

My stance was that since the music of most 19th century composer-virtuosos did not age well, their improvisation would not age well. It's not hard to understand.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Because audiences and critics back then considered Liszt to be more interesting or more creative...? Why do I need to answer this question? What's the purpose of it?


So because critics back then liked it, it went on. But you said these same audiences liked the others too but then got tired of it...why didn't they get tired of Liszt? "Interesting and creative"? Those subjective things carried over for generations?



> My stance was that since the music of most 19th century composer-virtuosos did not age well, their improvisation would not age well. It's not hard to understand.


So since *their* improvisation was "bad" or "subpar", how does it then follow that any improvisation after that would be bad? Improvisation wasn't just confined to 19th century composer-virtuosos. It was around a long time before that.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So because critics back then liked it, it went on. But you said these same audiences liked the others too but then got tired of it...why didn't they get tired of Liszt? "Interesting and creative"? Those subjective things carried over for generations?


Yup. People sharing an opinion for a long time does not make that opinion any less subjective.



consuono said:


> So since *their* improvisation was "bad" or "subpar", how does it then follow that any improvisation after that would be bad?


Because that's how the talent pool works. It doesn't increase by that much over time, usually just proprotional to the population.

Or maybe it does. Maybe people today improvise way better than people of yesteryear. Maybe we have a hundred Bachs in our midst.

I couldn't tell you. This is all speculation.



consuono said:


> Improvisation wasn't just confined to 19th century composer-virtuosos. It was around a long time before that.


And?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Yup. People sharing an opinion for a long time does not make that opinion any less subjective.


I dunno about that...
An amusing thing about your comments is you're so cocksure of everything.



> Because that's how the talent pool works. It doesn't increase by that much over time, usually just proprotional to the population.


Talent pool? Is talent some sort of objective thing, and if not, who's judging it?



> Or maybe it does. Maybe people today improvise way better than people of yesteryear. Maybe we have a hundred Bachs in our midst.


Well yeah, that's my point. But they don't because the skill has been neglected, and not simply because improvisation is "inferior" in itself.


> And?


Well then quit judging improvisation in itself on the basis of some 19th century pianists that you find mediocre.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> I dunno about that...
> An amusing thing about your comments is you're so cocksure of everything.


Because I'm right.

Time doesn't change whether an opinion is objective or subjective. It's pretty easy to understand that. It's not rocket science.

People's opinions on Liszt may change in the next hundred years. Maybe he's too vulgar for the people of 2360, or maybe he'll be forgotten by 2500.

It's only hard for you to wrap your brain around it only because you're dogmatically attached to this idea that music can be "objectively good".



consuono said:


> Talent pool? Is talent some sort of objective thing, and if not, who's judging it?


That's for you to answer. I'm not the one who thinks everything is objective. I'm just stating my opinions on a subjective. They are called OPINIONS since they aren't objective facts. A toddler could understand these concepts, but it seems that you haven't quite grasped it yet.



consuono said:


> Well yeah, that's my point. But they don't because the skill has been neglected, and not simply because improvisation is "inferior" in itself.


It's not that improvisation was inferior. It's that standards have changed. People aren't impressed by only flashy finger gymnastics anymore since it's nothing new.



consuono said:


> Well then quit judging improvisation in itself on the basis of some 19th century pianists that you find mediocre.


Except these were the main people who improvised on the piano? I can't judge the piano improvisation skills of people who didn't even play on a modern piano.

And when you talk about Mozart and Bach, you're talking about the most talented people to ever live.

I already talked about Chopin, Liszt, and Mendelssohn being able to succeed today in improvisation. That's three people.

Add Mozart and Bach, that's five. And might as well add Scarlatti and Handel, and we have what, seven people who might be able to impress critics today over the span of what, two hundred years?

What's your point in saying that people improvised before the 19th century? You're just increasing the timeframe.

And I don't care if Mozart or Handel had genius improvisational skills. They aren't exactly representative of most pianists.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> Time doesn't change whether an opinion is objective or subjective. It's pretty easy to understand that. It's not rocket science.


Quality music transcends time, people and place. Historical fact. (FYI Semantics is just that; semantics.)



chu42 said:


> And I don't care if Mozart or Handel had genius improvisational skills. They aren't exactly representative of most pianists.


Thank God Handel and Mozart are not representative of most pianist, we don't want Handel and Mozart to be pulled down to earthly egalitarian standards.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Because I'm right.


:lol:



> Time doesn't change whether an opinion is objective or subjective. It's pretty easy to understand that. It's not rocket science.
> 
> People's opinions on Liszt may change in the next hundred years. Maybe he's too vulgar for the people of 2360, or maybe he'll be forgotten by 2500.
> 
> It's only hard for you to wrap your brain around it only because you're dogmatically attached to this idea that music can be "objectively good".


You're dogmatically attached to this notion that everything's subjective. I think both come into play. I do think there's an objectivity in art. I think things can be well made and poorly made and that when such qualities are recognized by a large number of individual subjective tastes, something must be up.



> That's for you to answer. I'm not the one who thinks everything is objective.





> I'm just stating my opinions on a subjective. They are called OPINIONS since they aren't objective facts. A toddler could understand these concepts, but it seems that you haven't quite grasped it yet.


You present your subjective opinion as objective fact while making fun of the intellect of someone who objects to your subjective opinion?


> It's not that improvisation was inferior. It's that standards have changed. People aren't impressed by only flashy finger gymnastics anymore since it's nothing new.


Flashy finger gymnastics weren't exactly new when Liszt came along, either. Virtuoso playing has a long history.



> Except these were the main people who improvised on the piano? I can't judge the piano improvisation skills of people who didn't even play on a modern piano.
> 
> And when you talk about Mozart and Bach, you're talking about the most talented people to ever live.


Objectively talented?



> What's your point in saying that people improvised before the 19th century? You're just increasing the timeframe.


Well, duh.



> And I don't care if Mozart or Handel had genius improvisational skills. They aren't exactly representative of most pianists.


Step away from the piano a while. It's a big world outside.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> You present your subjective opinion as objective fact while making fun of the intellect of someone who objects to your subjective opinion?


Yeah, point to where I presented something as objective fact. Everything I've said is my _opinion_. If I didn't think the talent pool changed it's my _opinion_.



consuono said:


> Flashy finger gymnastics weren't exactly new when Liszt came along, either. Virtuoso playing has a long history.


Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. Like not even a little bit. Czerny invented the foundation of modern piano techniques. Being flashy on the harpsichord is completely different from being flashy on the piano.

This is my _opinion,_ by the way. Just in case you don't still don't know what _opinion_ means. I can back up my _opinion_ with non-arbitrary evidence and then you can decide whether you agree with my _opinion_ or not. You take quite a long time to get things so I'll just repeat the word a couple more times. _Opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion._



consuono said:


> Objectively talented?


Why would you assume that? Don't you know that I don't believe in objectivity in poorly defined words such as talent? It literally takes someone to tell you a thousand times before you can learn something.



consuono said:


> Step away from the piano a while. It's a big world outside.


Okie dokie.


consuono said:


> :lol:
> 
> You're dogmatically attached to this notion that everything's subjective. I think both come into play. I do think there's an objectivity in art. I think things can be well made and poorly made and that when such qualities are recognized by a large number of individual subjective tastes, something must be up.


You don't understand human biology then. You see something you don't understand and you explain it with abstract concepts like "beauty" and "greatness".

Humans are biologically predisposed towards certain elements. In physical art, that's symmetry and certain color blends and purity. In music it could be consonance, stable tones, rhythmic impulses, contrast, and whatnot. We invented music theory in order to break down these elements and explain why they work.

It doesn't give these elements any objective meaning. It's just what humans trend towards. They don't have meaning outside of our brains. You're not objectively wrong just because you don't have that certain chemical that everyone else has.

By the way, this is the scientific consensus and, for once, not only my _opinion._


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Yeah, point to where I presented something as objective fact. Everything I've said is my _opinion_. If I didn't think the talent pool changed it's my _opinion_.


Well then quit bloviating with that sneering, condescending tone as if you're an authority. 


> Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. Like not even a little bit. Czerny invented the foundation of modern piano techniques. Being flashy on the harpsichord is completely different from being flashy on the piano.


