Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Virtuosity=Velocity. Yes or No? Discuss

“The rich are different from you and me: they have more money.”

In the same vein, one might say that virtuosos are different from you and me: they can play faster.

Some time ago I decided to learn the Chopin Prelude op.28 #16 (the “Hades” prelude.) I read what Eleanor Baillie says about it in her book (The Pianists Repertoire. CHOPIN. A graded practical guide): “This piece is strictly for the virtuoso.” I wondered why. Learning the notes was no problem. Playing the piece cleanly and with expression at half speed posed no great difficulty. And therein lies the rub: I am stuck at half speed. Thus I come to the inescapable conclusion that it is the ability to play at great speed that sets the virtuoso apart from the merely adequate.

I know you will protest and say there are such things as the ability to produce infinite colors, wonderful singing tone, bringing out certain voices. But ultimately you will never be called a “virtuoso” unless you can play fast. In other words, velocity is a necessary requirement for virtuosity. It may even be sufficient.

Thus the proposition: Virtuosity = Velocity.

Your views?

I think, like you said, there are other elements that make a virtuoso, but I'd guess that in general there would be a high correlation between virtuostic-level playing and speed.

Have you read "The talent code"? I heard about it on the forum and it is fantastically interesting! It would suggest that "anyone" can become more or less virtuostic with enough hours of the right sort of practice. What I took from it was the consolation that slow practice, done right, WILL increase my speed over time (because of mylenization...read the book for more info if you are interested at all). Whether or not this conclusion is true or supported fully by the book can be argued, I suppose. But I choose to believe it and do find it to be true in my limited experience.

The terms virtuoso/virtuosity are usually defined in terms of what could impress the 'public'....So if someone can play in a way that is "impressive" to the audience then they are a virtuoso.

Obviously then, it depends on the audience. Since its more of a buzz-word than a meaningful term used in musical circles, I would say that virtuosity most often refers to what impresses the "non-musical" audience most, namely, speed!

If I play for my grandma, she doesnt notice my colors, singing tone and orchestration! (either that or they are a figment of my imagination haha)

Myelination will only affect the very young. Bets are that that is precisely why we late starters can never catch up. ergo - The Talent Code's rubbish. It's not we can't reach the speed, it's that our nervous system can't control it.

I have repeatedly seen a disappointing trend in young pianists who display dazzling speed, huge volume and no musicality. Don't get caught up in the need for speed. It will come with practice.

To the listener, fast music played at a slightly slower tempo, played evenly, confidently and musically can sound faster to the listener than it really is. Rushing your music makes it sound tense.

Not quite sure I'm understanding this. An accurate performance fully up to speed of the Bb minor Chopin prelude (without the bluster and smear) will impress a professional audience precisely because they know how difficult this particular prelude is.

Any professional who is not impressed is either jealous or jaded!

I agree

In this case it would impress both the musician AND the "public" !

But there are other aspects of the execution of that prelude that would go unnoticed by the untrained ear, and those things would likely not be referred to as characteristics of "virtuosity".

Lest this be a content-free statement, like "Tennis Playing = Getting Balls In", let's qualify what this statement might mean through thought experiment.

Are you proposing that if someone can play scales and arpeggios, blindingly fast and smooth in both hands, then he/she will necessarily be able to handle serious virtuosic piano music, at least technically? Like Liszt etudes, Rachmaninoff concerti, and Ligeti etudes?

I don't think so, because I think there is a strong *mental* aspect to virtuosity, an ability to group and process complex sequences of notes, chords and voices, which has nothing to do with speed per se. I think this mental grouping aspect (similar to how chess masters "see" a board in a very different way from you or I) is one of the components missing from your equation.

In general, of course, reductionist equations of this sort tend to be much too simplistic! I think this one is no exception.

-Jason

In and of itself...no, it's not sufficient. A necessary requirement? Yes.
Does dazzling an audience make one a virtuoso? Absolutely not.

In the grand scheme of things, I would have to agree that virtuosity does equal velocity. Sure, memory, sightreading, and a good ear all contribute to the learning and mastery of a piece; however, if you don't have the sheer motor skills and dexterity to move your hands fast enough for the toughest compositions out there, you will hit a brick wall -- and (almost) no amount of practice can break it down.

Additionally, even if a prospective virtuoso lacks talent in all aspects of piano except finger and wrist speed, yes, it would take him far more time to learn a ridiculous piece; but it would still ultimately be possible.

not having read all the answers, I would say this: virtuosity is: to be able to do what ever you want without problems, and hopefully with a certain amount of good taste as well.

I've often heard virtuosity related to velocity, but I think it's more than just sheer velocity... Could it also involve some sort of character, such as elegance, fury, urgency, or any other character?

I don't think good taste comes to play in virtuosity. It's purely the capacity to produce the sounds you want on the instrument. The more "virtuoso" you are, the better you can control the sounds you make.
Velocity is part of virtuosity, since usually it's harder to do something fast than slow ; but it's merely a part of it.

I said: hopefully, isn't that clear? the rest is practise, talent and a matter of discipline, if not, gone all hope...

Pretty darned close to being the best answer possible.

@dolce
Obviously ! We can only wish those working enough to be called virtuosos on a technical level can also be called virtuosos on a musical level ! Sadly it's not always the case, and like you said, we can only hope

gosh, blush, well, let's keep it up, that is, the good taste aspect of this all, and let's keep on practising those darned digits, and don't forget that 4th finger, both hands!

Ahhhhh it's the challenge of the pianist. Playing the notes is really not hard, you could play them all with a rubber tipped pencil. It's playing them at the right time and in the right order that separates we wanna-sound-wonderfuls from the more virtuous sic.

I feel your pain jazzyprof! I think I had better practise some Beethoven and Bach today instead of digging to china in the garden.

On a more considered note. Virtuosity: to be able to imagine and control the total sounds of a piece in one's mind before playing, and to be able to adjust this while playing, almost as if improvising. And to have the physical capacity, speed and control to implement this

And that's way harder that it sounds !

I may have associated virtuosity with velocity when I was younger, but now I associate it with ease. Making the difficult sound easy is the mark of a true virtuoso.

Some of the most virtuoso performances have been relatively slow.
Examples: