The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music |
Post Reply | Page <1 891011> |
Author | ||||
pitfall
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 22 2012 Location: Essex, England Status: Offline Points: 109 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 17:11 | |||
Frank Zappa is a good example of someone who had a brilliant technique and a good understanding of music theory and application - I wouldn't describe his music as safe and boring, with nothing exiting going on - would you? |
||||
pitfall
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 22 2012 Location: Essex, England Status: Offline Points: 109 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 17:36 | |||
Could you please give me some examples of these frequent occasions when Howe's electric playing sounds jarring? I've never come across it myself. I find it difficult to accept that you have ever really listened to his playing! |
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 19:56 | |||
Eh, any number of his faster leads with Yes but CTTE if you want one example. Please read what I said with context - though I didn't specify it, I was comparing his approach with Hackett. Yes, compared to Hackett, I do find Howe's electric playing pretty jarring, the more so as he gets faster while Hackett is very smooth and makes me oblivious to how fast he might be playing. |
||||
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 30 2012 Location: HiFi Headmania Status: Offline Points: 7798 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 21:36 | |||
To be DREAM THEATER!!! |
||||
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
||||
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 30 2012 Location: HiFi Headmania Status: Offline Points: 7798 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 21:54 | |||
Hey!! It's John Petrucci!! |
||||
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
||||
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 30 2012 Location: HiFi Headmania Status: Offline Points: 7798 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 22:15 | |||
Gerinski. You are right again. Im in full agreement on the Phil Collins point. Sheeesh!? I wonder if you have your own magic quote book or something. Lol I've been reading this thread from page one and you seem to agree with me the most. Very entertaining man. Keep up the good work. I'd say your a virtuoso right now. |
||||
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
||||
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 30 2012 Location: HiFi Headmania Status: Offline Points: 7798 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 22:17 | |||
Oh wait. Phill Collins did play with some blinding speed on CINEMA SHOW. Wow. Here it live on the seconds out concert. :) |
||||
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
||||
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 30 2012 Location: HiFi Headmania Status: Offline Points: 7798 |
Posted: May 02 2013 at 22:29 | |||
I like what you say here. Very interesting. Hate to be a buzz kill though and have to mention DRAGONFORCE in this thread, but they gotta really quick guitar player in HERMAN LI. That guy is the fastest I've ever heard. It's Malmsteen on speed. |
||||
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
||||
timbo
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 04 2013 Status: Offline Points: 106 |
Posted: May 03 2013 at 03:17 | |||
As many have said, if virtuosity simply means "look how fast I can play", then it has no place in any music.
If virtuosity is about having a technical command of your instrument, so you can use it to capture the feel of the music and interpret it then yes, it is very important. Technique must always be subverted to advance the music, not become the end in itself. To take a possibly controversial example: for me, I prefer Tony Banks to Keith Emerson, because I feel his playing complements the music better. Keith probably has the better technqiue, but sometimes (not always) sounds like he is simply showing off the technique rather than trying to play musically. I haven't read his book, but it seems to me that even the title of the book, "Pictures of an Exhibitionist" confirms that. |
||||
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2011 Location: Los Angeles, CA Status: Offline Points: 10970 |
Posted: May 03 2013 at 11:20 | |||
^ Just go through a few last pages and you will find some interesting ideas from rogerthat and Tapfret regarding what virtuosity is.
|
||||
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 30 2012 Location: HiFi Headmania Status: Offline Points: 7798 |
Posted: May 03 2013 at 12:41 | |||
Agreed, although Gerinski makes some great points as well. :) |
||||
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
||||
Neelus
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Posted: May 03 2013 at 13:52 | |||
Look at the humility on this guy's face during his chat with the audience (a guy considered by many to be a virtuoso in the blues world) regarding the company he is in. That speaks volumes regarding what virtuosity is. And listen to the band adapting from Eric's solo to Wynton's...fantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvNIivHdy0Q Edited by Neelus - May 03 2013 at 14:08 |
||||
|
||||
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 10 2010 Location: Barcelona Spain Status: Offline Points: 5130 |
Posted: May 04 2013 at 02:27 | |||
I would say that we can divide the musical talents in 2 big groups: what can be learnt and mastered by hard practice and what can not be learnt, you either have it or you don't, and some have it more than others.
Virtuosity in its wide definition is to me the set of everything which can be learnt and mastered by practice, and this includes not only speed but all the technical aspects of playing, expression, dynamics, precision, range (in instruments where the range depends on the player's ability such as several wind instruments), mastering of all the different scales and keys and transitions between them (which allow the musician to be strong at improvisations) etc. A musician mastering all these techniques is to me a virtuoso, and he will be able to impress any audience with his performance. But besides all the techniques which can be learnt, there are things which can not be learnt, some musicians have the talent and others not. Some will have the ability to come up with melodies, riffs, arpeggios, progressions or harmonies which will be particularly beautiful, surprising, original or impressive, even if not particularly technically challenging in any respect. Also the vision of when to use which technique is very important. No matter how hard I study and practice, I may be able to play wonderfully well but I may never have the inspiration to play something truly interesting. Two different musicians may improvise on the same theme, one of them may be technically superior but he may lack that inspiration or originality, while the other, while being less technically competent may come up with a more exciting and rewarding improvisation. Of course the more technique you have, the more it helps to minimize your lacks in inspiration. As an analogy, in the painting world a hyper-realist master is an impressive virtuoso, but honestly taking an image from the real world and painting a perfect copy-paste of it does not take any inspiration from the artist, only technique. So bottom line, both are important, but it is also true that music which is just beautiful or inspired but does not have any technical aspect (e.g. just some beautiful melody and harmony) will in most cases not be considered Prog. |
||||
JediJoker7169
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 05 2009 Location: West Coast, NA Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Posted: May 04 2013 at 04:35 | |||
That, to me, is actually a pretty narrow definition. In the Classical world, virtuosi are so called not just for their technical prowess, but for their emotionality and, in some cases--such as Baroque ornamentation or an unwritten cadenza--improvisation (which is arguably/demonstrably a learned skill, but not all great musicians are even good, let alone great, improvisers). Why should these qualities be considered unimportant to the complete Rock virtuoso/a? It could even be argued that improvisatory skill is of more use and therefore more important to a Rock musician than a Classical musician (but clearly not as important as to a Jazz musician).
Edited by JediJoker7169 - May 04 2013 at 04:44 |
||||
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 10 2010 Location: Barcelona Spain Status: Offline Points: 5130 |
Posted: May 04 2013 at 06:02 | |||
Well, then your definition is wider than mine. In your definition only those who have it all (technical skills and by that not meaning only speed) AND genius inspiration are virtuosi, and that's fine for me. 'Emotionality' is a tricky word, to a great extent it can be learnt and mastered by practice, and it is one of the aspects most pursued by classical musicians, a lot can be achieved just by hard practice but it's true that once reached some point, you can not get any further by pure technical practice and those who have that bit more of genuine emotionality stand out in the end. But inspiration in the musical phrases, harmonies, etc is something which does not depend on training, nearly at all. Some people have the ability to come up with beautiful music without having much musical education. Others are technically very proficient but lack that innate ability. Sure technique always helps, but down bottom you can just not learn that, no matter how hard you study and practice. I was just trying to make a difference between the 2 aspects and defining 'virtuosi' as those who master all the learnable aspects, compared to those who have the inspiration but possibly little technique. Many would call all the 'Mike Varney school' guitarists such as Tony MacAlpine or Vinnie Moore guitar virtuosi, but several of them fall into the category of technically outstanding guitarists but with little inspiration.
|
||||
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 12 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2765 |
Posted: May 05 2013 at 23:33 | |||
Virtuosity is a means to an end. If it is not present, the possibilities diminish greatly. Perhaps a computer can eventually play everything adequately, but that time has not yet come.
|
||||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20501 |
Posted: May 06 2013 at 23:41 | |||
I was thinking about Howe's leads and his playing just yesterday and I agree with you that Hackett and others are much 'smoother' and more melodic at times. There are leads by Howe here and there on all the best known lp's by Yes that sound 'jarring ' to me also...but it fits somehow with their overall approach.
|
||||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
||||
Morsenator
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 13 2009 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 397 |
Posted: May 07 2013 at 02:16 | |||
Having played classical music and studied its theory for some ten years (on amateur/semi-pro level), I think one of its greatest benefits to rock/prog side of things (besides the obvious stuff like knowing scales, time signatures, tempo changes etc.) is a real understanding of dynamics. It is easy (after practicing really hard for some years) for almost anyone to compose and play for example a fast, loud guitar solo based on scales and whatever. But to play the same solo with expression, producing every note exactly like you mean it should be, using a wide amount of different dynamics from pianissimo to fortissimo if necessary and not just one or two, that is in my opinion a big part of what makes a virtuoso player. I think this is an important aspect in almost any style of music. Many rockers don't even understand the difference between mezzopiano and mezzoforte (soundwise), let alone the more subtle aspects of dynamical playing. Btw sorry if this was said elsewhere, I kind of got lost in this thread somewhere between pages three and four.. Edited by Morsenator - May 07 2013 at 02:19 |
||||
twosteves
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 01 2007 Location: NYC/Rhinebeck Status: Offline Points: 4071 |
Posted: May 07 2013 at 08:40 | |||
for me jarring is the wrong word --but I do know what you mean--his playing is more chunky (and funky) and guitarly if you will, where Hackett is coming up with his own smooth guitar sound---what I love about real artists like these two--is you give them a paint brush (the guitar) and they both paint in the same genre (prog) and they come up with completely different masterpiece's.
|
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: May 07 2013 at 10:38 | |||
Maybe because it provides a good contrast with the otherwise 'happy' sound of Yes. And it's not as if he is not melodic but something in the execution gives an effect that I find jarring. Fripp probably sounds smoother while playing harsh stuff. And it's not as if I find it terribly flawed, pitfall just quoted me out of context. |
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 891011> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |