| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Tapfret 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8577
|
 Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:32 |
 Dayvenkirq wrote:
Not everyone's brain works that way. |
This! We have a cognitive complexity that prevents a conventionality to emotional response to anything. We all experience things differently. In a broader sense, and my psychology education is admittedly the most basic to accomplish my job functions, our emotional responses in any context can foster an endless "nature vs. nurture" discussion.
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. |
The key word is hypothetical. You are hypothesizing based on your own personal tastes. Nothing else. I don't know how many ways I can tell you that. Its subjective. Do you understand subjective? Regardless of what analogy I am using, the point is you can not make blanket statements about other people's, particularly artist's emotions based on what your feeling is. You are trying to objectify the subjective. Attempting to apply a tangibility to the intangible. What you feel is not what the composer feels. |
... or maybe you are subjectifying the objective, as millions of other confused people on this globe probably do, musicians or not. Guess we'll never know the truth who is right here, eh? One may think he is coming up with something meaningful whilst just deceiving himself (sorry if you think I'm painting a really bleak picture for you). |
This is where our main cognitive
dissonance is with this discussion: separating what is meaningful to the
listener from what is meaningful to the composer/performer. Only he/she knows what that is and no amount of ridicule or attempts to enlighten relating our experience will change that. He might say "derp" later on, but that does not change his intent at the genesis of the concept. Does it matter that they are fooling themselves regarding its implicit meaning? This could be said of any music, complex or otherwise and relates more to originality versus derivation.
The only meaningful thing for the purposes of this discussion is what that idea means in our minds. We can see very clearly that what illicits emotional response to each of us has a very broad scope. Keep in mind that the majority of the Earth's population would find the entire PA library to be technical and emotionless.
Dayvenkirq wrote:
I guess what I'm hinting at is that I'm really focused on the idea that some people tend to confuse entertainment (technical proficiency) with art (emotion). I could be one of those people.
|
I had to think about this one for a minute. I am not convinced that the 2 are mutually exclusive, but I get what you are saying. Enjoyment is an emotion of entertainment. I know not of any empirical data on the subject, but I would be surprised if the majority of "entertainers" did not consider themselves artists.
Edited by Tapfret - February 22 2013 at 17:40
|
|
|
 |
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:05 |
^ That's not what I was talking about - the quantity. OK, maybe I didn't phrase it right, though I didn't even imply that an author would use a multitude of notes to project a multitude of emotions. My point is: why use so many notes when you can use just a few to project that emotion? ... Because if the author does use a multitude of notes to project an emotion, I will (I seriously will) take it as a bit of entertainment, not as a bit of resonance. Feel the difference?
aldri7 wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time. |
Its easier to see it from the performers point of view, because there are only one set of ears to worry about. From the listeners point of view, reactions will vary enormously. Some may feel it, some may not. I didn't say that repetitive playing is not going to connect with listeners because to the listener it may not seem repetitive at all. Its all based on your experience.
I just said that some make the connection between technical proficiency and emotionless playing because of the role that repetition plays in becoming technically proficient. But repetitive learning doesn't "enforce emotionless playing", it just makes it statistically more likely, IMHO :) And again, to the listener, what is emotionless will vary from one person to the next. You may be bored playing that same tune or lick over and over again, but to fresh ears, it might be the greatest thing their ears ever heard. It might make them cry. Age can play a big role too. I don't respond as a listener emotionally to things I used to respond emotionally to years ago. There is no way that the performer can predict or control listeners prior "ear training" and so he/she just has to do the best that they can.
aldri7
|
I'm not quite sure how this conversation took a turn into something about repetition on a thread that is about virtuosity.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 17:09
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:58 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. Obviously, this goes beyond cars and groceries.
|
can't say as I agree. I could probably get pretty excited about it emotionally in the right context. It wouldn't have to be delivered flawlessly either. Proficiency doesn't matter so much. But I don't agree that "too many notes" in music somehow renders it unable to produce a single emotion. It is not too much information as the brain is going to simplify it and extract its essence which is still tone, harmony etc within the broader context of the music. Certainly that can evoke emotion and not a lot of little, conflicting emotions either. An insect beating its wings a hundred times a second still produces a single pure tone, not a thousand little notes, each for the brain to interpret and decipher. The result is one emotion (irritation, right?)..... |
Not everyone's brain works that way. Not everybody's brain can simplify ... |
some people may hear it as simply too many notes. Maybe you are like that. I can't say truth be told that what you perceive is not what you say it is. But the brain simplifies things just like when it watches a movie and all those still frames get mashed together to produce a moving image. You don't see each individual frame and so your brain doesn't construct emotional responses to each one individually. So I'm just saying that if you sit down and play 100 fast notes on the piano, how does that preclude it from evoking a single emotional response? Why suddenly does the high number of notes make the brain feel multiple emotions as though each note has a separate emotional receptor in the brain or something..
aldri7
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:47 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time. |
Its easier to see it from the performers point of view, because there are only one set of ears to worry about. From the listeners point of view, reactions will vary enormously. Some may feel it, some may not. I didn't say that repetitive playing is not going to connect with listeners because to the listener it may not seem repetitive at all. Its all based on your experience.
