# Virtuosity (and people's infatuation with it)



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I played at a concert last night-a lovely little suite by Ginastera (_Suite de danzas criollas_). My father was enthusiastic about the ending movement, but he remarked "It would be so much better if it wasn't so darn _slow _half the time!", claiming that slow music is "boring" and makes a pianist seem "lazy".

Mind you, his favourite classical musician (he knows few of them) is Lang Lang because he enjoys his grandiose fireworks and his piteous facial expressions. I suppose the general public will never really understand... 

But I thought to myself, even at a concert that is filled with "serious" musicians-ones who appreciate the beauty in slow sections just as much as they do fast ones-if the performance ended with a long, slow work, the majority of these musicians would leave feeling utterly disappointed, myself included (unless the last work was exquisitely crafted.) Is there something _inside_ of us that craves the brilliance of virtuosity?

Something to think about...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think people love virtuosity. I do! From at least Bach's time (that piccolo trumpet) and down through the ages. Not at all sure it's a bad thing.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

You know that everyone loves virtuosity,whether it be a pianist,an F1 driver,a soprano or a stunt flyer.
It gives the individual the chance to imagine himself as a hero and for a short time put himself in the expert's shoes.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I certainly don't think it's a bad thing, I just think it's bad when people disregard musicality (whatever the tempo) for the sake of it.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I played at a concert last night-a lovely little suite by Ginastera (_Suite de danzas criollas_). My father was enthusiastic about the ending movement, but he remarked "It would be so much better if it wasn't so darn _slow _half the time!", claiming that slow music is "boring" and makes a pianist seem "lazy".
> 
> Mind you, his favourite classical musician (he knows few of them) is Lang Lang because he enjoys his grandiose fireworks and his piteous facial expressions. I suppose the general public will never really understand...
> 
> ...


I love that piece by Ginastera!, great choice!.
With respect to the virtuosity thing, I think it really depends on the balance of the full piece. If the piece is well balanced, I don't have any problem.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

moody said:


> You know that everyone loves virtuosity,whether it be a pianist,an F1 driver,a soprano or a stunt flyer.
> It gives the individual the chance to imagine himself as a hero and for a short time put himself in the expert's shoes.


That is a very interesting concept, thank you


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I love that piece by Ginastera!, great choice!.


Me too! What is your favourite movement?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Slow music is harder to play well. Virtuosic pieces come off crowd-pleasingly as long as all the notes are there in the right order. Slow pieces have to be played with artistry in order to work. And even then some audience members won't like them...
How did YOU feel the concert went?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> But I thought to myself, even at a concert that is filled with "serious" musicians-ones who appreciate the beauty in slow sections just as much as they do fast ones-if the performance ended with a long, slow work, the majority of these musicians would leave feeling utterly disappointed, myself included (unless the last work was exquisitely crafted.)


I don't think I would mind. Maybe if it was Satie I'd feel a bit let down.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Me too! What is your favourite movement?


The third movement, so beautiful.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

There's virtuosity and then there's showboating. The two should never cross currents.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> Slow music is harder to play well. Virtuosic pieces come off crowd-pleasingly as long as all the notes are there in the right order. Slow pieces have to be played with artistry in order to work. And even then some audience members won't like them...
> How did YOU feel the concert went?


I thought it was all right...it wasn't a solo concert, but a festival showcase, so there was a variety of people performing one piece only. Some of those musical theatre students are dreadful...but I played well. The fifth movement was a little messy though.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

aleazk said:


> The third movement, so beautiful.


ME TOO! I may record a performance of it for a competition CD in the next couple of weeks...if I do, I will send you a copy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> That is a very interesting concept, thank you


Quite common and very normal. That overweight and now well over twenty-something male who watches all pro sports games, likely played one of them as part of the regular phys ed courses, or better, was On The Team. Ergo, vicarious re-lived thrills of the physical experience, not also very unlikely the actual dream of becoming Pro, not realized, realized by another.

All dance audiences are vicariously onstage, whether they ever took a dance class, danced in their lives. Half the experienced exhilaration is in vicariously going through those movements. Watch a trapeze artist, and you yourself will fly....

Lang-Lang, Hamelin and Lisitsa are three pianists with very big careers based almost entirely upon the virtuosity of velocity only, their playing getting little appreciation from professional critics (or many other professional musicians) while the public have given them major careers and incomes to match.

Among young training musicians, that technical velocity also wows, often disproportionately.

In the fuller meaning of the word -- its full and accurate definition -- *virtuoso* includes the same amount of remarkable prowess not only in the velocity and accuracy departments: musicianship of an equal virtuosity must also be present and accounts for at least half of what qualifies to truly merit being called "Virtuoso", and imo it is very absent in the playing of these three very popular classical pianists.

The general public LOVE them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't think that playing slower music, and playing it very well, lies outside the scope of "virtuosity'".


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I don't think that playing slower music, and playing it very well, lies outside the scope of "virtuosity'".


True - Virtuosity is technically great skill and ability, but many people take it to mean the ability to play really fast.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I don't think that playing slower music, and playing it very well, lies outside the scope of "virtuosity'".


Well if we let the definition get too broad, the question is going to become "why are people obsessed with well-played music?"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I don't think that playing slower music, and playing it very well, lies outside the scope of "virtuosity'".


More than correct: it is more difficult in that it is all like tight-rope walking, all exposed, any flaw, including in the area of nuance, will show.

Schmann's Traumerei was a favorite encore of Horowitz... very telling. All music, no flash.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Well if we let the definition get too broad, the question is going to become "why are people obsessed with well-played music?"


virtuoso [ˌvɜːtjʊˈəʊzəʊ -səʊ]
n pl -sos, -si [-siː]
1. (Music, other) a consummate master of musical technique *and artistry*


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> virtuoso [ˌvɜːtjʊˈəʊzəʊ -səʊ]
> n pl -sos, -si [-siː]
> 1. (Music, other) a consummate master of musical technique *and artistry*


Yes, I too have access to a dictionary.

Your point is taken, but I believe the OP was about some people's tendency to eschew difficult slower pieces like _Traumerei_ in favour of party-pieces like _Scabro_.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

There seems to be a certain unspoken pressure for performers to play at the very extreme of their abilities.

Or perhaps it's rather some unreasoned presumption that whatever one plays is the the very extreme of his or her abilities. Sometimes I want to play something simple, Traumerei is a wonderful little piece. I play it often, but it doesn't mean that I can play nothing more demanding.

I have witnessed this a great deal in music schools, where one person plays, say Bach's little famous Minuet in G, and those walking past comment slightingly that they played that piece in their first year of playing. I find that kind of presumption unwarranted, because sometimes the simplest piece can bring a performer the greatest joy.

I have the utmost admiration for virtuosity, but I don't believe that it is the end-all of musicians. I fully agree with what was said above about slow movements and a certain inevitability that the quality of one's intonation is undisguised. When I'm playing in front of people [friends, typically], I am always most nervous about the slow movements. =\


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Yes, I too have access to a dictionary.
> 
> Your point is taken, but I believe the OP was about some people's tendency to eschew difficult slower pieces like _Traumerei_ in favour of party-pieces like _Scabro_.


You already understand that slow is not necessarily non-virtuosic.

The point came up in the thread, and I wanted to emphatically yet again emphasize Virtuoso does not just mean a player with pyrotechnical velocity, which has been mentioned / covered as the biggest impression maker for many a listener.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There was a lot of's musical snobbery around the subject of virtuosos some years ago. Cziffra, for example, suffered from critical mauling by those who once had 'discovered' him because he could play notes faster than anyone else. The fact is he played certain music better than anyone else just because of his preternatural gifts. Yet parts of the the critical establishment demanded he played other 'deep' music to which he was less well suited. They could not accept him as he was - a virtuosic phenomenon.
Horowitz suffered the same with some critics - but not the public.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

DavidA said:


> There was a lot of's musical snobbery around the subject of virtuosos some years ago. Cziffra, for example, suffered from critical mauling by those who once had 'discovered' him because he could play notes faster than anyone else. The fact is he played certain music better than anyone else just because of his preternatural gifts. Yet parts of the the critical establishment demanded he played other 'deep' music to which he was less well suited. They could not accept him as he was - a virtuosic phenomenon.
> Horowitz suffered the same with some critics - but not the public.


Cziffra was a Titan!

I watched one of his performances of Schumann's Toccata on YouTube. Preternatural gifts indeed!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> There was a lot of's musical snobbery around the subject of virtuosos some years ago. Cziffra, for example, suffered from critical mauling by those who once had 'discovered' him because he could play notes faster than anyone else. The fact is he played certain music better than anyone else just because of his preternatural gifts. Yet parts of the the critical establishment demanded he played other 'deep' music to which he was less well suited. They could not accept him as he was - a virtuosic phenomenon.
> Horowitz suffered the same with some critics - but not the public.


Earl Wild is another who is still sometimes so regarded. All one has to think of is a common reality, even the best do not "Do it all well" They have individual strengths. Richter's Chopin is not what he will, or should be remembered for, for example.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I admit that I "crave" virtuosity to some extent, but pure virtuosity for the sake of pure virtuosity is more of a stunt than music. However, since virtuosity and musicality are not mutually exclusive, it really depends on the balance between the two. If a piece of music already has interesting musical materials, great expression, and/or incredible musical colours, virtuosity can be a great enhancement to its already existent musical features. However, when the musicality of a piece of music doesn't match up to the amount of virtuosity that has been buttered on it, virtuosity becomes a type of sugar coating.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There is one aspect of great prowess I think holds almost anyone rapt and enthralled:

Whether it is a young Olympic contender performing like this: (you'll want to turn the audio volume Way Down)





Or a Cabaret Artiste performing an artfully elegant literal balancing act:





Or this, which best states the general reaction we get from any and all feats of extraordinary prowess:

A pianist colleague was performing the Saint-Saens concertante "L'africaine." He told me that in the middle of the storm of pyrotechnics being put forth in the finale, an audience member bawled out, "That is _inhuman!_"

The extraordinary as performed by people who look like us -- there are demigods, at the least, who walk amongst us mere mortals. _They remind us all far beyond the ordinary of what is possible._ We are enthralled, delighted, and filled with a kind of shared ecstasy to be reminded that _we_ are capable of such things.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Sport to me is different to art. There is something inherently competitive about sport, whereas art even if you have things competing for our attention doesn't really have a winner. The end in sport is largely about winning, in art it is vaguer and feels part of a larger whole. Sport is specific to a moment, art engages in a continuing historical dialogue.


----------



## ChrisDevonshireEllis (May 12, 2013)

Lang Lang is an extremely accomplished musician. As is Yujia Wang, who caused a storm when she wore a mini skirt to play Rachmaninov at the Hollywood Bowl. Get real, these are good looking musicians who play brilliantly and inspire millions. Otherwise you'll have 1.2 billion Chinese growing up with Justin Beiber as their musical source. 
But that's not to say I disagree with what you say about the Lang Lang issue. But that's not him, more the structure beneath. I wrote this, and it's not meant to be self promoting, but you might want to view my thoughts of my experiences of what is happening in contemporary Chinese culture - as you bought the subject up: http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2013/05/09/where-is-the-chinese-shostakovich.html

Virtuosity is one thing, and State Demands another. But moving on, I've always had a soft spot for flawed performances; I always rather feel with all my small talents I connect when someone makes a mistake or even screws up completely. It's more human, and I remember those moments with fondness rather more than the perfection. Because critics will always be critics, you can't please everyone, and I just want to enjoy the performance - and whatever that may bring.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think everyone is on the same page here. 

For me, music is not an athletic event (Ian Anderson's wonderful mad leaps into the air notwithstanding). Physical prowess can enhance the performance, but should not be the sole intent. This crosses over into the pop world too. There are guitarists who can play exceedingly fast with amazing machine-like precision but are an utterly boring listen. These people belong in the Olympics perhaps, but not on a concert stage. But then you have slow expressive guitarists like David Gilmore, or even Tony Iommi. These people are world renowned for a reason.

I think the idea of ending on a faster, louder work comes not from the love of virtuosity, but from the general arc of artistic structure, be it a novel, a painting or a concert. You've usually got to end with a bang. This vaguely reflects the sexual act, as in novels having "climaxes" and so forth. It's just a natural human inclination. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a nice gentle fading away feeling in a composition though. I think of Holst's The Planets.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

moody said:


> You know that everyone loves virtuosity,whether it be a pianist,an F1 driver,a soprano or a stunt flyer.
> It gives the individual the chance to imagine himself as a hero and for a short time put himself in the expert's shoes.


Its virtuosity which made me pick up a guitar in a first place.


----------



## ChrisDevonshireEllis (May 12, 2013)

You've not got to end with a "bang". Unless you've scored a particularly cute looking chair bunny from the local Music School you can persuade to do you in the men's room during the last movement. You can choose your own musical favorites to viagrilly seduce and accomplish the act in a different thread. But it does go on. I know. (Oh how I remember Brenda from 1968 at the Concert Hall in Cincincatti at the end of Bruckners 9th. Awesome. One minute later she was collecting your exit tickets). 

In fact many performances do not need a bang. In fact a few moments of quiet audience reflection is more appropriate, as at the end of Tchaikovskys 6th or Stravinkys "Rite". 
Whooping and applauding too soon when we have either just heard a suicide note or seen a girl dance herself to death is highly insensitive.
But that said, Yujia Wang does have great legs.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Jazz musicians can be virtuosos too, and at its worst that can take away from the deeper element of the music at times when it's them just showing how smoothly they can play a scale or how rapidly they can do something.

Virtuoso ability also links to _improvisation_ which can be a creative element within music when linked to inventive musical ideas rather than bland technical ability.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Weston said:


> I think everyone is on the same page here.
> 
> For me, music is not an athletic event...
> 
> I think the idea of ending on a faster, louder work comes not from the love of virtuosity, but from the general arc of artistic structure, be it a novel, a painting or a concert. You've usually got to end with a bang. This vaguely reflects the sexual act, as in novels having "climaxes" and so forth. It's just a natural human inclination. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a nice gentle fading away feeling in a composition though. I think of Holst's The Planets.


Big dramatic opening, fast and loud flashy finish with a flourish -- you can do whatever you want in between and the punters will still generally be impressed, and love it -- this is an antique formula / format / form which many of the great classical pieces use, and it is also found used in the tackiest lower-end forms of entertainment 

Alfred Brendel for some time had an unusual quality and a reputation -- that of being both a Liszt specialist _and_ a Mozart specialist!

The Lang-Langs, Hamelins and Lisitsa's, with their prominent and successful careers, have yet to be known for anything near like.

For a reputation not only as a pyrotechnical virtuoso, but as a performer who also has great prowess as a musician, ala maestro Brendel, a performer has to come up with those musicianship goods. Lang-Langs, Hamelins and Lisitsa have yet to display any such level of musicianship. Are their careers then, not a bit more of the sport and circus type than that of a profoundly good musician?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> The Lang-Langs, Hamelins and Lisitsa's, with their prominent and successful careers, have yet to be known for anything near like.
> 
> For a reputation not only as a pyrotechnical virtuoso, but as a performer who also has great prowess as a musician, ala maestro Brendel, a performer has to come up with those musicianship goods. Lang-Langs, Hamelins and Lisitsa have yet to display any such level of musicianship. Are their careers then, not a bit more of the sport and circus type than that of a profoundly good musician?


I think a certain Franz Liszt might have had certain things like this said about him as they are saying about the Lang Langs of this world. BTW, have you heard Hamelin's Haydn? And why is it a crime to have a preternatural technique?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I think a certain Franz Liszt might have had certain things like this said about him as they are saying about the Lang Langs of this world. BTW, have you heard Hamelin's Haydn? And why is it a crime to have a preternatural technique?


I think it unfortunate that Hamelin recorded the Haydn sonatas; they prove to me that lack of music in his playing I hear.

There is nothing criminal about having a preternatural technique, and nothing really criminal about being a soulless typist at the piano who has almost no music inside to come out. No one is going to jail on either count. If you like Hamelin, you are certainly not alone.

I have yet to hear any real musicality there. While others have said the same, I prefer to stand on my own opinion.

I'm not criticizing preternatural technique. I think there is a huge absence of musicianship there, you and many others don't. Since I hear a lack there, I happen to feel the wont of more musicianship in addition to that preternatural technique.

If you don't hear an absence of musicianship there, you don't, and Hamelin's Haydn, then, is for you.

Do you need everyone to like what you like? I really don't get it, sorry.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

As a guitarist, I wonder what players could be considered analogues to Hamelin or Lang Lang? Would it be the same as John Williams (wearing the Lang Lang uniform) versus Bream? :lol:


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

starry said:


> Jazz musicians can be virtuosos too, and at its worst that can take away from the deeper element of the music at times when it's them just showing how smoothly they can play a scale or how rapidly they can do something.


Miles Davis being a good example of a guy who never made the mistake of trying to prove his technical ability to the detriment of the music.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I suppose the instrument will make a difference too. A great violinist playing a slow piece - he/she must clearly have a superb technique or 'virtuosity' to produce a really fine tone.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think it's unfair to mention Hamelin alongside Lisitsa and Lang Lang. Just because you haven't heard anything you've liked yet, doesn't mean he can't be a good musician. Besides the virtuosic, flashy stuff (and some piano music is simply made for that purpose), he seems a well rounded musician to me, much more than Lisitsa and especially Lang Lang. He also plays more interesting music from lesser known and obscure composers. For example, check out his playing of Catoire on youtube.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I will also put in my two bits on Hamelin. I was of the same opinion that he is "all technique, no music" until I heard him live. Yes, his technique was unbelievable, but he was also supremely musical—something that shocked me as all the videos/recordings I'd ever heard of him told me otherwise. In fact, apart from his own Paganini Variations, his program was fairly simple. His Berg sonata in particular was incredibly profound. And I met him backstage (he was a very gracious person) and bought a CD of him playing Schumann. That too was very musical. But there was something about his live performance, something miraculous, that could not be captured in any recording.

Moral: don't be too quick (or haughty) in your judgement of a pianist.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I will also put in my two bits on Hamelin. I was of the same opinion that he is "all technique, no music" until I heard him live. Yes, his technique was unbelievable, but he was also supremely musical-something that shocked me as all the videos/recordings I'd ever heard of him told me otherwise. In fact, apart from his own Paganini Variations, his program was fairly simple. His Berg sonata in particular was incredibly profound. And I met him backstage (he was a very gracious person) and bought a CD of him playing Schumann. That too was very musical. But there was something about his live performance, something miraculous, that could not be captured in any recording.
> 
> Moral: don't be too quick (or haughty) in your judgement of a pianist.


I may have to hear him live, then, as any recording he has done, solo or with orchestra, sounds dead in the water to me.

There are some who just do not do well in studio, needing the real situation and an audience to play for -- a very well known fact. Many musicians complain of the sterile situation in studio, and how hard it is to play at all 'lively' while "playing for nobody."

But very few who do not like or believe in recording can afford not to. Perhaps Hamelin is caught, like many who feel the same, between the devil and the deep blue?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Moral: don't be too quick (or haughty) in your judgement of a pianist.


Or any artist or composer. PetrB, I'm sure you are very knowledgeable about many things being discussed on TC and I applaud many of your contributions to this forum, but I'm under the impression that sometimes you base your opinion of a certain artist, composer or performer, on having heard only a fraction or a small part of their work, yet you always present your opinions in a very authoritative way... I think that's what may cause some annoyances here and there.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Fireworks are all well and good, and I enjoy them as much as anyone -- but I still tend to go to concerts based on the program, not the performer. And, for instance, there's no place to put, say, Beethoven's Opus 111 Sonata, other than at the end of a program.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Or any artist or composer. PetrB, I'm sure you are very knowledgeable about many things being discussed on TC and I applaud many of your contributions to this forum, but I'm under the impression that sometimes you base your opinion of a certain artist, composer or performer, on having heard only a fraction or a small part of their work, yet you always present your opinions in a very authoritative way... I think that's what may cause some annoyances here and there.


I am obviously opinionated, that does not distinguish me from many another on or outside of this forum.

Where people see some uniform or badge of rank which gives me "authority" is in the imagination of the reader, though. I may not be as absolutist as people apparently think, but I don't think softening stating of one's opinion is good for anyone -- you could liken that to the teacher telling you to not shy away from that wrong note, but to play it as firmly as the right note. I don't care for oblique approaches when it comes to speech, where my main taste in music is for the more subtle (go figure 

As to that obscure repertoire Hamelin performs, there is a generation or more unaware it has "All Been Done Before," and at least as well, by a small handful of remarkable pianists from the sixties and seventies -- some of those were pioneers in championing some of that repertoire, (a.o. Geoffrey Madge, Michael Ponti, and more) other than a lesser few from a pianistic generation previous that one.

The perception that Hamelin has uncovered hitherto not played repertoire and is bringing it to the world for the first time as sole proponent and champion is simply incorrect, probably as much a fault of the press as the public who believe it.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Virtuosity is fascinating when it is used as a means rather than an ends. Cziffra's drama and bravura are essential to his interpretations of Liszt's music just as Michelangeli's pinpoint precision and silky fluency are essential to his renditions of Ravel's _Gaspard de la nuit_ and Debussy's _Preludes_.

In neither of these cases is the pianist show-boating. Since the composers wrote these pieces in a virtuosic language, it is no surprise that they demand a certain degree of virtuosity. Technical skill and fluency allows for a pianist to do amazing things. I highly doubt that Horowitz's or Argerich's "Rach 3" would be as emotionally involving as they are if these two pianists were not as technically proficient as they were.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Air said:


> Virtuosity is fascinating when it is used as a means rather than an ends. Cziffra's drama and bravura are essential to his interpretations of Liszt's music just as Michelangeli's pinpoint precision and silky fluency are essential to his renditions of Ravel's _Gaspard de la nuit_ and Debussy's _Preludes_.
> 
> In neither of these cases is the pianist show-boating. Since the composers wrote these pieces in a virtuosic language, it is no surprise that they demand a certain degree of virtuosity. Technical skill and fluency allows for a pianist to do amazing things. I highly doubt that Horowitz's or Argerich's "Rach 3" would be as emotionally involving as they are if these two pianists were not as technically proficient as they *were*.


