RBlak054, for how long have you enjoyed listening to music? I'm very surprised you asked this question.

Virtuosity is for orchestras, in a nutshell.

 

 

Well, if the artist is making it for himself and no one else (which is inherently what he wants to hear), then he is indulging himself, which is musical masturbation. If the artist is making it for himself and others (which is inherently what him AND others want to hear), then it's ultimately made for both sides.

But anyway, 

 

Hi RBlak054

Overall I do believe that great technical skills certainly are necessary in prog moozik (being able to read music notes on the other-hand I don't think to be necessary, infact I can name a few great artists that cannot read music notes). This said,  I am not a fan of i.e. big riff guitar solos, I much rather prefer to listen to memorable licks and tunes. Many people like loud music, if it's loud to them it seems good but to me loud is not enough I get bored quickly especially if most tracks in one album sound the same. Also people seem to not bother with music quality, I can hear the difference (maybe because I like to listen via headphones) between 320k mp3 which is decent compared to less even so I still feel it's compressed compared to WAV files. All my cd's I covert the music onto my pc to WAV files instead of MP3.

 

 Gerinski, ditto you said it most perfect!

Dayvenkirk wrote: Well, if the artist is making it for himself and no one else (which is inherently what he wants to hear), then he is indulging himself, which is musical masturbation. If the artist is making it for himself and others (which is inherently what him AND others want to hear), then it's ultimately made for both sides.

You can make music for yourself but also desire to share it with others.  If you put your music out for the consumption of the public, then it's inherently not musical masturbation because other people can share in it.  It's also not true that an artist who makes music for others is making the music they want to hear.  It may be that he's making the music that they need to hear, or that he thinks they should want to hear.

By the same token, listening to others playing music would be what, voyeurism? 

(never mind the likes of X Factor)

Here's a cookie: give me an example of virtuosity as an extension of an artist.

Exactly.

On a different note: virtuosity can also be holding back or keeping things slow and ethereal. It doesn't necessarily mean complex imo.

Anyway everything has it's place. 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 just read through Iain's post and acted on it...

Didn't read the whole thread.

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 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

"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?

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

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

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).

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

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

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.




-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">
https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

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

aldri7

 

Guldbamsen I will differ to disagree with you here, astrophysics is too predictable for virtuosity I would say retrograde compared to astrophysics.

Interesting that none of these definitions necessarily suggest a propensity to show off.  

Also, I forgot to address this the previous day:

 

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   

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.

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?  

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 :) 

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. 

 

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.