| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Atavachron 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64438
|
 Posted: January 02 2007 at 02:50 |
 Sasquamo wrote:
The difference between Miles Davis and David Gilmour is that Miles Davis was and Improviser and an Innovator.
|
No, that is the similarity between Miles and Gilmour, not the difference.
|
 |
Cygnus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 12 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 520
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 13:20 |
|
|
|
Progger
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1188
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 14:45 |
|
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 26228
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 14:55 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
A good rule is that if a player never does anything impressive, chances are he can't. Sure, you can purposefully hold back, but I don't think anyone good can dumb themselves down enough to prevent any sign of their skill from showing. |
I honestly disagree with this statement, of course in some cases it's truth but not a rule.
A good example is Steve Hackett, he was hoired among several guitar players despite (In Peter's words on Genesis a History) he was the only candidate not trying to impress the band with complex flashing and impressive solos...Why?
Steve Hackett in the same Videography says he had heard the music of Genesis and the band didn't required a Carlos Santana, the music they were making required strong atmospheres and band playing, the result?....He got the job.
When people spoke about Genesis always mentioned Peter theatrics, Phil's solid drumming and specially Tony's special sensibility with the keys, mostly with the Mellotron but nobody cared about Steve, the only thing remotely impressive he did was Firth of Fifth solo, but he is co-responsible with Tony for the Genesis sound.
A good musician does what the band requires and Genesis never required a soloist but somebody who complemented Tony Banks, that's what Steve did.
When he released VOTA people started to say "Hey, the guy really plays" and only when he left Genesis, the fans really noticed how important he was, the spine of the band was destroyed, Rutherford in studio and Stuermer on stage were never able to replace Steve, despite Stuermer is a great Jazz guitar player (Listen him with Ponty, simply impressive).
Now Genesis is a curiosity, they sell tickets for a gig but Stebe is still among the most respected musicians in the Prog and Classical guitar scenario, he has recorded witj Symphony Orchestras not being a keyboardist and Yehudi Menuhin has used his music for a program.
This is the same obscure guy sitted in a corner and never taking the head from the guitar who the audience almost ignored, now, he is not as rich as Genesis trio members but I'm sure he's wealthy ebnough and more important...respected.
Iván |
very fine post indeed 
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 17:10 |
Atavachron wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
The difference between Miles Davis and David Gilmour is that Miles Davis was and Improviser and an Innovator.
|
No, that is the similarity between Miles and Gilmour, not the difference.
|
I'm pretty sure Gilmour didn't improvise his solos, and he was most definitely never truly innovative. Miles Davis has at least three big innovations (Birth of the Cool, Kind of Blue, Bitches Brew). When did Gilmour do something totally new? There's nothing wrong with not being totally innovative, but I just don't see how Gilmour compares to Miles Davis. (And by the way, Miles Davis was not a virtuoso on his instrument. Many people will admit that. They'll also say it doesn't matter because he was huge in developing jazz.)
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64438
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 18:06 |
Sasquamo wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
The difference between Miles Davis and David Gilmour is that Miles Davis was and Improviser and an Innovator.
|
No, that is the similarity between Miles and Gilmour, not the difference.
|
I'm pretty sure Gilmour didn't improvise his solos, and he was most definitely never truly innovative. Miles Davis has at least three big innovations (Birth of the Cool, Kind of Blue, Bitches Brew). When did Gilmour do something totally new? There's nothing wrong with not being totally innovative, but I just don't see how Gilmour compares to Miles Davis. (And by the way, Miles Davis was not a virtuoso on his instrument. Many people will admit that. They'll also say it doesn't matter because he was huge in developing jazz.) |
 Nooooo...of course Miles Davis wasn't a virtuoso. Neither is John Abercrombie for that matter, or Thelonious Monk, Art Tatum, Charles Mingus or Elvin Jones. And Carlos Santana...he can't play like Eric Johnson, he's not a virtuoso either (and no technical skills, that one!!!). Heck, John McLaughlin doesn't play like Allan Holdsworth, not even close. He must have no tech skill either, or Stevie Ray Vaughan, Johnny Winter, Jeff Beck. And what about Michael Schenker? He plays with fluidity, grace, musicality and some of the most outrageous 'skills' in the world...but he doesn't play as fast as Eddie Van Halen, so he must be lacking technical skill...additionally, Gilmour often improvised and Miles often planned his solos.
Edited by Atavachron - January 02 2007 at 18:39
|
|
Asyte2c00
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 15 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2099
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 18:09 |
This Thread should have been gone a long time ago.
Just posting in it is perpetuating it. lol. Paradox?
Palmer solid drumming, one of the more pretentious drummers in the prog arena.
Peart still reigns supreme in the world of drumming.
"Der Trommler" at gage 50.. Completely New, Technically Challenging Composition.
^^Thats admirable.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64438
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 18:13 |
Asyte2c00 wrote:
This Thread should have been gone a long time ago.
Just posting in it is perpetuating it. |
Why? This is a healthy, spirited debate that hasn't deteriorated into personal attacks...that's pretty good if you ask me. I've seen a lot worse exchanges than this one.
Edited by Atavachron - January 02 2007 at 18:17
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 18:51 |
Atavachron wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
The difference between Miles Davis and David Gilmour is that Miles Davis was and Improviser and an Innovator.
|
No, that is the similarity between Miles and Gilmour, not the difference.
|
I'm pretty sure Gilmour didn't improvise his solos, and he was most definitely never truly innovative. Miles Davis has at least three big innovations (Birth of the Cool, Kind of Blue, Bitches Brew). When did Gilmour do something totally new? There's nothing wrong with not being totally innovative, but I just don't see how Gilmour compares to Miles Davis. (And by the way, Miles Davis was not a virtuoso on his instrument. Many people will admit that. They'll also say it doesn't matter because he was huge in developing jazz.) |
Nooooo...of course Miles Davis wasn't a virtuoso. Neither is John Abercrombie for that matter, or Thelonious Monk, Art Tatum, Charles Mingus or Elvin Jones. And Carlos Santana...he can't play like Eric Johnson, he's not a virtuoso either (and no technical skills, that one!!!). Heck, John McLaughlin doesn't play like Allan Holdsworth, not even close. He must have no tech skill either, or Stevie Ray Vaughan, Johnny Winter, Jeff Beck. And what about Michael Schenker? He plays with fluidity, grace, musicality and some of the most outrageous 'skills' in the world...but he doesn't play as fast as Eddie Van Halen, so he must be lacking technical skill...additionally, Gilmour often improvised and Miles often planned his solos.
|
\ To be a virtuoso you must be able to play insanely hard music with relative ease. Stuff other people could never do. Despite what everyone likes to say, playing the right thing at the right time is not a display of virtuosity. A display of virtuosity is an incredibly precise flurry of notes done with inhuman ability. Now, which of those you prefer is up to you, and many virtuosos do need to forget their skill once in a while and play something tasteful, and many do. I think maybe people think I'm downplaying a musician when I say they're not a virtuoso. Saying someone isn't a virtuoso isn't an insult at all. Virtuosos aren't common. Not everyone that is good at playing their instrument is a virtuoso. Being innovative, or making great compositions does not make you a virtuoso. So remember: There's nothing wrong with not being a virtuoso.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64438
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 19:07 |
Sasquamo wrote:
To be a virtuoso you must be able to play insanely hard music with relative ease.
That is incorrect.
Stuff other people could never do.
Like David Gilmour, John Bonham and Miles Davis
Despite what everyone likes to say, playing the right thing at the right time is not a display of virtuosity.
In fact, it is.
A display of virtuosity is an incredibly precise flurry of notes done with inhuman ability.
Wrong, in fact it is the players that mostly play the "flurry of notes with inhuman ability" that are the least skilled of all. It is fairly simple, after years of hard practice, to play quickly-- ones hands become quite facile and nimble with enough practice. Much harder is all the other stuff; the experience, taste and knowing what not to play that is MUCH more challenging. |
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 19:40 |
|
I hate it when people dismiss incredible skill by suggesting that anyone could achieve that by loads of practice. That is wrong. Staying focused to practice many hours a day is challenging, and you need to have the correct practice habits to become a virtuoso. Not everyone has what it takes to be a virtuoso. Knowing what to play, what not to play, and when to play it comes with experience, which often comes more passively from just maturing with your instrument than practicing. Improvising well is one of the hardest things to do, and requires a whole different type of skill than what virtuosity requires. Hear that? Separate. When will everyone realize that virtuosity has nothing to do with musical "senses." (one exception would be a virtuoso improviser, who often but not always has very good technique as well) Skill and taste are totally different, but just as important. Everyone misuses (and overuses) the word "virtuoso." Classical skill is one thing, jazz skill is something else. I can't say Gilmour has either. His solos would only be impressive if he improvised them, and even then, I'd like to see him do it over some more complicated chord changes.
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 19:40 |
If you don't call someone with tremendous technical skill on their instrument a virtuoso, what do you call them? 
Edited by Sasquamo - January 02 2007 at 19:43
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64438
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:21 |
Sasquamo wrote:
If you don't call someone with tremendous technical skill on their instrument a virtuoso, what do you call them?
|
A technician
Edited by Atavachron - January 02 2007 at 21:21
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:23 |
|
So Paganini and Liszt were "technicians," not virtuosos?
|
|
Arrrghus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5296
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:25 |
Sasquamo wrote:
So Paganini and Liszt were "technicians," not virtuosos?
|
Paginini could also use emotion is a masterful way, so he is a virtuoso.
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64438
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:26 |
Arrrghus wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
So Paganini and Liszt were "technicians," not virtuosos?
|
Paginini could also use emotion is a masterful way, so he is a virtuoso. |
Exactly...a true master
|
|
Drew
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2005
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 12600
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:28 |
|
not the best- Vinnie Colaiuta is far better. Possibly Dave Wekle as well
|
|
|
|
Chus
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:33 |
|
Gilmour has EMOTION but lacks skill. Again, I love Hackett's music, but I won't call him a "virtuoso"; what I admire about him is his overall musicianship, not his skill.. Paganini IS a master because he holds both atributes, Gilmour just has one: emotion.. but he lacks ability in his hands and that's why his licks are "comprised"... there's no way he could play the riff of "Beyond the Seventh Galaxy" unless he improved his skill.. for example
Edited by Chus - January 02 2007 at 21:35
|
|
Jesus Gabriel
|
|
Chus
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:40 |
|
Anyway, I tried, this is getting wayy off topic.
|
|
Jesus Gabriel
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:40 |
Just one thing, "VIRTUOSO" means to have a virtue, of course you need to have the proper education in the instruments and the skills to use what you have learned, but playing hard parts that nobody else can do is not necesarilly a virtuoso.
A virtuoso needs to know when to play long and endless solos and when to follow other instrument to support or enhance another member, a virtuoso needs to have the abilitty of expresing through music determined feelings and being able to transmit them to the listener.
Peoplee who only play hard and complex parts at tremendous speed don't really care for the music because if in a band everybody tried to be the best and each member spent hours in extremely complex solos, the music would lack of coherence, sentiment, melody.
Fast players are usually posers trying to prove the world they are the only ones and that the rest of the band is thereto complement them.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Carl Palmer as a drummer?
