I was wondering, is there a set of criteria or expectations for what constitutes musical excellence? Can we use one universally applicable definition for excellence in music? If anyone knows of any articles on anything discussing this I'd love to hear. (I've been watching BBC Young Musician and it got me thinking!)
Thanks
PS - Apologies if this has already been discussed - I couldn't get the search function to work properly.

Since getting the right notes is a given for any compenent musician, I suppose it has to be about being able to interpret a wide range of music in a way that makes it a meaningful and emotional experience for the listener.

I guess it depends on your criteria for excellence.

For some people it would be all about the technique. You know people who are in raptures talking about "X's flawless technique." For other people (and I suspect this is the majority) it's probably more to do with how the music makes you feel. When I'm listening to a piece, and/or watching the performer it's amazing to be able to feel what they're feeling as they play. So for me musical excellence is about being able to project that emotion, to have something to say with the music and to get that message, that emotion across to who ever is listening. I'd rather listen to someone like that who is engaged with the music (and might make the odd mistake) than someone who plays accurately but with no feeling.

I guess players right at the very top of the game are those that combine the technique with the storytelling.

You might be surprised - there's a violinist at my university who can produce a beautiful tone and play expressively in slow music, but is abysmally sloppy in anything remotely fast that requires clarity or precision (i.e. Bach, Mozart, anything technically more difficult). We're not talking the occasional mistake, but a systemic problem, and I've heard him on several occasions so it wasn't just one bad day. By a lot of criteria he would be a "competent musician", but he just can't play with a clean technique.

Yes, I know the kind of thing you mean.

Personally I'd prefer to hear someone who made the occassional slip but played musically than someone who was note perfect but emotionaly sterile. There are limits beyond which too many slips spoil the musical experience altogether, of course.

Someone who makes me want to stop and listen.

Someone who has the kind of flawless technique that makes you forget that they're blowing down a piece of wood / metal; or scraping a bow across strings tethered to a wooden box; or forcing felted hammers against strings.

...and conveys emotion so convincingly that it takes you to another time and place every bit as much as watching a movie on the big screen.

So not much then....

I think that's a good point. When the music is simply there with no real indication of the way it's being produced.

I think there's a kind of 'magic' needed to give me have that shiver up my spine!

I think flawless technique is the basic requirement these days but there's more to it.


Take the BBC YM... and this is only my humble opinion. In the String final the first violinist was astonishing, brilliant, flashy and truly accomplished... but I picked up the newspaper while I was listening to her and she drifted into the background.

By contrast the violinist, Juliet, and the winning cellist made the room I was in disappear and I was utterly absorbed by their performances.

I think that kind of 'magic' is rare despite there being an enormous amount of truly first-class players out there. As a clunky Grade5 violist I now appreciate how difficult top class playing is, what it takes to get there and the enormous amount of talent and luck it takes to get to the top of the field. That said, there are many players out there at the top of their game who don't have that magic!

But that magic, wow, .... for me I can usually feel/hear it within the first few minutes.

When the winning cellist played the Brahms piece I literally felt tears welling up in my eyes. A rare thing!

There are so many cultures, so many genres, so many instruments, so many different skills, that no-one can be a universal expert or exponent. What makes for excellence in one branch of music can be completely irrelevant in another.

So no, there is no "one universally applicable definition for excellence in music"

There's an indefinable "something" which is not just down to impeccable technique that makes the difference. There are many pro soloists these days who have flawless technique and able to deliver stunning pyrotechnical displays of virtuosity which lack musicality.

So far, contributions respond to a restricted interpretation of the question, one that I would paraphrase approximately as, "What makes a performing soloist an excellent musician". Most instrumentalists play in ensembles, most singers sing in choirs and choruses, and in addition to these, conductors, chamber coaches and composers need an ability that only Soprano101 has mentioned (in passing): an ear for the total sound, how best to conribute to it and how it can be improved.

Several years ago, I was performing Mozart's "Kegelstatt" trio (for clarinet, viola and piano) when our clarinettist (a talented student composer, but short of chamber music experience) skipped a beat. For me, playing piano, knowing what was going on was easy, because I was playing from a score. As I made the correction, my immediate thought was, "How will our viola player cope?". My worries were unwarranted: she made the identical correction, so that we started the next bar together. I continue to admire her musicianship.