I just said that some make the connection between technical proficiency and emotionless playing because of the role that repetition plays in becoming technically proficient. But repetitive learning doesn't "enforce emotionless playing", it just makes it statistically more likely, IMHO :) And again, to the listener, what is emotionless will vary from one person to the next. You may be bored playing that same tune or lick over and over again, but to fresh ears, it might be the greatest thing their ears ever heard. It might make them cry. Age can play a big role too. I don't respond as a listener emotionally to things I used to respond emotionally to years ago. There is no way that the performer can predict or control listeners prior "ear training" and so he/she just has to do the best that they can.
aldri7
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:37 |
Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. |
The key word is hypothetical. You are hypothesizing based on your own personal tastes. Nothing else. I don't know how many ways I can tell you that. Its subjective. Do you understand subjective? Regardless of what analogy I am using, the point is you can not make blanket statements about other people's, particularly artist's emotions based on what your feeling is. You are trying to objectify the subjective. Attempting to apply a tangibility to the intangible. What you feel is not what the composer feels. |
... or maybe you are subjectifying the objective, as millions of other confused people (musicians or not, thinking of themselves as artists ) on this globe probably do. Guess we'll never know the truth of who is right here, eh? One may think he is coming up with something meaningful whilst just deceiving himself; I happened to be one of those people (sorry if you think I'm painting a really bleak picture for you). ... Which brings us to the use of the word "pretentious", and, of course, different people have different ideas of what this word means in the context of music criticism. The reason I brought up this word is because it means something very specific to me (that kept missing my head for so many months): saying some things you don't really mean as an artist. I used to experiment with my instruments and sound-processing software a lot, thinking I was actually making something, taking it all pretty seriously. Breaking news: 90% of it wound up as garbage (that just keeps storing the memory space of my laptop).
I guess what I'm hinting at is that I'm really focused on the idea that some people tend to confuse entertainment (technical proficiency) with art (emotion). I could be one of those people.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 16:59
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:34 |
|
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:30 |
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time.
aldri7 wrote:
Take a guy schooled on piano and give him a guitar. Let him fool around with it for a month or so, and then hook him up with some other musicians. Because he has perhaps really good ears, he will pick stuff out but not be able to play it very proficiently. HIs excitement though at the newness of what he is doing mixed with trial and error will probably result in some fresh sounds and really emotional playing. |
That is very probable.
aldri7 wrote:
Technical proficiency doesn't preclude you from being able to do the latter, you just sometimes have to work a bit harder and not let your fingers dictate to your brain and ears how to play. |
I keep asking for an example of that, but no one has committed to this so far.
aldri7 wrote:
... you just sometimes have to work a bit harder and not let your fingers dictate to your brain and ears how to play. |
Now you've lost me there. How can fingers dictate?
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:26 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. Obviously, this goes beyond cars and groceries.
|
can't say as I agree. I could probably get pretty excited about it emotionally in the right context. It wouldn't have to be delivered flawlessly either. Proficiency doesn't matter so much. But I don't agree that "too many notes" in music somehow renders it unable to produce a single emotion. It is not too much information as the brain is going to simplify it and extract its essence which is still tone, harmony etc within the broader context of the music. Certainly that can evoke emotion and not a lot of little, conflicting emotions either. An insect beating its wings a hundred times a second still produces a single pure tone, not a thousand little notes, each for the brain to interpret and decipher. The result is one emotion (irritation, right?).....
aldri7
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 16:31
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8577
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:22 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. |
The key word is hypothetical. You are hypothesizing based on your own personal tastes. Nothing else. I don't know how many ways I can tell you that. Its subjective. Do you understand subjective? Regardless of what analogy I am using, the point is you can not make blanket statements about other people's, particularly artist's emotions based on what your feeling is. You are trying to objectify the subjective. Attempting to apply a tangibility to the intangible. What you feel is not what the composer feels.
|
|
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:18 |
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing.
Take a guy schooled on piano and give him a guitar. Let him fool around with it for a month or so, and then hook him up with some other musicians. BEcause he has perhaps really good ears, he will pick stuff out but not be able to play it very proficiently. HIs excitement though at the newness of what he is doing mixed with trial and error will probably result in some fresh sounds and really emotional playing.
But every artist has the ability to make that distinction between repetitive, emotionless playing and playing with "feeling". Technical proficiency doesn't preclude you from being able to do the latter, you just sometimes have to work a bit harder and not let your fingers dictate to your brain and ears how to play.
aldri7
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:03 |
Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
^You've been around since 2006. I'm sure you have seen this discussion repeatedly and it always contains a throng that marginalizes musicians talent for the sake of the listeners subjective "feeling". Its absurd to declare that being able to play four bars of 64th triplets in the middle of 3 key changes precludes the player from emotion. |
Absurd? How did that come about? |
Because it is. It would be like me telling someone that you did not really "feel" like getting groceries during your last trip to the grocery because you drove really fast in a really nice car. |
I'm sorry, but this analogy doesn't make sense. You said:
"Its absurd to declare that being able to play four bars of 64th triplets in the middle of 3 key changes precludes the player from emotion."
..., and I would say:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. Obviously, this goes beyond cars and groceries."
Tapfret wrote:
You are making implications about the player/composer's motivations based on your own preconceived notion of what defines emotion. The emotion or feeling derived from music listening is 100% subjective and only the performer/writer knows what his/her motivations are. Lots of people got emotional about the movie Titanic. Not me. Should I suggest that the writer/director/production crew did not impart any emotion into their work because they used too much technique and skill in the production? It must be so, I didn't "feel" it.
Now that would be BLOODY ABSURD! |
This analogy doesn't work either. Now we are talking films. This isn't music. Technical proficiency to music-making is what to film-making?
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 16:04
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 15:37 |
|
"A person who excels in musical technique or execution."
"A consummate master of musical technique and artistry"
"A person who has a masterly or dazzling skill or technique in any field of activity"
All of these can mean "virtuoso." They're pretty vague and open to interpretation, yes.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8577
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 15:31 |
aldri7 wrote:
One thing that in my mind could hurt your prog when it comes to virtuosity is if you specifically write tunes designed to showcase band members individual talents. I don't think that a song should be built around the idea that it must give your guitarist, etc some space to show off ("The Underfall Yard" by Big Big Train suffers IMHO only when the guitar or keyboardist is soloing). I remember that Weather Report specifically frowned on this kind of thing, stating up front that their philosophy was to highlight group interaction rather than technical prowess. Wayne Shorter on sax always played sparse, understated solos. That was their approach. So virtuosity (technical prowess) is important for sure, but it should not get in the way of the message you are trying to convey to the audience. Sometimes that message calls for a certain approach to playing, one which discourages virtuosity. Mostly I'm thinking speed and dexterity here, while virtuosity is really more complex than that. So, but like all of the Weather Report musicians were very talented virtuosos who only toned town the speed and dexterity but otherwise showed great skill as instrumentalists. By contrast, one guy that sometimes would get hit with a negative label regarding his virtuosity was guitarist Al DiMeola. His tended to be based on speed only. Anyway, but great prog almost always requires virtuosity on a level you can't find with typical bands, but by that I mean an understanding and appreciation of intricate motives, time signatures, harmonies, scales, emotional content etc. and an ability to play effortlessly through complex changes. And also, certain genres are really virtuosity dependent, like jazz fusion. Fusion AS A STYLE is almost totally dependent on virtuosity and it is one of the defining characteristics of the style. People listen to fusion to hear it. They are disappointed if they don't get it. Metal also usually seems to require great guitar soloing as though its fans expect it. But really, I do listen to fusion for the technical prowess of those playing it. Its not the only reason I listen to it, but its a big part.
On the other hand, other bands will often impress me the most when they take it slow and downplay the technical stuff. When they do that it shows me they are sophisticated (which is virtuosity in a more complex sense) enough in their approach to music to know when to tone it down. Because I also like drones and don't mind if you sit on one note for a long time if it suits the mood. Too much playing and complexity can be like too many cooks spoiling the meal. The true musician or virtuoso knows that silence is as important a part of music as sound. Just ask Wayne Shorter who really understood about silence in soloing. If THATS virtuosity, all music requires it but especially prog since we are a more discerning bunch!
I always loved the Mahavishnu Orchestra, but in concert, they had this reputation for being loud and out of control. Everyone would solo feverishly at the same time a lot. They all had great chops. So maybe that is why Weather Report evolved the philosophy that they had - maybe it was their way of saying the other bands were letting virtuosity (dexterity in this case) rule the music. It should never rule the music and they were right. Maybe the word I'm looking for is "musicianship" as opposed to virtuosity, the latter of which implies more manual dexterity to me. Combine musicianship with virtuosity and you have the complete band. I can think of many instances where bands I liked in the past could have used a little more musicianship and a little less virtuosity. Some bands can be like an all-star basketball team - everyone is extremely talented as individuals, but the whole is not necessarily the sum of its parts.
aldri7
|
I got sympathetic carpal tunnel reading that. I gather the central theme here is "contrast is essential to progressive music", which I am 100% on-board with.
|
|
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8577
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 15:25 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
^You've been around since 2006. I'm sure you have seen this discussion repeatedly and it always contains a throng that marginalizes musicians talent for the sake of the listeners subjective "feeling". Its absurd to declare that being able to play four bars of 64th triplets in the middle of 3 key changes precludes the player from emotion. |
Absurd? How did that come about? |
Because it is. It would be like me telling someone that you did not really "feel" like getting groceries during your last trip to the grocery because you drove really fast in a really nice car. You are making implications about the player/composer's motivations based on your own preconceived notion of what defines emotion. The emotion or feeling derived from music listening is 100% subjective and only the performer/writer knows what his/her motivations are. Lots of people got emotional about the movie Titanic. Not me. Should I suggest that the writer/director/production crew did not impart any emotion into their work because they used too much technique and skill in the production? It must be so, I didn't "feel" it. No that would be BLOODY ABSURD!
|
|
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 14:11 |
|
^ What?! There is no universal definition of musicianship?! Aren't the simple definitions of these words in Merriam-Webster enough for us? (Note of exception: I looked up "musicianship" on m-w.com and got nothing ... other than the implicit hint of "being a musician".)
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 14:12
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 13:47 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
... but talent, inspiration and being able to play with moving emotion are as much (if not more) a part of true virtuosity as being able to play fast is. |
Give me an example of that when it comes to instrumental virtuosity. |
I was getting hung up on the definition too..
I guess there is a need for a term to describe technical skill apart from other aspects of playing because a lot of times musicians will show great speed and dexterity (something that is easy to measure) but not great musicianship. You could call it 'technical skill" I guess, or chops, but a lot of people use the term virtuosity. But virtuosity to me not only implies a kind of athleticism but also a mastering of all aspects of playing which would include playing with sensitivity. And in the definition of "virtuosity", the word "style" as well as dexterity, etc is used, something that would support a broader interpretation.
"Musicianship" on the other hand seems to emphasize "artistic sensibility" over technique, and so someone like Thelonius Monk would get a label like that one as he was not very proficient technically. Remember that many musicians, for various reasons, are not physically capable of showing a lot of technical virtuosity. They may have very small hands, or maybe they didn't take up the instrument until relatively late in life. Without a lot of technical skill, I don't think you could say that these guys play with great virtuosity, because that term REQUIRES technical skill as well as other attributes. And so the label musicianship gets used instead.
To me a true virtuoso also shows great musicianship. But "virtuosity" is too often used just to describe a playing style which emphasizes technique. Al Dimeola might be described by some as having great virtuosity but not great musicianship. Miles Davis, on the other hand, was in the opposite camp. His playing didn't show great virtuosity but it did show great musicianship. I would call Miles a true virtuoso though despite not being technically as proficient as some other trumpet players. But that is open for debate. Can Miles be a "true virtuoso" if his playing was not always technically as proficient as some others? I think he was proficient enough. its all kind of relative....
aldri7
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 14:05
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 13:29 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
Virtuosity has only little to do with sheer speed or technical difficulty, that's the misunderstanding.Technical proficiency is a requirement for true virtuosity, but talent, inspiration and b<span style="line-height: 1.2;">eing able to play with moving emotion are as much (if not more) a part of true virtuosity as being able to play fast is.</span> |
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding going on here because we're all defining "virtuosity" differently, and I admit that I often use it in different ways; to mean either pure technical ability or the more holistic view you're talking about. |
Great Scot, this is heavy. There is not a universal definition for virtuosity?
