virtuosity...

[adam kondor]

in itself is a value!


Update: is there such thing as a virtuoso composer? A composer "who can do everything"?

[adam kondor]

hard work...

[James Ross]

Yeah, it takes hard work. And this video is impressive, but honestly, I think virtuosity (or the need for it) is DEAD.

It's not a bad thing to have, but doesn't it produce boring results after a while? A flood of notes -- my brain switches off. (I'm typing this message on a machine that is an amazing virtuoso ...) Is virtuosity the technical skill needed to adequately express a musical idea (even a very simple one) or just the ability to play astonishingly fast and complex music? (I have seen "virtuosi" who couldn't play slow music to save their lives.) Is it the ability to play anything physically possible on your instrument? Is everything that is physically possible on an instrument necessary?

[paul bailey]

too many notes

[J.C. Combs]

I think virtuosity (or the need for it) is DEAD. - James

Its on the same level as the symphony hall museum.


paul bailey said:

too many notes

[J.C. Combs]

Kind of annoying how the guy's wearing a tie. Is he on his way to a corp meeting? And its getting in the fucking way! Put on some jeans and rock out!

He could make some really great video game music! Sounds great.

[Alphonse Izzo]

I think virtuosity (or the need for it) is DEAD.

I agree, but I wonder was there ever a need for virtuosity?

[J.C. Combs]

In the context of history virtuosity has been the cornerstone of classical up to the neoclassical period. I'd say up until Cage? But not before baroque. The instruments weren't fully adapted or the ensembles.

Alphonse Izzo said:

I think virtuosity (or the need for it) is DEAD.

I agree, but I wonder was there ever a need for virtuosity?

[adam kondor]

I feel awe, respect, and envy watching this video...

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

J.C. Combs said:

In the context of history virtuosity has been the cornerstone of classical up to the neoclassical period. I'd say up until Cage? But not before baroque. The instruments weren't fully adapted or the ensembles.

You think, say, Ockeghem's intertwined lines or earlier, say, Pérotin's extended melismas weren't virtuosic for the voice? Or maybe by virtuosic you just mean "fast"?

Dennis

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

adam kondor said:

I feel awe, respect, and envy watching this video...

The other thing is to listen without watching. It's not virtuosity that' s revealed, is it? Just an incredibly lovely, flowing piece.

Sure, sometimes it's fun to write display pieces. Music is a show, too, or there's be no reason to reason to go to a concert.

So, is Feldman virtuosic?

[Alphonse Izzo]

display pieces..

Thank you for using this term! This is what I was referring to in my response when I asked if virtuosity was ever needed. There are countless pieces that require virtuosity in order to meet the expressive needs of the composer. Conversely there are also countless pieces that are complex in order to meet the needs of the composer's ego.

The question is where do the two intersect or are they the same thing?

[Jeff Harrington]

I think what Adam's getting at is a fundamental human fascination with people who can do amazing physical things with music. The composition of a piece requiring virtuosity becomes disassociated to a big extent from the actual realization of the piece - which in a good virtuoso piece has something to say - but - it mainly gets lost in the WOW factor of the performance.

Plus virtuosi have sex appeal - it's the rock star/rogue-jazz-dude/crazy-violinist shtick. I think composers who never write virtuoso type passages - there's like a pretence that they're above wowing an audience - are losing a direct physical connection between audience->virtuoso->composer. And anything physical in music is cool I think...

Now did any of that make sense... heh.