Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 07:37 |
RBlak054 wrote:
Kati wrote:
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 |
Glad to hear that you're an Al Di Meola fan! He has always been one of my favourite fusion players, and is a perfect example of a virtuoso who can play unbelievably fast and still keep things musical and interesting. The album Elegant Gypsy, in particular, really seems to capture his talent.
|
He is in no way the fastest guitarist in the world. Wherever this information was printed ...Guitar Player magazine or any other publication? They are not musicians but journalists and even if they were musicians who became journalists or judges on "American Idol" ..they are beyond questionable. Not that a guitarist playing at impeccable speed should logically give any journalist/music fan/record company a quest for comparison to others. Pat Metheny, George Benson, Pat Martino, John McLaughlin, can easily play at the speed of Al DiMeola. They don't choose to because they design their music differently. There are plenty of guitarists that hail from Mexico and Spain who could play just as fast or even faster ..but with their fingertips instead of a pick. Guitarists from the "Swing era played faster than the speed of light. ...so to speak...because seriously these votes are contrived and when they are not..they usually remain to be totally wrong from every stand point of so called intellectual observation. Whether it's a musician whose getting paid to say something false so that the industry can wave Eric Clapton under everyone's nose or a so called judge who uses fancy college words ...yet when it comes down to music...they know nothing of it and are role playing a host position like a moron who wants money and has no other alternative but to be ignorant about the art in music.
Edited by TODDLER - February 23 2013 at 07:39
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 06:39 |
^^^ Maybe it's the effect of the punk phenomenon that The Dark Elf alluded to, that makes people a bit reluctant to acknowledge a positive impact of virtuosity. Virtuosity need not always imply excess, it can frequently signify excellence. I agree with you, many of the well loved prog albums have virtuosic musicians playing on them and yet it is deemed to be unimportant or even possibly undesirable.
I should add here that we never had anything like punk in our country so virtuosity implies great Hindustani or Carnatic masters so regarding virtuosity in a negative light is pretty alien to my cultural baggage.
|
|
Argonaught
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 05:48 |
Kati wrote:
I would not describe prog as a certain niche market,
|
I couldn't describe "prog" (the way the term is used by the "prog people") as anything other than a loose group of unrelated genres of non-pop music that aren't directly blues-based and couldn't be classified as jazz or classical music in the traditional sense. So, it's kind of a easier to define what "prog" is not than what it actually is.
|
|
Argonaught
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 05:32 |
And now, brethren (and occasional sisters), let us look at the PA's "Top Prog Albums" list. The vox populi at its finest, if you believe in such things. CTTE continues to reign at the #1 position; is it just a coincidence that at that time the lineup of Yes had the highest per capita population of superlative virtuosi? I am thinking primarily Bruford, Squire and Wakeman, but Anderson and Howe weren't clueless slouchers either.
And if you scroll the list down a little, you will still see that most of the Top 20 albums are by the bands who relied heavily on the individual and collective virtuosity to express their complex ideas and emotions: KC, Genesis, Tull, Floyd, Mahavishnu Orchestra, the top Italian prog bands.
I am trying to avoid mentioning VdGG here, because of the "fingernail on chalkboard effect" that Mr. Hammill seems to have on me, which is my own problem :)
Edited by Argonaught - February 23 2013 at 05:35
|
|
NickHall
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Chingford
Status: Offline
Points: 144
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 02:35 |
it goes with the territory
|
|
The Mystical
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 604
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 02:17 |
I believe virtuosity to come second to musical atmosphere. If music does not evoke an emotional response in me, I do not listen to it.
|
I am currently digging: Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz! Please drop me a message with album suggestions.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 23 2013 at 00:03 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
It's interesting that Howe is mentioned when the subject of virtuosity comes up. Certainly he is a master of the acoustic but I find Fripp and Hackett steadier on electric, maybe Latimer as well. Look at Hackett's leads in Dancing on the Moonlit Knight, that's faster than probably anything Howe ever played on electric and yet it never sounds jarring the way Howe's electric playing often does. Makes me wonder again if we simply equate virtuosity with flashiness in rock.
|
Howe's playing is pretty fast on Sound Chaser, Awaken, and Gates of Delirium. Yes, he can be a little sloppier and more jarring than the others you mentioned, but I think that actually adds to his appeal. He's not a perfect guitar player, but "virtuoso" doesn't mean perfect, and I personally think that guitar players who have very perceivable flaws in their playing are more appealing than those whose playing is more pristine (think Howe or Hackett in the early live performances versus, say, Petrucci).
|
I don't disagree that a somewhat flawed kind of musicianship can also be virtuoso. I was responding to Exithelemming's comment about Howe vis a vis a Verlaine. It seems to me that Howe is taken as representative of virtuoso guitarwork in prog and that need not be the case. How about Dave Bainbridge who has great technique and also plays very emotional solos. And by the way, it is not as if Howe loves to be flashy all the time. In what way is Turn of the Century much inferior to the great aching guitar solos of rock, like Comfortably Numb and all that?
Edited by rogerthat - February 23 2013 at 00:48
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 23:42 |
rogerthat wrote:
It's interesting that Howe is mentioned when the subject of virtuosity comes up. Certainly he is a master of the acoustic but I find Fripp and Hackett steadier on electric, maybe Latimer as well. Look at Hackett's leads in Dancing on the Moonlit Knight, that's faster than probably anything Howe ever played on electric and yet it never sounds jarring the way Howe's electric playing often does. Makes me wonder again if we simply equate virtuosity with flashiness in rock.
|
Howe's playing is pretty fast on Sound Chaser, Awaken, and Gates of Delirium. Yes, he can be a little sloppier and more jarring than the others you mentioned, but I think that actually adds to his appeal. He's not a perfect guitar player, but "virtuoso" doesn't mean perfect, and I personally think that guitar players who have very perceivable flaws in their playing are more appealing than those whose playing is more pristine (think Howe or Hackett in the early live performances versus, say, Petrucci).
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5102
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 22:36 |
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. |
Phil Collins drumming (in his best period) could be one, he never focused much on speed and yet he played as a virtuoso in my book. Dynamics control and expression are examples of musical techniques which are of course learnt by the musicians and mastered by hard practice, same as mastering speed, but few people think of them when using the term 'virtuoso'. The ability of knowing how to shift successfully between keys would be another technical quality which has nothing to do with speed (I do not mean 'shifting among different keyboards').
I'm not a musician myself but I would bet that out of all the stuff they teach in a conservatory, only little concerns learning to play fast.
|
|
Kati
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 21:05 |
The Dark Elf wrote:
Getting back to wherever it was in the discussion that folks were actually commenting on the role of virtuosity in Progressive music, I think it is a necessity, an uncommon component that separates the genre from baser rock models. That is not to say there isn't virtuosity to be found in 12 bar blues, because I could rattle off many amazingly gifted blues musicians; however, the symphonic and jazz elements in prog require a more disciplined approach and a greater background in musical theory..
Aside from the usual rhetoric one hears, I sometimes think the punk backlash in the mid-70s was propagated by musicians who just couldn't excel in competition with Yes, Crimson, Tull, ELP, Genesis, etc. The whole "getting back to the roots of rock" with a bunch of snarling, 4-chord, safety-pinned cheeked street urchins, leaned heavily on bravado and definitely not on musical ability. Simplistic, I know, but musical virtuosity had actually achieved mainstream success by 1975, yet ever since the ability to really play an instrument has been peripheral to the Billboard Top 100. Prog rock is a niche now, as is jazz and symphony (musical forms which had their heyday in the mythical past).
|
I would not describe prog as a certain niche market, because it depends on various factors plus one knows it is bound not to make money, as it does not reached the mainstream public, yet in terms of prog band numbers recently there are many and great ones too!!! Unfortunately they still need a day job even so this genre is finally growing plentiful
Edited by Kati - February 22 2013 at 21:07
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 20:38 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
"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.
|
Interesting that none of these definitions necessarily suggest a propensity to show off.
Also, I forgot to address this the previous day:
Guldbamsen wrote:
I would mind having hear a piano fugue in the midst of I Talk to the Wind or a jazz chase done during Cirrus Minor....
|
I'd suggest that that is poor songwriting/composition rather than virtuosity that needs to be blamed for that. The virtuosos in KC did not ruin I Talk to the Wind that way, after all.
It's interesting that Howe is mentioned when the subject of virtuosity comes up. Certainly he is a master of the acoustic but I find Fripp and Hackett steadier on electric, maybe Latimer as well. Look at Hackett's leads in Dancing on the Moonlit Knight, that's faster than probably anything Howe ever played on electric and yet it never sounds jarring the way Howe's electric playing often does. Makes me wonder again if we simply equate virtuosity with flashiness in rock.
Edited by rogerthat - February 22 2013 at 20:41
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12765
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 20:27 |
Getting back to wherever it was in the discussion that folks were actually commenting on the role of virtuosity in Progressive music, I think it is a necessity, an uncommon component that separates the genre from baser rock models. That is not to say there isn't virtuosity to be found in 12 bar blues, because I could rattle off many amazingly gifted blues musicians; however, the symphonic and jazz elements in prog require a more disciplined approach and a greater background in musical theory..