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 13:14 |
Gerinski wrote:
... but talent, inspiration and being able to play with moving emotion are as much (if not more) a part of true virtuosity as being able to play fast is. |
Give me an example of that when it comes to instrumental virtuosity.
rogerthat wrote:
I think there's a confusion here in this thread between what the listener expects to hear and what is necessary for the artist to execute his vision. |
It may be so. As far as I can see, virtuosity is very important in entertainment, not in art. I presume a lot of responses here were founded on what is important to the listener (partly similar to what Rogerthat said), the entertainment or the art.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 13:24
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 12:23 |
One thing that in my mind could hurt your prog when it comes to virtuosity is if you specifically write tunes designed to showcase band members individual talents. I don't think that a song should be built around the idea that it must give your guitarist, etc some space to show off ("The Underfall Yard" by Big Big Train suffers IMHO only when the guitar or keyboardist is soloing). I remember that Weather Report specifically frowned on this kind of thing, stating up front that their philosophy was to highlight group interaction rather than technical prowess. Wayne Shorter on sax always played sparse, understated solos. That was their approach. So virtuosity (technical prowess) is important for sure, but it should not get in the way of the message you are trying to convey to the audience. Sometimes that message calls for a certain approach to playing, one which discourages virtuosity. Mostly I'm thinking speed and dexterity here, while virtuosity is really more complex than that. So, but like all of the Weather Report musicians were very talented virtuosos who only toned town the speed and dexterity but otherwise showed great skill as instrumentalists. By contrast, one guy that sometimes would get hit with a negative label regarding his virtuosity was guitarist Al DiMeola. His tended to be based on speed only. Anyway, but great prog almost always requires virtuosity on a level you can't find with typical bands, but by that I mean an understanding and appreciation of intricate motives, time signatures, harmonies, scales, emotional content etc. and an ability to play effortlessly through complex changes. And also, certain genres are really virtuosity dependent, like jazz fusion. Fusion AS A STYLE is almost totally dependent on virtuosity and it is one of the defining characteristics of the style. People listen to fusion to hear it. They are disappointed if they don't get it. Metal also usually seems to require great guitar soloing as though its fans expect it. But really, I do listen to fusion for the technical prowess of those playing it. Its not the only reason I listen to it, but its a big part.
On the other hand, other bands will often impress me the most when they take it slow and downplay the technical stuff. When they do that it shows me they are sophisticated (which is virtuosity in a more complex sense) enough in their approach to music to know when to tone it down. Because I also like drones and don't mind if you sit on one note for a long time if it suits the mood. Too much playing and complexity can be like too many cooks spoiling the meal. The true musician or virtuoso knows that silence is as important a part of music as sound. Just ask Wayne Shorter who really understood about silence in soloing. If THATS virtuosity, all music requires it but especially prog since we are a more discerning bunch!
I always loved the Mahavishnu Orchestra, but in concert, they had this reputation for being loud and out of control. Everyone would solo feverishly at the same time a lot. They all had great chops. So maybe that is why Weather Report evolved the philosophy that they had - maybe it was their way of saying the other bands were letting virtuosity (dexterity in this case) rule the music. It should never rule the music and they were right. Maybe the word I'm looking for is "musicianship" as opposed to virtuosity, the latter of which implies more manual dexterity to me. Combine musicianship with virtuosity and you have the complete band. I can think of many instances where bands I liked in the past could have used a little more musicianship and a little less virtuosity. Some bands can be like an all-star basketball team - everyone is extremely talented as individuals, but the whole is not necessarily the sum of its parts.
aldri7
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 12:42
|
|
RBlak054
Forum Newbie
Joined: February 17 2013
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 12:22 |
I definitely think that being technically skilled is necessary for a lot of great music (perhaps even the majority of progressive rock), but I also think that there is a ton of great progressive music that doesn't require that much technical skill. One of my favourite bands, for example, is Camel, and while a lot of their material can be challenging (instrumental runs, solos, time signatures) I would hardly say that it requires a virtuoso to play. Most intermediate guitarists - who are certainly not virtuosos - would likely be able to fluently play the majority of Camel's repertoire without too much trouble (although very few would be able to emulate the emotion of Andrew Latimer). The real beauty of Camel's music, and the music of many other bands, is in the composition and musicianship.
Gerinski wrote:
Virtuosity has only little to do with sheer speed or technical difficulty, that's the misunderstanding.Technical proficiency is a requirement for true virtuosity, but talent, inspiration and being able to play with moving emotion are as much (if not more) a part of true virtuosity as being able to play fast is. |
I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that virtuosity, by definition, refers predominately to the technical skill exhibited by a musician. If we're taking into account other elements, such as talent, inspiration, and emotion, as you suggest, I wholeheartedly agree that it is extremely important. But such a definition would then imply that virtuosity is extremely important in any genre, would it not?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music