So you're an authority on all keyboard instruments as well. It doesn't have anything to do with anything anyway.


> This is my _opinion,_ by the way. Just in case you don't still don't know what _opinion_ means. I can back up my _opinion_ with non-arbitrary evidence and then you can decide whether you agree with my _opinion_ or not. You take quite a long time to get things so I'll just repeat the word a couple more times. _Opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion._


Well then quit presenting it as fact fact fact. Clear enough? Even a toddler could understand that.


> Why would you assume that? Don't you know that I don't believe in objectivity in poorly defined words such as talent? It literally takes someone to tell you a thousand times before you can learn something.


Well then, genius, why do you use such words?


> You don't understand human biology then. You see something you don't understand and you explain it with abstract concepts like "beauty" and "greatness".
> 
> Humans are biologically predisposed towards certain elements. In physical art, that's symmetry and certain color blends and purity. In music it could be consonance, stable tones, rhythmic impulses, contrast, and whatnot. We invented music theory in order to break down these elements and explain why they work.


We "invented" music theory, or we began to apprehend music theory to describe sound characteristics that already existed? It's the same problem as "inventing" math. That predisposition could be called objective.



> It doesn't give these elements any objective meaning. It's just what humans trend towards. They don't have meaning outside of our brains. You're not objectively wrong just because you don't have that certain chemical that everyone else has.
> 
> By the way, this is the scientific consensus and, for once, not only my _opinion._


Without some citation (which you rarely supply) I can't actually tell if that's the consensus or not, or if it's just your opinion which you're presenting as "science". In any event aesthetics is at least as much philosophical as scientific.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well then quit bloviating with that sneering, condescending tone as if you're an authority.


Yes, sorry that it takes you so long to learn something.

Read your own comments for once-you're trying to match me jab for jab, and you're losing because you lack self-awareness and you can't make a coherent argument.

Your witticisms amount to "Ha, you think that's objectively correct! So you must be a hypocrite since you're that anti-objectivity guy!"

It gets old after awhile and it didn't make much sense in the first place.



consuono said:


> So you're an authority on all keyboard instruments as well. It doesn't have anything to do with anything anyway.


Ok. Your refutation to my claim is to ask if I'm an authority on the matter? Why is that relevant? Do I have to be an authority to present and claim and discuss it?

I was prepared to provide evidence and have some kind of discussion. But I don't think you're capable of that if you want to just go down the "are you an authority" road.



consuono said:


> Well then quit presenting it as fact fact fact. Clear enough? Even a toddler could understand that.


Again, trying to match me jab for jab and then accusing me for being "bloviating" and "sneering". You really are not very self-aware. Can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

Also, show me where I represented something as fact. Unless I explicitly said something is factual, I have never presented a single one of my opinions as "fact". Keep altering reality if it helps you sleep at night.

The reason why people have discussions in the first place is because they are presenting OPINIONS, not facts. They are opinions that _people believe to be true,_ but still opinions.

If I was discussing with you objective facts like why 2+2=4, or whether or not Brahms was born in 1833, it wouldn't be a very long discussion, would it? Or maybe it would, who knows what could happen with you.



consuono said:


> Well then, genius, why do you use such words?


Why I use the word talent? Because I have a non-arbitrary definition of the word talent. It's not an objective definition, but it means something and has meaning to humans because it is vaguely based on the general human perception of the word. I.e., it's not arbitrary. I'm not going to explain what non-arbitrary, or credible subjectivity is to you again, since it seems like I've already covered all the bases about four or five times.

You asked me if I considered Mozart to be objectively talented. I responded that I consider him talented (so most people can get a general sense of what I mean) but the word talent itself has no objective meaning.

If you think the word "talent" has objective meaning, then please tell me what the meaning is. Tell me the barrier between talented and untalented. Tell me just exactly how much talent someone needs to have in order to be considered talented.

I can tell you the objective definition of "frozen". It's when water goes 0 C or below and becomes a solid.

So if "frozen" and "talent" are both objective words, why can't you define talent?

Oh wait, you can't tangibly measure talent? It's not something you can actually gauge? It's something that can have a different meaning to different people? Oh, mercy me.



consuono said:


> We "invented" music theory, or we began to apprehend [sic] music theory to describe sound characteristics that already existed?