Aside from the usual rhetoric one hears, I sometimes think the punk backlash in the mid-70s was propagated by musicians who just couldn't excel in competition with Yes, Crimson, Tull, ELP, Genesis, etc. The whole "getting back to the roots of rock" with a bunch of snarling, 4-chord, safety-pinned cheeked street urchins, leaned heavily on bravado and definitely not on musical ability. Simplistic, I know, but musical virtuosity had actually achieved mainstream success by 1975, yet ever since the ability to really play an instrument has been peripheral to the Billboard Top 100. Prog rock is a niche now, as is jazz and symphony (musical forms which had their heyday in the mythical past).
Edited by The Dark Elf - February 22 2013 at 20:28
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
Kati
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 19:31 |
Guldbamsen wrote:
Some of this is like astrophysics to me.
Maybe it's because I just ate a little cheese... |
Guldbamsen I will differ to disagree with you here, astrophysics is too predictable for virtuosity I would say r etrograde compared to astrophysics.Another
Edited by Kati - February 22 2013 at 19:38
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 19:21 |
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 19:20 |
Some of this is like astrophysics to me. Maybe it's because I just ate a little cheese...
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 18:47 |
Tapfret wrote:
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. |
I think it's this premise of mine that is the root of all "evil"/confusion/whatever in this discussion. You phrased your response in such a manner that it can be inferred that entertainment and art do not have different purposes. All these years I never thought about them the way you do. Of course, it can still be argued that it is not a universal truth.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 18:48
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 18:09 |
When it comes to prog though - and maybe this relates more to the argument about technical proficiency vs art (emotion). We (I do at any rate) tend to view prog rock as having a higher "artistic value" or merit than other genres of rock. And why is this? Is it because of the virtuosity factor? No, it shouldn't be. Virtuosity in prog (I'm talking playing, not composing) is IMHO not related to a prog song's artistic/emotional content. But I can see where others might see it differently and respond very emotionally to technical wizardry for its own sake regardless of anything else. Anyway, but I was always a Yes fan but not a Rick Wakeman fan because, even though I am a keyboardist, the former packed emotional content while the latter was more just about technical proficiency to me. And when thats the case, I often go outside of prog entirely to get my emotional "fix". And like I said before, i don't like the soloing in "The Underfall Yard" (Big Big Train) because the technical wizardly distracts from the emotional power of the song. It leaves me feeling cold and emotionless, and I wish I could fast forward past it every time i listen to it (actually, I can....mmmm....but I just don't like to have to do it...)
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 18:12
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8577
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:56 |
aldri7 wrote:
And I also like chilling out to pure resonance sometimes... |
Yeah, I tend to not listen to Spastic Ink while practicing Yoga.
|
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:44 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
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?
I'm not quite sure how this conversation took a turn into something about repetition on a thread that is about virtuosity.
|
Since I'm not as proficient as you in responding to quotes individually (darn computers...:))....I'll just give a blanket reply.
I guess your first reply is perplexing to me because I don't necessarily connect fast or multiple notes with entertainment vs real music. Pianos in particular do not lend themselves to playing single notes that sustain for over four bars! So you can't necessarily trim all those notes - you may have to play them over and over again or they will die out and you will just be left with silence (not resonance)
OK, I know you know that. :) Anyway, I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but if the bottom line is projecting an emotion and you feel that a single note will do so why use multiple notes. I say - why NOT use multiple notes if in doing so you inject motion, excitement, rhythm, the urge to dance maybe. I don't know. I mean who can say what purpose a given piece of music has, what its role is. It is more than just about stripping it down to its barest essence though and only playing as many notes as you need to get the emotional message across. Do we have to pace ourselves for fear of wearing our fingers out?
BUt yeah, we've drifted off topic. The topic was virtuosity and I guess, whether virtuosity if it comes in the form of lots of notes (too many maybe, you say) is a good thing. I myself said it wasn't necessarily a good thing, and that fewer notes (a la Weather Report and Wayne Shorter) is often advised. So I tend to agree with you in spirit a lot of times, just not in how you connect all of this with what seems like some sort of an litmus test that music must pass in order that it be considered emotionally valid and not "just" entertainment. In China, they had that one child only policy. Makes sense, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where it is required. :) And I also like chilling out to pure resonance sometimes, but as a keyboardist I know you have to resort to repetition sometimes in order to keep the sound alive!
aldri7
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 17:52
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8577
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:36 |
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
|
Well said. My ultimate injection to the conversation is that we can only validate our own emotions (sometimes) and not those of any other listener and certainly not the composer/performer.
|
|
|