The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: The hunch that many of the guys and ladies we call virtuosos in the rock world are possibly seen as not much more than simply decent musicians by good classically trained musicians (e.g. those playing with respected orchestras, and not limiting to instrumentalists but including also composers) is always lurking in these discussions. Besides the purely technical instrumentalist skill level, knowledge of theory etc, many classically-oriented people remark that a lot of renowned rock musicians would be lost without the figure of the producer who is the one converting their 'half-baked amateur-level ideas and limited understanding of sound' into music worth listening to. Classical orchestras made of competent musicians do not need a producer to sound good (they may need a sound engineer to adapt to the venue characteristics or to master the recording process but that's not in the same sense, rock bands can really take radically different sounds depending on the producer). Personally I'm not so harsh and I prefer to see it as comparing apples with oranges, with classical musicians virtuosity focusing more on consistently precise execution, while rock musicians are allowed to showcase talents which classical musicians have often inhibited (that's not saying that improvisation does not exist in classical music, it certainly does for the soloists). What are your thoughts on the subject? Those classically trained musicians are probably right about most renowned rock musicians.  They're dead wrong about all the other rock musicians who aren't famous but are actually good at what they do. I agree with you that it's apples and oranges, but at the same time there are rock guitarists out there who can excel in "academic" (as much as I hate to use that term) styles, too.  Even the guitarists in Avenged Sevenfold (a band whom I loathe) have jazz degrees, for crying out loud.  No classical musician is going to convince me that John Petrucci or Steve Howe or Robert Fripp can't hold their own up against classical/jazz artists.

Gerinski wrote: The hunch that many of the guys and ladies we call virtuosos in the rock world are possibly seen as not much more than simply decent musicians by good classically trained musicians (e.g. those playing with respected orchestras, and not limiting to instrumentalists but including also composers) is always lurking in these discussions. Besides the purely technical instrumentalist skill level, knowledge of theory etc, many classically-oriented people remark that a lot of renowned rock musicians would be lost without the figure of the producer who is the one converting their 'half-baked amateur-level ideas and limited understanding of sound' into music worth listening to. Classical orchestras made of competent musicians do not need a producer to sound good (they may need a sound engineer to adapt to the venue characteristics or to master the recording process but that's not in the same sense, rock bands can really take radically different sounds depending on the producer). Personally I'm not so harsh and I prefer to see it as comparing apples with oranges, with classical musicians virtuosity focusing more on consistently precise execution, while rock musicians are allowed to showcase talents which classical musicians have often inhibited (that's not saying that improvisation does not exist in classical music, it certainly does for the soloists). What are your thoughts on the subject?

Those classically trained musicians are probably right about most renowned rock musicians.  They're dead wrong about all the other rock musicians who aren't famous but are actually good at what they do.

I agree with you that it's apples and oranges, but at the same time there are rock guitarists out there who can excel in "academic" (as much as I hate to use that term) styles, too.  Even the guitarists in Avenged Sevenfold (a band whom I loathe) have jazz degrees, for crying out loud.  No classical musician is going to convince me that John Petrucci or Steve Howe or Robert Fripp can't hold their own up against classical/jazz artists.

I saw a video on Youtube of the guy who has the world record for fastest guitar picking (sorry, luddite here, no link) and he openly said his ability had no musical value.  Speed is a sign of virtuosity only if the performer is playing something substantial in the first place.  But one must start slow to maintain the necessary precision of a fast part.  We can't start as Di Meolas, Holdsworths, Fripps, or Lanes.  Even those guys practiced their arses off to get where they are, and they still have to keep in practice to maintain it.

Igor Stravinsky, one of the most technical composer of all time, made a statement that encapsulates my position regarding the misconception that virtuosity/technicality is of detriment to emotion.

"I have not understood a bar of music in my life, but I have felt it."

^ wellllllll..... nearly. Improvisation has been a major part of Classical music since the Medieval era and virtuosity in improvisation was a highly regarded skill - Bach's Brandenburg Concerto #3 2nd movement is partially improvised. The thing that stopped improvisation in classical music was recording - once someone had recorded the definitive version of a piece everyone else just copied their improvisation.

M27Barney wrote: A good case in point for me is, say Keith Emerson - excellent keyboard exponent - and did produce some solo's of sublime execution...but as a whole I have always prefered Banks, Wakeman, Badens, Greenslade and more recently, Per Lindt, Lalo Huber and Orford.....This is no refelection of the varying musical proficiency of these keyboard players, just a preference inside my head...similarly - Stolt is my favourite guitarist because he has reached into my psyche with his solo's than any of the speedy axe-merchants of prog-metal...again just my personal taste.....Thus Mosh prefers Ian andersons flute playing over classical flautists....I cant say because I have listened to neither...but that is surely down to taste and no measure of Andersons superiority as a flautist???

