virtuosity...

[adam kondor]

in itself is a value!


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

[Paul H. Muller]

I have seen opinions by musicologists to the effect that the decline in popularity of concert music was a function of the difficulty to perform this music. Time was - before TV, etc - that people would gather 'round the piano in the parlor and play for eah other from sheet music. There was a huge market for this and many a composer made his living by creating such pieces in addition to the concert compositions. But once the performance bar was raised to a point past average playing skills, interest fell off.

And I think it is true that people today see music as an item to consume rather than as an activity for participation. Just look at the average age of any church choir.

Nike is rich because old guys still want to play softball on the weekend and will spen $200 on just the shoes. Maybe composers are poor because nobody thinks they can participate in contemporary music anymore.

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

James Ross said:

I don't think Feldman's music is virtuosic. But it requires great control over one's instrument (and one's self) to play it well. Virtuosity should contain control but it doesn't always. (Sometimes it seems as though virtuoso performances are OUT of control--there isn't time enough to think.)

Then your and J.C.'s (and probably others') definition of virtuosity is very different from mine. I hew to the old definition of fluency and skill, so Feldman is virtuosic.

If we're talking about showpieces, that's cool. I like them, and write showpieces among my other tunes. I think a work that is challenging in an overt way is healthy -- for audiences, too.

When you (J.C.) write, "dynamic markings and speed become less important" I'm wondering what you mean by that? For whom? Where? Particularly dynamics are critical to making, say, a spectral piece work or help balance the harmonic color of anything. And don't we all have the need for speed? Or does get you excited in life, but just not in music?

[Jeff Harrington]

Nothing from me again today. This cellist I'm writing a pno/cello duo for is going on tour in September and I have to get the piece finished ASAP (without it being weak... heh).

J.C. Combs said:

I like that idea (sitting around a pallor playing for eachother). Reminds me of ImprovFriday (little plug).

So who's in!?

Paul H. Muller said:

I have seen opinions by musicologists to the effect that the decline in popularity of concert music was a function of the difficulty to perform this music. Time was - before TV, etc - that people would gather 'round the piano in the parlor and play for eah other from sheet music. There was a huge market for this and many a composer made his living by creating such pieces in addition to the concert compositions. But once the performance bar was raised to a point past average playing skills, interest fell off.

And I think it is true that people today see music as an item to consume rather than as an activity for participation. Just look at the average age of any church choir.

Nike is rich because old guys still want to play softball on the weekend and will spen $200 on just the shoes. Maybe composers are poor because nobody thinks they can participate in contemporary music anymore.

[Alphonse Izzo]

In another thread I mentioned that if one really wants to give perfect dynamic markings along with notation, simply play it exactly how you would like it to sound and record it. Technology is months if not days away from creating software which will transcribe performances, including dynamic markings.

DMs effect so many parameters, (micro/macro structures, tone, timbre, tension/rest, proportion etc.) that I would have a difficult time not using them in a typical piece. I welcome the notion of a performer interpreting the score even when such parameters are specified, so for me it's not always about playing exactly what's written.

I suppose what I'm saying is that score indications are sometimes simply a guide for the performer to help them see structural features that might not be recognizable otherwise as opposed to asserting one's will over every sound in the piece.

[Hucbald]

virtuoso |ˌvər ch oōˈōsō|

noun ( pl. -si |-sē| or -sos )

a person highly skilled in music or another artistic pursuit : a celebrated clarinet virtuoso | [as adj. ] virtuoso guitar playing.

• a person with a special knowledge of or interest in works of art or curios.

DERIVATIVES

virtuosic |-ˈäsik; -ˈōsik| |ˈvərtʃəˈwɑsɪk| |-ˈɒsɪk| adjective
virtuosity |-ˈäsitē| |ˈvərtʃəˈwɑsədi| |-ˈɒsɪti| noun

ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Italian, literally ‘learned, skillful,’ from late Latin virtuosus (see virtuous ).

*****

virtuous |ˈvər ch əwəs|

adjective
having or showing high moral standards : she considered herself very virtuous because she neither drank nor smoked. See note at moral .
• archaic (esp. of a woman) chaste.

DERIVATIVES
virtuously |ˈvərtʃəwəsli| adverb
virtuousness |ˈvərtʃəwəsnəs| noun

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French vertuous, from late Latin virtuosus, from virtus ‘virtue.’

*****

I didn't read anything about speed or velocity in there, so I think the definition has become skewed. For example, I think Pat Metheny's One Quiet Night is a virtuoso tour de force, and there's not a fast passage in it. OTOH, Eliot Fisk's Virtuoso Guitar is loaded with nonsensical speedy ornamentation, and I find nothing "virtuosic" about it. It's tasteless crap.

IOW, I guess, virtuosity isn't necessarily about speed, but rather more accurately describes a transcendental level of control, of which velocity is merely the most flamboyant aspect.

IMO, then, there is no possibility of brilliance in performance without virtuosity, whether or not there are any fast passages in the music, and some - admittedly incomplete, from an objective perspective - virtuosi aren't really capable of playing fast at all.

Listen to late Liszt sometime. The organ works he composed in his 70's. There's nothing fast in them, but if they are played well, and they don't completely freak you out, I think your soul is missing an ingredient or two. Remember, Liszt wrote the first atonal piece ever, called, Bagatelle Without Tonality, interestingly enough.

Liszt's late organ solos are transcendentally virtuosic, and deeply contemplative, but there's nothing fast in them. It takes a virtuoso to hold the thread of their intent together, not to physically execute them.

[adam kondor]

thanks for sharing this! a really interesting paper with important ideas, like for instance this one:
"it is more and more important to recover the issues of ‘pure’ compositional process from the corner to which our ever-more-sophisticated theories of the tonal system have all but relegated them."


Hucbald said:

Bagatelle Without Tonality,

[Nigel Keay]

The above three definitions seem to me to be simply the prerequisites of a professional player.

[Antonio Celaya]

It's easy to take such a high art attitude that one totally dismisses the flash and fun of virtuosity. I commit that sin often myself. Even when I'm in the mood for virtuosity much of the most virtuostic music bores me silly. If I never hear the Rachmaninoff Third again I will be better off. Still, as composers we should recognize that people like virtuosity and it entertains them. The entertainment part is the thing that tends to irritate the voices old muzak school form and analysis professors that ring in our heads. Those voices should be banished. Entertainment is not inconsistent with cerebral enjoyment. The body, the emotions and the cerebral make for more interesting music together than anyone alone.

Players also love a chance to strut their stuff. Making players interested in a score is no easy matter. If a little flash helps is that so evil? There is a lot to think about in Venetian opera, and the virtuosity only helps. Fernnyhough's music is certainly virtuostic, but it's no damned fun to listen to. So virtuosity can become a vice.

Jeff Harrington said:

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.

[adam kondor]

Music, movement and marimba: an investigation of the role of movement and gesture in communicating musical expression to an audience
Mary Broughton

The experiment reported in this article investigated the assumption that visual movement plays a role in musician-to-audience communication in marimba performance. Body movement is of particular relevance here as the expressive capabilities of the marimba are relatively restricted, and the movements required to play it are visible. Twenty-four musically trained and 24 musically untrained observers rated auditory-only and auditory-visual presentations of 20th-century solo marimba excerpts for perceived expressiveness and interest. Performances were given by a male and a female professional musician in projected (public performance expression) and deadpan (minimized expressive features) performance manners. As hypothesized, higher ratings were recorded in response to projected performances than to deadpan. The hypothesized interaction between modality and performance manner was observed. Musically trained participants recorded higher ratings than musically untrained observers, upholding the final hypothesis. Expressive body movement plays an important role in the communication between marimba performer and audience — a role relevant for both performers and educators.

[vanessa rossetto]

...[T]echnique is dictated by, and only necessary to the extent to which it is commensurate with, the vision of the artist.

Remodernism, Billy Childish and Charles Thomson

[Nigel Keay]

J.C. Combs said:

How do we differentiate a virtuoso from professional player? Good point, seeing that most people might view those as synonyms.

I think the idea of a virtuoso player is perhaps somewhat obsolete, for example, to get a job in the back desk of a major orchestra these days the standards are extraordinarily high and the auditions a filled with dozens of players that could do the job. I don't really hear the word virtuoso used very much at all. Amongst professional players "special" might be more used, a player that stands out above the rest, but that might also be for factors such as being able to learn something difficult incredibly quickly.
As applied to composition the term virtuoso might even be pejorative these days ie. the opposite to "well-written for the instrument" or, that's a lot of work for what the pay is...

[Tina Pearson]

Good points. I have been thinking of other aspects of virtuosity lately ... virtuosity of listening, response, gesture, timing. Some of the most astonishing music, that has really moved me, has these elements, but not really the extreme level of technical skill commonly thought of as virtuosity. Sometimes it is 'virtuous' to be silent, or say very little from a profound sense of listening.

James Ross said:

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?