Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Virtuoso étude?

So in many competitions, I see a repertoire requirement as a virtuoso étude. What would count? Only fast ones, or would slow ones be acceptable too? Such as chopin 10/3, 25/7, a couple Liszt etudes, etc, would be considered slow but would they be allowed?

I imagine the "virtuoso" specification is designed to discourage works like the ones you mentioned - they want to see a technical display. Stupid, but it's just how today's competition system works, unfortunately.

I think "virtuosic etude" generally refers to the fast ones.

That's unfortunate... I understand that they want to judge a pianists technique, but I would place musicality above technique when judging a pianist... That's not to say that the fast chopin and Liszt etudes don't require an enormous amount of musicality as well

It's one way of assessing a competitor's virtuoso technique when there is a free choice of repertoire.

After all, it isn't too difficult to play a 'well-balanced program' which consists purely of technically undemanding works - one hears such programs regularly on the concert platform from well-known pianists. Great as far as that goes, but in a competition, people also want fireworks.......

And you are absolutely correct to do so. However, the present competition system, I'm sorry to say, has not yet reached that level of sophistication, and is full of idiotic judges who just toss the prize to whoever plays the hardest piece. True musicians are harder and harder to find these days.

Well there are a few exceptions to that... For example, MTNA often does not give the prize to the hardest pieces, same with competitions such as Gina Bauchauer and IIYM, etc (though people who are good enough to play in those competitions usually play difficult pieces anyway).

I'm always amazed at what people play.
You play Mazeppa:
Someone plays Feux Follets
You play Stravinsky's transcription of Petrushka:
Someone plays Agosti's transcription of the Firebird.
You just need to play whatever you can.
However, as I've said, they definitely DO NOT want 10/3...
unless you play the Bravura section over and over again in different sequences/patterns

Probably not worth the time for all but the most hardcore, but I love this one so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6OQpkOUijE

Those creepy crawlers. Variations 13, 14, and 22. AHAHAHAHAH

Yes, but it's often a lot harder to judge musicality than technique, except in very obvious cases. And the very idea of competitions tends to squelch real musicality anyway, in favor of pandering to the lowest common denominator to be found in the judges' scoring.

It would be fun if somebody somewhere would start a competition where the only standard was "interesting and convincing interpretation".

Hi, A Guy -- Well, I think that's precisely the point -- they want to see how much musicality you can bring to a piece that requires advanced technical skills, in the purely physical sense. And I would agree that both the Liszt and Chopin Etudes have lots of music to convey in addition to lots of notes in a short timeframe. If there isn't really a lot going on musically, then I would aim my guns at making the piece seem as effortless as possible -- which for me has a charm of its own.

Sounds great, or a lot of work for the judges.

They would be reduced to fighting about subjectivity right?

The judges wouldn't have to fight about it - they just vote, like always.

Well I agree it would probably make for a more enjoyable experience.

These two are considered among the Nocturne category at the Chopin competition.

I've seen some competition requirements and audition requirements that ask for a Chopin étude, except for 10/3 and 25/7.

10/3 a Nocturne? That's preposterous.

From the rules:
http://konkurs.chopin.pl/en/edition/xvii/rules/3139

The Preliminary Round repertoire includes solely works by Fryderyk Chopin:

– one of the following Etudes
in A minor, Op. 10 No. 2
in G sharp minor, Op. 25 No. 6
in A minor, Op. 25 No. 11

– two Etudes, one from each group (a, b) indicated below:

a)
in C major, Op. 10 No. 1
in C sharp minor, Op. 10 No. 4
in G flat major, Op. 10 No. 5
in F major, Op. 10 No. 8
in C minor, Op. 10 No. 12

b)
in C major, Op. 10 No. 7
in A flat major, Op. 10 No. 10
in E flat major, Op. 10 No. 11
in A minor, Op. 25 No. 4
in E minor, Op. 25 No. 5
in B minor, Op. 25 No. 10

– one of the following pieces:
Nocturne in B major, Op. 9 No. 3
Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 1
Nocturne in D flat major, Op. 27 No. 2
Nocturne in G major, Op. 37 No. 2
Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1
Nocturne in F sharp minor, Op. 48 No. 2
Nocturne in E flat major, Op. 55 No. 2
Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1
Nocturne in E major, Op. 62 No. 2
Etude in E major, Op. 10 No. 3
Etude in E flat minor, Op. 10 No. 6
Etude in C sharp minor, Op. 25 No. 7

I think it's very tough to judge musicality. Each judge probably has different tastes, so they judge musicality differently. Just watch American Idol tryouts -- the three judges, two of which are among the biggest names in music today, disagree quite often regarding performances.

So, perhaps some of this is just a symptom of definition. It's easy to quantify and judge technique. It's nearly impossible to judge consistently something as subjective as musicality.

But I certainly agree -- it is a shame.

One can't pull of a desired interpretation without the necessary technique. I also disagree that competitions tend to squelch musicality. One could easily argue that since all the contestants at a high level competition has super technique, musicality will distinguish those who end up prize winners.

Discussion about technique vs. musicality or which is more important make little sense to me. Both are important and no great pianist was severely lacking in either. Some great pianists might not have been super virtuosos but they had more than adequate technique.

Kind of like asking a tennis player "Which is more important... the forehand or the backhand?"