Gerinski wrote: The hunch that many of the guys and ladies we call virtuosos in the rock world are possibly seen as not much more than simply decent musicians by good classically trained musicians (e.g. those playing with respected orchestras, and not limiting to instrumentalists but including also composers) is always lurking in these discussions. Besides the purely technical instrumentalist skill level, knowledge of theory etc, many classically-oriented people remark that a lot of renowned rock musicians would be lost without the figure of the producer who is the one converting their 'half-baked amateur-level ideas and limited understanding of sound' into music worth listening to. Classical orchestras made of competent musicians do not need a producer to sound good (they may need a sound engineer to adapt to the venue characteristics or to master the recording process but that's not in the same sense, rock bands can really take radically different sounds depending on the producer). Personally I'm not so harsh and I prefer to see it as comparing apples with oranges, with classical musicians virtuosity focusing more on consistently precise execution, while rock musicians are allowed to showcase talents which classical musicians have often inhibited (that's not saying that improvisation does not exist in classical music, it certainly does for the soloists). What are your thoughts on the subject?

I think it depends.   I do believe there are musicians in rock, especially guitarists, with ability to rival classical musicians.   However, virtuosity is more loosely used in rock (refer TODDLER's suggestion that people are impressed by speed) and superhuman powers may be attributed to musicians who are probably not all that virtuosic.   The requirements in terms of technical skill are more exacting in classical music but there is greater freedom for individual expression in rock, which in itself poses a challenge to the musician.  It is not enough to merely play well but the player must also establish his distinct style.

The hunch that many of the guys and ladies we call virtuosos in the rock world are possibly seen as not much more than simply decent musicians by good classically trained musicians (e.g. those playing with respected orchestras, and not limiting to instrumentalists but including also composers) is always lurking in these discussions.

Edited by Gerinski - February 26 2013 at 05:59

For me, virtuosity all depends on the song, the mood... A virtuoso ideally would like to showcase their talent as a musician, and it's beautiful! But, it's not just prog that harnesses such elements. There are plenty of other genres with room for virtuosity! There is such a thing as too much virtuosity, in my opinion, I need a little something to break it up. 
Although prog is heavily associated with fantastical solos and musicians so talented it's pretty much mind blowing, it's also just as good without sometimes.

As a response to all the discussion about who might be the fastest (insert) player... I bet there's some guy somewhere in his house with the most ridiculous, off the scale talent that utterly defies physics... Who can't play in front of people and shrivels up at the thought of recording! That'd be a shame 

Edited by dysoriented - February 25 2013 at 18:09

moshkito wrote: Hi,   Virtuosity is highly over rated, and often mis-interpreted.   To the point that Ian Anderson could blow any classical flautist out of the room and the planet! And the music that Ian plays is considered way simpler than the classical material out there that uses flute, for example ... but they all lack one thing that Ian has that they don't ... FEELING ... and EXPRESSION!   If "progressive" is guilty of being virtuous, it would be that a lot of these people went out of their way to expand their language and expression, and in time that became a virtuosity in its own right ... I'm pretty sure that Robert Fripp and everyone in the first KC album would tell you that they were all kids just learning their music at 19 or 20 when they put the album together, but you can not dispute the strength of the feelings and words in that album ... which defined the music all along!   There are many folks, and bands out there that feature virtuosity, and in today's terms, you can look at a guitar in Dream Theater ... if that were a violin, it would be considered an absolute master playing it ... but it is an electric guitar, and we do not have the ability, strength, or beauty, to consider the Electric guitar an important instrument for an expression, like a violin has for 400 years, and so forth!   But is it necessary? Ask Richard Harvey ... I don't think so ... you want to do this, this way, and you do it ... I'm not sure that you are thinking about virtuosity when you are playing your music ... you just want to get it right to your own standards and designs and that has less to do with virtuosity, than it does your own expression.   By the time, you hear Jaco, Jean Luc Ponty, Frank Zappa, Keith Jarrett, Egberto Gismonti ... now your idea of "virtuosity" comes back into play ... but many folks would immediately say ... that's not progressive ... that's virtuosity ... and I am not sure that, both are exactly the same thing ... one looked at from the right and the other looked at from the left ... and the only thing that matters is the life the music creates in between those two opposite polar ends!