The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music

I can get that there's little like a smoky, good, live jazz session to sit back and just absorb while being there however then I want to be there to get the full experience - kind of like being inside of an old detective noir movie story - the experience would be profound. Jazz is an animal that I personally don't chase down as I'm not a fan but I do personally believe that it has profound value as a music form as I percieve classical music (which I also don't chase down) to have profound value. Having said that - although I'm not a fan of classical music I will happily put a Saint Saens work on my player and happily close my eyes and absorb the music - as I would many classics.

^^^  I have watched Igor Butman, the Russian saxophonist, in concert and he got to octaves that Ella Fitzgerald probably couldn't have reached.  It was an incredible experience, a thorough demonstration of the possibilities of the instrument in just an hour and a half or so.  Great jazz musicians don't HAVE a comfort zone.

EDIT: And by the way, I am no jazz/classical elitist.  But if I listen to more rock than either of these, it is for reasons other than relative virtuosity or technical prowess, not because of. 


Edited by rogerthat - March 03 2013 at 02:22

DiamondDog wrote: PS I also raised the subject of how either kind of musician would cope in a pub, where an instant response was called for, following a singer one had never heard before, often playing a piece one had never heard before, certainly playing it without any prior knowledge of key, perhaps having to change key, tempo, and bar structure, to accommodate an erratic karaoke singer to make the piece work. I would submit that the pub pianist who deals with all these forces instantly and successfully has vastly more talent than the vaunted rock or classical musician we fete so much in these pages.

Some here are forgetting something i brought up earlier, the role of a conductor in an orchestral musician's career. An orchestral musician doesn't simply learn a piece and repeat it, and given the conductor at the time, that musician may relearn a work that was mastered on a basic technical level at first, but will learn to play that same work in a totally different light with a different conductor at hand.
      Now, the problem today is that a lot of conductors are not that distinct from each other, the way they were back in the early part of the 20th Century, when you had "the Toscanini sound" and "the Stokowski sound" ,etc, but many recordings are available that show that orchestral musicians are indeed, not robots, and are constantly learning, and not just repeating something technically mastered, there is more to it than that.

Dean wrote: DiamondDog wrote: 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. I'm with the apples and oranges theory. I doubt very much if those classical musicians could cut it in a Rock band context. Much of classical is learning to play a piece methodically from reading the music; it often requires great or very good technique, but any talented rock musician could do the same (assuming he/she could read music, which is, after all, only an information system). The Rock musician, therefore, can transcend the two genres. I'm not so sure that many classical musicians could survive beyond their own comfort zone. I think you have that back-to-front. Many classical musicians are also members of jazz bands, if they can do jazz they can do rock. I'm not convinced your average rock musican could cut it in an classical orchestra.

Edited by Kati - March 01 2013 at 13:19

It's fine to disagree, I disagree with your analysis too. That kind of improvisation does not help those musicians deal with anything other than that specific situation, ie, they are still 'improvising' over a piece and genre they are, if anything, over-familiar with, and it is a particular kind of solo they would play, in full and prior knowledge of how the piece is structured. That does not in any way prepare them for forms and approaches that are alien to them. Now, as you argue, it could be said that this can also work the other way round, but that surely is what is meant by "apples and oranges". 

When I was in my 20's, it was very important to me to show off how I was listening to the "best guitarist," the "best drummer," and the "best keyboardist."

DiamondDog wrote: Disagree entirely with it being said that if you can play jazz you can play rock. Most jazz musicians are too soft in approach and lacking in many respects. Jazz, though ideal for improvisation of a free nature, seldom contains the dynamic qualities natural to a talented rock musician. Also doubt that many classical musicians are good at even playing jazz, certainly not the majority by any means. As well as that, classical musicians, as I said, have to follow a set piece and repeat it ad infinitum. Any talented person can learn a piece, however difficult it is. I don't believe your average classical musician could live in even a reasonable rock band without a long time learning his new set piece. Of course, these are generalities. There will always be exceptions, but they are not the norm at all.

presdoug wrote: ^Interesting post, thanks, Johnny      From a young age, i wanted to become a musician, but at age 11, developed permanent tremors in both hands. It is impossible, for example,for me to write with a pen (i have to print), and it is precarious to even drink a cup of liquid (completely impossible with my left hand) So musical instruments are unfortunately not for me.

I second that. All the devotion, time ..I put in to Classical study with my father/teacher caused any of my friends to cringe and as a whole , when growing up, most teenagers found that devotion to be a sign of mental illness. I was sleeping just a few hours a night, never went on a date with a girl, stayed away from drugs, and the bulk of society considered me a misfit, freak, or candidate for psychiatric treatment..but! at age 18, when I was asked by a prog cover band to learn Steve Howe's Mood For A Day you wouldn't believe how elementary it truly was. Prog was fairly simple to play after playing the most complex Bach or Paganini pieces. Black coffee, breathing techniques and an intake of a thousand calories a day was a mental denial of the human needs around me as a child/teenager. After many years of Classical study I added reflections of Classical to my own creations..which was what Anthony Phillips and Steve Hackett did. My right hand was very natural and easily fell into place. I didn't get into music college and chose the wrong path, working for entertainers on the celebrity circuits..however my long and hard devotion of Classical developed me into a schooled player of Jazz/fusion, rock, prog, and even folk. Based on my experiences for decades , I must agree with Dean that the average rock playercould not cut it with a classical orchestra. Also take into account that classical guitar is and never has been accepted by an orchestra, was, and possibly still is, looked down upon by the orchestra. I still lived in the classical world and was overly prepared for music college. It's basically a devoted situation where the musician must give up their entire life of practical living to be outstanding and exceptional. Like monks who fast , it takes a great will to continue a path that is sometimes like a razor's edge.