But she still rocks!. 






This is from a few months ago.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

aleazk said:


> This is from a few months ago.


Sounds as divine as ever. And aging so well too. She must be some kind of goddess.

I have to listen to her live at least once in my lifetime, but it doesn't seem like she's coming to my area for awhile.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Air said:


> Sounds as divine as ever. And aging so well too. She must be some kind of goddess.
> 
> I have to listen to her live at least once in my lifetime, but it doesn't seem like she's coming to my area for awhile.


I saw her live a few years ago, in 2005 I think, she played the Schumann and one of Chopin's piano concertos. Mystical, of course. 
It seems that she's staying in Europe now, hope you have luck. You know how is she, suddenly she can start an american tour because she's "bored" at her home.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I think it unfortunate that Hamelin recorded the Haydn sonatas; they prove to me that lack of music in his playing I hear.
> 
> .


Hmmm. Maybe that says more about you than him!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Hmmm. Maybe that says more about you than him!


No it says only what I think about those Haydn recordings. We could go back and forth with clever, my thinking there is very little or no music in them, and your thinking they do... which one could then say says something about you more than it does of Haydn or Hamelin. I'd drop it while you're -- in your mind -- ahead.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

On the subject of jaw dropping virtuosity, what about this from Cziffra?






Thank goodness the cameras were running!


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

I totally agree with the OP. I don't give a damn about virtuosity. My favorite pieces aren't showy at all. Have a listen to this Scarlatti sonata :






It's not showy at all. Any person who has been playing for a few months could play it. And yet it is a most beautiful piece. One of my favorite of all times. I have been playing it for many years and am still amazed how wonderful it sounds. I'm much more impressed by this piece than Fantaisie-Impromptu or La Campanella.

(This doesn't mean I don't enjoy fast pieces : I highly enjoy Beethoven sonatas, Chopin Etudes, dazzling Scarlatti sonatas and many others. But I don't like showmanship for the sake of it. Music is the most important.)

This topic reminds me of an Artur Rubinstein conference in which he talks about musicianship, technique, showmanship. Someone has wrote it in this pianoforum :

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=3394.0


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

PetrB said:


> No it says only what I think about those Haydn recordings. We could go back and forth with cliever, my thinking there is very little or no music in them and your thinking they do saying something about you. I'd drop it while you're -- in your mind -- ahead.


Didn't Vladimir Horowitz often performed Haydn sonatas ? I guess he must have bad taste too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

worov said:


> Didn't Vladimir Horowitz often performed Haydn sonatas ? I guess he must have bad taste too.


You've missed the point, it seems. I thought Hamelin's recording of Haydn, as bare-bones as the music is, revealed even more what I think is a lack of a real musical quality _which I think generally about this particular performer's playing._

One of Horowitz's most valuable and remarkable legacies is his playing of Scarlatti Sonatas, which are maybe equaled by another but not surpassed.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I enjoy watching crazy finger flying virtuosity in the same way I enjoy watching world class gymnasts or skiers or sprinters. I enjoy it for the sake of watching someone go to the edge of human ability. 

However, it is certainly not a requirement for me to enjoy a piece of music. I can enjoy simple pieces as much as complicated ones. I just from time to time get a kick out of watching videos of the supremely difficult pieces.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> You've missed the point, it seems. I thought Hamelin's recording of Haydn, as bare-bones as the music is, revealed even more what I think is a lack of a real musical quality _which I think generally about this particular performer's playing._
> 
> One of Horowitz's most valuable and remarkable legacies is his playing of Scarlatti Sonatas, which are maybe equaled by another but not surpassed.


It just shows how subjective listening to music is. Hamelin's first volume of Haydn won a Gramophone and a BBC Award for best instrumental disc of that year. I wish you could describe how you think it lacks a real musical quality. To me it is highly musical. And to an awful lot of people:
"Hamelin kicks off with the late C major Sonata, H50, nailing his virtuoso credentials firmly to the mast with a mercurial account of its opening movement. Some may prefer Schiff's more measured approach, but Hamelin's playing is dazzling, and his 'presto' finale is no less witty than Schiff's." BBC Music Magazine, April 2007 *****

"Hamelin's gift for making light of complex textures and technically taxing writing is here harnessed to music of Classical clarity and economy. It is without doubt one of his finest achievements-and that's saying something. This cleverly chosen selection of diverse character is played with masterly resourcefulness. Hamelin can do deadpan humour (the finale of No 40) and brilliant note-spinning (No 32) like few others, but also finds a truly affecting wistfulness in some of the slow movements. Superbly recorded, this is a life-enhancing release" Classic FM Magazine

"The ever-phenomenal Marc-André Hamelin breaks out into the light with a two-disc set of Haydn sonatas … these are astonishing performances … Hyperion's sound and presentation are, as always, immaculate" Gramophone Magazine

I'm not saying the critics are always right that I don't think they always are. But there does seem to be a general consensus about the excellence of these performances.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Most of the music I listen to (ie, Mozart) was composed at a time when virtuosity was placed at the service of the music and the composer himself (Mozart) frowned upon excessive, self-aggrandising displays of showmanship. The music was the thing, and the performer was the functionary who brought to notes to life. So a lot of Wolfgang's music can be snappily and zappily played happily by a child with a cheesy, breezy grin on their mush.

The virtuosity in this case is in being able to play the music with feeling, not being able to move your fingers quicker than you can count...


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2013)

Hear hear! Another voice in support of Hamelin! Boo Lang-Lang! Lisitsa who? But I think plenty of very knowledgeable music critics think Hamelin is one of the greatest.

Actually, I hear Lisitsa is pretty good too.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

She's not.

But i agree with worov. I dont care much for virtuosity either.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

There's a great difference between writing poetry and speed-typing...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I went to a Jeremy Denk recital the other day. Most of the first half was Liszt. He played the heck out of it! Without virtuosity, there'd be hardly anything of poor Liszt left...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I went to a Jeremy Denk recital the other day. Most of the first half was Liszt. He played the heck out of it! Without virtuosity, there'd be hardly anything of poor Liszt left...


I suppose you are trying to be provocative,but succeed only in being trite.

Liszt is a hugely important composer and virtuosity as such is not a great part of his output.
You should make the effort to listen to some of his music from time to time.
Also to read the following threads here.
Liszt Choral Works. Liszt Is the Most Underrated Composer On TC. Liszt's Tone Poems.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> I suppose you are trying to be provocative,but succeed only in being trite.


I am well and truly regretful if I have stepped on your toes!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I am well and truly regretful if I have stepped on your toes!


It's really nothing to do with my toes but a great composer being slighted. There are ,after all,quite a number of inexperienced music lovers among our ranks and they should be given a fair chance to look at Liszt. My friend Lisztian has put immense effort into building up a real picture of Liszt's accomplishments.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> It's really nothing to do with my toes but a great composer being slighted. There are ,after all,quite a number of inexperienced music lovers among our ranks and they should be given a fair chance to look at Liszt. My friend Lisztian has put immense effort into building up a real picture of Liszt's accomplishments.


zOMG! You mean you advocate actually thinking of others who are on this site as well as the sometimes thousands of drop-ins, who may be at very different levels of exposure and knowledge?

Radical, that's what that is. Radical.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> It's really nothing to do with my toes but a great composer being slighted. There are ,after all,quite a number of inexperienced music lovers among our ranks and they should be given a fair chance to look at Liszt.


OK. I get it. We should mute our views of composers so as not to prejudice the tender minds of newbies dropping by. Positive as well as negative views, I would think. And, by extension, not just composers but specific works, even recordings. Makes sense to me.

Perhaps you can write up a set of rules on stating our opinions and post them in a new thread. Then we can all discuss them and get on the same page. That would be nice. And TIA!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> OK. I get it. We should mute our views of composers so as not to prejudice the tender minds of newbies dropping by. Positive as well as negative views, I would think. And, by extension, not just composers but specific works, even recordings. Makes sense to me.
> 
> Perhaps you can write up a set of rules on stating our opinions and post them in a new thread. Then we can all discuss them and get on the same page. That would be nice. And TIA!


There is nothing wrong with publishing sensible ,well thought out opinions with evidence.
There is a lot wrong with coming out with nonsense that means absolutely nothing to anyone who knows the subject under scrutiny.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> There is nothing wrong with publishing sensible ,well thought out opinions with evidence.


Preferably views that agree with yours? Point taken. I'll work on that.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Preferably views that agree with yours? Point taken. I'll work on that.


I think that would be of great value to you.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> I think that would be of great value to you.


Seriously, if I'd said how wonderful Liszt was, would you be complaining and demanding "evidence"? Truly chuckle-worthy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Somewhere it needs saying that *those highly demanding virtuoso works presumed the requisite technique was present, and that the musicality would be at the forefront of the presentation.*

Then as now, I'm sure there were younger performers with all the technique but who lacked the depth of musicianship to really make something of a presentation: as also then and now, there are audience members who are unable to make the distinction between those with technique without much musicality and those who have it all.

... Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Stop arguing guys, I'm gonna cry


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Seriously, if I'd said how wonderful Liszt was, would you be complaining and demanding "evidence"? Truly chuckle-worthy.


 No I would not because I am in agreement but somebody else might.
Also your comments were not worthy of consideration the way they were put.
We are back to nonsense: Beethoven's lousy--no he isn't but Mozart is.
If members cannot bring sense into a discussion it's best not to bother.
I have got my evidence together and will be coming back soonest.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

hello said:


> Stop arguing guys, I'm gonna cry


Rather than that bring your opinion into this--much more interesting. It's not arguing,it's differing opinions---that is what a forum is for.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Kieran said:


> There's a great difference between writing poetry and speed-typing...


tell that to stream-of-consciousness poets


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

deggial said:


> tell that to stream-of-consciousness poets


Life is full of surprises when you're up the stream of consciousness without a paddle...


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

One of the reasons audience will always love fast tempo and fireworks is sadly written inside humanity: lack of understanding. I've met classical music enthusiasts who actually love the superficial feeling music makes. Loud, pompousious noise makes you feel powerful and fast tempo makes you feel energic.

My claim is there's actually only a tiny % of people who actually loves music in it's slow, lingering and "boring" tempo if there's no some other tricks to keep them interested (like "beautiful melody"). Even the ones who make an argument otherwise are usually cheating themselves, including me.

And ofcourse, there can be also things outside the music itself that makes you feel interested. Then it's all the same what you are listening...

-dstring


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Remove the virtuosity and there would be nothing of poor Liszt left.
Well let us look at a few examples of what is left.
Hungarian Coronation Mass. Via Crucis. Messa Choralis. Messa Solemnis.
A Faust Symphony. Dante Symphony. Les Preludes.
Prelude and Fugue On B.A.C.H.. Variations On a Theme From "Weinen,Klagen,Sorgen.Sagen (Bach). These are organ pieces.
Piano Sonata in B Minor. Years of Pilgrimage. Harmonies Poetiques et Religieuses . In Gesto Transfigurationis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. The Liebestraume. Postludium---Nachspiel----Sursum Corda.
The Christmas Tree Suite. Am Grab Richard Wagner. Hungarian Portraits.
The Transcriptions of Beethoven's Symphonies. Opera Transcriptions. These were all done for a serious reason.
Songs. Not up to Schubert's standard but some of them are excellent.

Let us look at pianists who recorded Liszt. Richter. Arrau. Jorge Bolet.Barenboim. Brendel. Gould.Wilhelm Kempff. Edith Farnadi. Shura Cherkassky. Gina Bachauer. Maria Yudina. John Ogdon. Clifford Curzon. Egon Petri. Charles Rosen Leonard Pennario. Earl Wild. Cortot.
These are pianists who would not spend time on music that they considered second rate.
There is plenty more where the above came from.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Remove the virtuosity and there would be nothing of poor Liszt left.
Well let us look at a few examples of what is left.
Hungarian Coronation Mass. Via Crucis. Messa Choralis. Messa Solemnis.
A Faust Symphony. Dante Symphony. Les Preludes.
Prelude and Fugue On B.A.C.H.. Variations On a Theme From "Weinen,Klagen,Sorgen.Sagen (Bach). These are organ pieces.
Piano Sonata in B Minor. Years of Pilgrimage. Harmonies Poetiques et Religieuses . In Festo Transfigurationis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. The Liebestraume. Postludium---Nachspiel----Sursum Corda.
The Christmas Tree Suite. Am Grab Richard Wagner. Hungarian Portraits.
The Transcriptions of Beethoven's Symphonies. Opera Transcriptions. These were all done for a serious reason.
Songs. Not up to Schubert's standard but some of them are excellent.

Let us look at pianists who recorded Liszt. Richter. Arrau. Jorge Bolet.Barenboim. Brendel. Gould.Wilhelm Kempff. Edith Farnadi. Shura Cherkassky. Gina Bachauer. Maria Yudina. John Ogdon. Clifford Curzon. Egon Petri. Charles Rosen Leonard Pennario. Earl Wild. Cortot.
These are pianists who would not spend time on music that they considered second rate.
There is plenty more where the above came from.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Actually, I thought Ken's line about Liszt was funny - and it wasn't a reference to Liszt as composer, but as (self-confessed) flashy performer.

But I s'pose there's dogmas we all must observe and Thou Shalt Not Diss Liss is one of them...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I've managed to post the above twice at least you can't say you didn't see it !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> Actually, I thought Ken's line about Liszt was funny - and it wasn't a reference to Liszt as composer, but as (self-confessed) flashy performer.
> 
> But I s'pose there's dogmas we all must observe and Thou Shalt Not Diss Liss is one of them...


I don't think so because he posted it after describing a concert he'd attended.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

moody said:


> I've managed to post the above twice at least you can't say you didn't see it !


I thought it was the quality that demanded emphasis...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

moody said:


> I don't think so because he posted it after describing a concert he'd attended.


I know that, but it was a fair joke and it was intended to be seen as such...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> I know that, but it was a fair joke and it was intended to be seen as such...


Do everyone a favour and let him speak for himself will you !


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

" Originally Posted by Kieran:
There's a great difference between writing poetry and speed-typing...



deggial said:


> tell that to stream-of-consciousness poets


That reads _writing_ not typing


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Life is full of surprises when you're up the stream of consciousness without a paddle...


"Up the stream without a paddle" is a phrase for "LOST." or "effed."

"One oar in the water." is synonymous with simple-minded or bat-**** crazy


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Vladimir Horowitz to Murray Perahia: "To be more than a virtuoso, first you have to be a virtuoso.”


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Vladimir Horowitz to Murray Perahia: "To be more than a virtuoso, first you have to be a virtuoso.”

Parts of this topic almost makes it seem as if there are virtuosos on one hand and "musical" pianists on the other hand. But for a lot of piano music a virtuoso technique is simply required. Only then you can make it your own and give it something extra of yourself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Vladimir Horowitz to Murray Perahia: "To be more than a virtuoso, first you have to be a virtuoso."
> 
> Parts of this topic almost makes it seem as if there are virtuosos on one hand and "musical" pianists on the other hand. But for a lot of piano music a virtuoso technique is simply required. Only then you can make it your own and give it something extra of yourself.


Said differently, but needs saying many times, I think.
_I am more than happy someone else has also made this point..._ 
Those works demanding virtuoso technique, the presence of that technique is a basic assumption on the part of the composer; their real only concern with the musicality of both score and performance.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> "Up the stream without a paddle" is a phrase for "LOST." or "effed."
> 
> "One oar in the water." is synonymous with simple-minded or bat-**** crazy


Isn't this Forum great? When you make a joke, you can always get people to explain it or analyse it for you. Fabulous!


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2013)

INGENUE - MAYBE JOKES MUST BE SPECIALLY MARKED AS SUCH!

:lol:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BPS said:


> INGENUE - MAYBE JOKES MUST BE SPECIALLY MARKED AS SUCH!
> 
> :lol:


Yes,look what happened to me!!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

BPS said:


> INGENUE - MAYBE JOKES MUST BE SPECIALLY MARKED AS SUCH!
> 
> :lol:


Trouble is just as they miss the point, they'd miss the markings.

Plus the markings spoil the punchline.

Doh, does this need flagging up as a joke?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Taggart said:


> Trouble is just as they miss the point, they'd miss the markings.
> 
> Plus the markings spoil the punchline.
> 
> Doh, does this need flagging up as a joke?


Joke--what joke ? Did you have it marked as such ?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

From a post or two that I remember from Mr. OC I don't think what he said was at all a joke. An opinion, one i'd be very curious to hear more about. Which pieces gave him that impression? Which pieces has/hasn't he heard?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> From a post or two that I remember from Mr. OC I don't think what he said was at all a joke. An opinion, one i'd be very curious to hear more about. Which pieces gave him that impression? Which pieces has/hasn't he heard?


Where were you when you were needed to join in the good fight ? And of course it was no joke ,it was a lack of knowledge and I would think an attempt to be "clever". Anybody may put forward an opinion,but imagine what would happen if I said ,"Sibelius is nothing without Finlandia". Be prepared to prove your point ,that's what a forum is for.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I went to a Jeremy Denk recital the other day. Most of the first half was Liszt. He played the heck out of it! Without virtuosity, there'd be hardly anything of poor Liszt left...


Actuality you can say that about a lot of piano music written Beethoven and beyond.
And if you listen to Gould in the 48 just hear the virtuosity!


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

I'm not as keen on the listening aspect of virtuosity. But, it's most certainly fun to watch!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> From a post or two that I remember from Mr. OC I don't think what he said was at all a joke. An opinion, one i'd be very curious to hear more about. Which pieces gave him that impression? Which pieces has/hasn't he heard?


From a description of one of Liszt's recitals:

"As the closing strains began I saw Liszt's countenance assume that agony of expression, mingled with radiant smiles of joy, which I never saw in any other human face except in the paintings of our Savior ... he fainted in the arms of a friend who was turning the pages for him, and he bore him out in a strong fit of hysterics."

Fine for those days. Today you'd need to chew the heads off bats.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

KenOC said:


> From a description of one of Liszt's recitals:
> 
> "As the closing strains began I saw Liszt's countenance assume that agony of expression, mingled with radiant smiles of joy, which I never saw in any other human face except in the paintings of our Savior ... he fainted in the arms of a friend who was turning the pages for him, and he bore him out in a strong fit of hysterics."
> 
> Fine for those days. Today you'd need to chew the heads off bats.


That's from his days as a touring virtuoso, and therefore irrelevant to his own ideas and efforts in composing 'serious' music. Even from back then he lived a kind of dual life, between a desire to be a great composer and the love of performing and affection from the world, I could relay many works that either don't use much virtuosity, or use virtuosity purely for the sake of the music. Works like the Apparitions, the second book (and some from the first) of the Album d'un Voyageur, to the Buch der Lieder, the first versions of certain pieces. Hell, even the Don Juan an Norma Fantasies are 90% musically inclined, Liszt just used virtuosity in an unprecented way to create something (who else could have succeeded as he did?).

When he retired in 1848, probably 95% of his music has aims completely 'noble.' Every passage is intended to convey something musical, and if you just hear virtuosity perhaps you should try listening differently (and most of these pieces have many passages, perhaps even a majority, that are lyrical and poetic). Then, of course, there are the hundreds of wonderful pieces that have very little virtuosity at all, from the Christmas Tree Suite to the late pieces, to Via Crucis and Christus, to the Consolations, much of the Annees to Pelerinage...Saying there wouldn't be much Liszt left without the virtuosity both shows a lack of understanding of his music and a lack of knowledge of his output.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> Saying there wouldn't be much Liszt left without the virtuosity both shows a lack of understanding of his music and a lack of knowledge of his output.


Agreed! I've always been amazed by how skillfully and imaginatively Liszt was able to create fully orchestral effects on the piano! I always thought of his bravura passages as targeting a particular musical color.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> Saying there wouldn't be much Liszt left without the virtuosity both shows a lack of understanding of his music and a lack of knowledge of his output.


Alas, my insensitivity and my ignorance both exposed in a single telling phrase!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I am wounded...wounded...


I think the least you can do is make a decent contribution to Virtuoso's Anonymous, help the poor fellers who are still struggling with it... :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> From a description of one of Liszt's recitals:
> 
> "As the closing strains began I saw Liszt's countenance assume that agony of expression, mingled with radiant smiles of joy, which I never saw in any other human face except in the paintings of our Savior ... he fainted in the arms of a friend who was turning the pages for him, and he bore him out in a strong fit of hysterics."
> 
> Fine for those days. Today you'd need to chew the heads off bats.


I don't know. Lang Lang gets slated or adored in equal measure for doing much as Liszt did, only without the faint!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> Isn't this Forum great? When you make a joke, you can always get people to explain it or analyse it for you. Fabulous!


Part 1 was there as the 'explanation' only for my association with a near-like colorful phrase I've always liked, the "one oar in the water." But reading a thesaurus on an entry like "Crazy" is hugely entertaining.... "a brick loose in the upper story,' and many more... all fun and funny, and without being especially flagged or pointed out


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Most of the music I listen to (ie, Mozart) was composed at a time when virtuosity was placed at the service of the music and the composer himself (Mozart) frowned upon excessive, self-aggrandising displays of showmanship. The music was the thing, and the performer was the functionary who brought to notes to life. So a lot of Wolfgang's music can be snappily and zappily played happily by a child with a cheesy, breezy grin on their mush.
> 
> The virtuosity in this case is in being able to play the music with feeling, not being able to move your fingers quicker than you can count...


We have also to say that the piano he was writing for was at a very early stage of development and simply could not have coped with the massive virtuoso writing of eg Liszt. It is virtuosic in its own terms. My music teacher used to say it is not difficult to play but difficult to play well! Interesting that Mozart is rarely played in big piano competitions as it shows up the flaws in the p,aying.


----------

