The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music

Virtuosity can give an artist a larger repertoire to work with.    Of course, the application of virtuosity is important but if there are some things you can't sing or play at all, that would limit the variety of music you can perform.   Let's consider the second half of Starless, the part where the band breaks into frenzy.   That is very important to the emotions of the track, it's not just technical masturbation but it would require very accomplished musicians to perform it.


I think the notion that virtuosity goes hand in hand with a lack of emotion stems from rock's obsession with speed and fury.   But, say, Hackett is also a virtuoso and he has a great tone and vibrato and plays with a lot of emotion.   In rock,virtuosity gets equated with a desire a show off, fueled further by the large stadium-gigs of ELP or Deep Purple but a comparison with jazz should demonstrate that that is a misunderstood and incomplete notion of virtuosity.   Was Paul Desmond not a master of his instrument and yet he played saxophone so beautifully.    What about Ella Fitzgerald, she was a lot more disciplined than the modern day pop 'divas' but, technically, she could run rings around them.  

^ What would an artist need virtuosity for?

HolyMoly wrote: Technical virtuosity is but a tool; the real fuel lies in the creativity.  A technically virtuous musician may have an advantage in the creative area, as he has more tools to use, and a wider knowledge of what tools there are; however, a technically virtuous musician may also have a disadvantage, if his training has narrowed his focus and made him an efficient machine rather than a creative craftsman.

Good point. 

Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 21 2013 at 22:37

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ (Slartibartfast) has pointed it out once in my "should the artist care" thread, you are just making the music for yourself ("musical masturbation"). .

Listen to this, it's crazy fantastic and performed live too!!!! AL DIMEOLA !!!!!!!

Al DiMeola to me is certainly a virtouso, no one can play like him, he was voted the fastest guitarist in the world (this does not mean much to me but felt the need to mention to those who don't know him) but he didn't like to be classified as such. Al is a virtuouso and not commercial like Santana as he refused to conform to the pop culture, once your hear race with the devil on a spanish highway, you'll know what I mean and where I come from too the problem is what I mentioned above, he refuses to conform thus not known to the crossover fans

Some interesting responses, guys! I seem to be of a similar mindset as the majority of you.

I've always seen a musician's skill with an instrument as a means of translating musical ideas into actual sound. For me, a musician's abilities need only be as good as to competently play the music they create; the quality of the composition and how it is performed is much more important than how technically challenging it is. I definitely don't see virtuosity as essential to good progressive rock as often what I enjoy the most is innately musical but not actually very difficult to perform.

Sure there have been moments - as I'm sure most of you have experienced - when a particularly flashy or challenging piece really impresses me, but I find this often lacks substance if it is not presented in a musical context. Overall I would say that virtuosity has the potential be great, but only if the performer has the musicality to back it up.

Dayvenkirq wrote: RBlak054, for how long have you enjoyed listening to music? I'm very surprised you asked this question.

I've been listening to and playing progressive rock for probably about four years now!


Edited by RBlak054 - February 21 2013 at 20:19

Creativity vs. virtuosity : a great idea deserves a masterful execution, wouldn't you agree? 

Gerinski wrote: It's not a must to show brilliance, but I expect anybody who aims at being a top figure in his field to be technically proficient at it, being it music or any other field.

RBlak054 wrote: When discussing or defining progressive music, one topic that seems to inevitably arise is virtuosity. Without a doubt music in progressive rock and many of it's subgenres frequently demonstrates instrumental prowess and features what could arguably be considered some of the world's best musicians. My questions to you, with this is mind, are: How important do you consider technical skill to be for the quality of progressive music? As a listener, does technical skill have a noticeable impact on how much you enjoy a piece? I apologize in advance if there's similar topic; the use of the search function and a brief scan of the forums yielded no relevant results (at least in the past few years).

Edited by Kati - February 21 2013 at 17:30