Music theory applies only to sounds that we are predisposed to biologically like. It is an objective "predisposition", as in you could objectively say that humans trend towards liking consonance. It doesn't mean that consonance is "objectively a good sound," or "objectively better than dissonance".

Furthermore, as human taste changes over time, we alter music theory to fit within these changes. The music theory of the 1400s no longer has the same meaning as it did in the 15th century because it does not apply to 21st century tastes.

The perfect fourth was considered dissonant in the 15th century. It is no longer considered dissonant today.

The tritone used to be considered evil in the 15th century. The tritone is no longer considered evil by humans today.

So how can you say that music theory is objective? Did the tritone magically change from being objectively evil to no longer being objectively evil? Who's right and who's wrong? Music theory is literally just the explanation of our tastes. It has no objective meaning on its own.



consuono said:


> It's the same problem as "inventing" math. That predisposition could be called objective.


Math isn't equivalent because math doesn't change based on our personal preferences. The number used to calculate the circumference of a circle does not change based on what humans think it is, unlike music theory which can change in order to accomodate the conventions and tastes at the time.



consuono said:


> Without some citation (which you rarely supply)


While you on the other hand liberally supply citation!



consuono said:


> I can't actually tell if that's the consensus or not, or if it's just your opinion which you're presenting as "science".


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01514/full

https://www.ludwig-van.com/toronto/2019/05/31/report-why-we-like-certain-music-the-brain-and-musical-preference/
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_we_love_music



consuono said:


> In any event aesthetics is at least as much philosophical as scientific.


Citation please? I'm of the opinion that anything regarding aesthetics can eventually be explained by human biology.

There isn't some abstract objective force of beauty out there. If there is, it's unprovable and unknowable, so to insert it into the discussion is like a debate between the existence of aliens vs. Bigfoot.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> I'm of the opinion that anything regarding aesthetics can eventually be explained by human biology.


Indeed, thanks to our ears and eyes, we hear and we see. Then we determine greatness. And over time, the work and it creator either diminishes in value or transcends.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> Indeed, thanks to our ears and eyes, we hear and we see. Then we determine greatness. And over time, the work and it creator either diminishes in value or transcends.


We determine greatness based on what we personally hear and see, but we can't determine objective greatness.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> We determine greatness based on what we personally hear and see, but we can't determine objective greatness.


The collective noun "we" is what stands here over time, people and place. This is how art gets cultured for posterity, the essence of what and how art grows. This is one of the beauties of art, that quality transcends all.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Music theory applies only to sounds that we are predisposed to biologically like.


Sorry, but that sounds like hogwash to me. I'm predisposed not to like Ferneyhough, but his music can be examined using theoretical concepts.


> The tritone used to be considered evil in the 15th century. The tritone is no longer considered evil by humans today.


But it's still a tritone and has always been one. A third has always been a third, an augmented chord has always been an augmented chord.


> Citation please? I'm of the opinion that anything regarding aesthetics can eventually be explained by human biology.


Your opinion does not equal "scientific consensus". Of course there are scientific investigations into it.
https://iep.utm.edu/aestheti/


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like hogwash to me. I'm predisposed not to like Ferneyhough, but his music can be examined using theoretical concepts.


It can, and these concepts can be created when there are people who wish to subscribe to the concepts behind Ferneyhough's music. They create an institution around what in the music sounds interesting or "good" to them. They create rules in order to be able to further compose like Ferneyhough or similar to Ferneyhough.

That is the purpose of music theory regardless of the composer or era and you only need to subscribe to it if you agree with its concepts.

It's why composers like Monteverdi created their own theory practices-because they didn't subscribe to the old ideas behind theory.



consuono said:


> But it's still a tritone and has always been one. A third has always been a third, an augmented chord has always been an augmented chord.


There are objective elements of music, sure. Whether these elements mean what the theory says they mean is up for debate.

Theory is not, and has never been, about objectivity. When a part-writing rule presents an element of music to avoid, that doesn't mean it's objectively bad. It's only bad if you subscribe to the rules and you want to write in that certain style of music.

In this way, math or science is not like music theory. It doesn't matter if I don't subscribe to the rules of science-they still apply to me. I will still fall off a building even if I believe that gravity doesn't exist.

But if I don't subscribe to the idea that the tritone is evil or that crossing voices is bad part-writing, I'm not violating the rules of reality.



consuono said:


> Your opinion does not equal "scientific consensus". Of course there are scientific investigations into it.
> https://iep.utm.edu/aestheti/


There are debates about it, sure. I presented my objective evidence in favor of my beliefs, and instead of evidence you simply presented a encyclopaedic compilation of views of philosophical views on the subject.

Some of these views agree with my idea that art is subjective to human perception (e.g. Hume) and some agree with your view that beauty can be objectively measured (e.g. Kant).

I suspect that one of these views is backed by more scientific evidence, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> It can, and these concepts can be created when there are people who wish to subscribe to the concepts behind Ferneyhough's music. They create an institution around what in the music sounds interesting or "good" to them. They create rules in order to be able to further compose like Ferneyhough or similar to Ferneyhough.


No. Theory is not about aesthetics. Theory is a description of how tones interact with one another.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> No. Theory is not about aesthetics. Theory is a description of how tones interact with one another.


It is true that theory is a description of how tones interact with one another, but it it was only created in order to explain and conceptualize aesthetics. Without aesthetics, theory exists in limbo, without any meaning to human perception.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> It is true that theory is a description of how tones interact with one another, but it it was only created in order to explain and conceptualize aesthetics. Without aesthetics, theory exists in limbo, without any meaning to human perception.


It wasn't "created" any more than arithmetic was "created". It's an objective observation of tonal relationships.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> It wasn't "created" any more than arithmetic was "created". It's an objective observation of tonal relationships.


It is, and it only has any relevance to the discussion of "objective greatness" when you apply it to human perception and bring subjective interpretations into its individual elements.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> It is, and it only has any relevance to the discussion of "objective greatness" when you apply it to human perception and bring subjective interpretations into its individual elements.


I didn't say anything about "objective greatness". You're always tossing in red herrings.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> I didn't say anything about "objective greatness". You're always tossing in red herrings.


You said:



> I do think there's an objectivity in art.


You didn't say "objective greatness" exactly, but I'm sure you believe in it (as you've confirmed in many other posts).

And then this is where I mentioned music theory-arguing against the idea of objective greatness by explaining that:



> Humans are biologically predisposed towards certain elements. In physical art, that's symmetry and certain color blends and purity. In music it could be consonance, stable tones, rhythmic impulses, contrast, and whatnot. We invented music theory in order to break down these elements and explain why they work.


So when I say that humans "invented" music theory, it was the invention of giving subjective attributes to specific objective elements of music. This is what I just explained earlier.

Since we tend to adhere to certain institutions of music theory (in particular the theory of the common practice period), we can judge whether or not music is "good" or even "great" based on these theoretical standards.

The issue is that these standards are subjective in the first place, so even if you're being objective within an institution, the institution is not objective itself.

For example, if we were writing music within the music theory conventions of the 16th century, someone may tell you that you have to remove that tritone because the tritone sounds bad and has evil connotations and whatever. So if you keep adding tritones, you're objectively making your music worse by the music theory conventions of the 16th century.

But who decided that the tritone was bad? It's only bad because people back then thought so. It's just the opinion of the informed consensus, or the general consensus, or whichever bunch of people created the music theory guidelines. It's subjective.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The apparentness of subjective or objective or both do not negate people's usage of those words, because the English language and its words change over time. People use words more or less according to its cultural usage. We should have a new word for the arts for those who find it hardest to accept objective greatness in art, so that it is a synthesis of objectivity and subjectivity in assessing greatness.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Again, trying to match me jab for jab and then accusing me for being "bloviating" and "sneering". You really are not very self-aware. Can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.


What you do is shadow-box with yourself and then congratulate yourself on your massive intellect when you knock yourself out. Go make a YT video or something else constructive. I'm done.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

chu42 said:


> People aren't impressed by only flashy finger gymnastics anymore since it's nothing new.


some flashy elbow gymnastics:


----------

