Thoughts on guitar virtuosity....

[Griffinator]

A number of threads I've seen recently have briefly touched on this subject, but none of them got really in depth about it.

 

Things I was considering on my way home from work tonight...

 

"The next big thing" - why is it that guitar is the only discipline that has some sort of expectation in the way of innovation? There hasn't been any innovation in the realm of, say, violin playing, in centuries! Why the expectation that someone has to find some "new" way to play a guitar that hasn't been done before?

 

My first thought was that composition as a whole has deteriorated so badly that being a virtuoso guitarist isn't enough to get anyone to pay attention to you.

 

Then I thought, maybe the overall lack of attention span from society is the problem - Beethoven never had to worry about someone changing the station in the middle of his performance... Are the two intertwined? Is the focus on making a catchy, but incredibly short song a result of the tendency of we as a society to bail out before a song is done if we happen to get a little bored?

 

Yet, as I consider "virtuoso" guitarists like Yngwie Malmsteen and, to a lesser extent, folks like Eddie Van Halen, and even Al DiMeola and John McLaughlin, I can't escape the lack of dimension to their playing styles. When I hear any of these guys play, I can instantly recognize their "style". Maybe the definition of virtuosity in other instruments is the ability to play any style, on demand, without "sounding like yourself"... Maybe the virtuoso guitarist will only get the kind of respect Itzhak Perlman and Erick Friedman do once he demonstrates the ability to play flamenco like a flamenco master, and blues like a blues master, and jazz like a jazz master, etc, etc....

 

Ideally, I'd like this to blossom into a deeper discussion on the concept as a whole, although I think I've already dug the rabbit trails onto which it will travel.

 

PS: You're more than welcome to just offer "Griff, you're rambling, shut up!"

[Zuben]

Griff, you are rambling, shut up! (LOL I just had to)

 

I think "virtuoso" is a very broad term. There are "virtuosos" for every instrument. Pop music is the easiest to identify the player.

 

Guitar, a little different but is that because I play? I can tell you who is playing just hearing the style. There are so many styles unlike a cello player or violin player or a multitude of instruments as many of them are "pigeon holed" into one style.

 

And as you point out, what makes a virtuoso? Some one you think is one, I may not.

 

It is a broad definition

 

Peace

 

Are we confused yet?

[Dr. Ellwood]

There is far too much made of virtuoso players, mostly because we as guitar players like to label players that way. But in the big picture of entertainment,not guitar playing it is the guitar player who can entertain using his instrument that will be the winner. There is a point where your guitar playing reaches the ability to use it well within the context of the whole band. The virtuoso musician is the guitar player that can entertain.

[Gruupi]

So Kurt Cobain was a virtuoso guitar player by that definition, so is Jimmy Vaughan, Paul Stanley, the Edge, Robbie Robertson, Charo, and Bob Dylan. All of these mucisians have merit and I like some of their music, but I dont see them as vistuosos.

 

Our 21st century American culture doesn't value virtuosity like generations past. The pop music industry and the media have just made it too easy to get up and sing some happy songs, look cool, and take it to the bank. I like to be entertained as much as the next guy, but you can't redefine skill and vistuosity to meet this new lowered standard. If you don't get the higher art of music, and are happy with pop music, then thats fine. I can get off on a pop tune any day too. But if you haven't experienced the deeper talent of a great musician, you have truly missed out on one of the biggest reasons for being alive.

 

There are some ungodly skilled classical and jazz players, as well as great rock players, its just not marketable at this time though. Only the guys in the know, mostly musicians themselves can appreciate this kind of talent. Its like Herman Hesse in Steppenwolf "Magic Theater, not for everyone".

[Dr. Ellwood]

"But if you haven't experienced the deeper talent of a great musician, you have truly missed out on one of the biggest reasons for being alive"

 

I guess I haven't experienced that, will you teach me please? I am clay in the hands of a master musician, a sage who will show me the way to a deeper understanding of what real music really is.

[Gruupi]

Sorry, can't help you there Ellwood, first step would be an open mind.

[Dr. Ellwood]

A closed mind is much better than no mind at all don't you think? No really you sound like you could teach me allot about music. Let's see where could we start? Seems my back ground in music and entertainment isn't worth much, I'm open to any tid bits you might be kind enough to send my way.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Sure,but I'm waiting for the same response from you to Gruupi?...hay did I or did I not make a reasonable response in my original post on this thread? a yes or no response will do.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Well..still waiting?

[Gruupi]

Sorry Griff, its just that my definition of virtuosity is different than popularity or entertainment. It involves a gift of talent plus a singular dedication to learning the craft of whatever instrument or artistic medium the artist has chosen. Myself and most of us can only wish for this talent and dedication. I just don't see commercial acceptance as instrinsic to the discussion. In today's environment, virtuosos are almost disdained, they are thought of as geeks. In the past, people were admired and almost worshipped for their talent.

 

My comment about having an open mind was mean spirited, but it still however is true. You can't "get" art if you don't at least want to. I can only relay my own experiences. When I was younger hated the music of Bach, it sounded like someone running endless scales to me. But I had many people I looked up to persist in telling me to keep listening. Same thing happened with Coltrane. All I can say is that my open mind, and sometimes even forcing myself to listen to this music I expressly disliked, led to some of the deepest feelings I have ever felt. Much like a religeous experience.

 

Maybe I am wrong to bait Ellwood in this discussion. But thats what people did to me to get me to accept things I resisted. Maybe Ellwood won't ever try, thats fine, he plays a mean guitar and seems happy doing so. But this discussion was started about the guys that take it to the next level. Its not about style, its about having a great gift and developing it no matter what the public might accept. So Ellwood is actually correct in his arguement, most people could give a rats ass about virtuosity. I'm just not most people. I just wish I had the talent and dedication to become a virtuoso. Amidst all the glam surrounding popular music, sometimes I just hope for substance.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

In today's environment, virtuosos are almost disdained, they are thought of as geeks. In the past, people were admired and almost worshipped for their talent.

 

Well... yeah. Then again, let's look at some virtuosos from long ago.

 

Paganini was said to have made a deal with the devil, back when that famous crossroads wasn't even a twinkle in a developer's eye. And much was made of his looks. Oh, and of his technique, too.

 

The same goes for Lizt, who had a large number of young girls in his audience and IIRC, always risked being dismissed as a bit of fluff. Mozart, who was writing symphonies at five, still had to go find himself a backer. It wasn't as if his talent got him anywhere on its own.

 

I think geeks will always be geeks and virtuosity on its own has never been a guarantee of anything. Shtick, alas, has always had its place in music.

 

Why do people tend to sound like themselves? Well, part of that is simply due to commercial pressures. If you've made your mark with a specific record, it's likely that you'll be "encouraged" to keep making stuff that sounds similar enough to be identifiable as your own.

 

ADDED:

The virtuoso musician is the guitar player that can entertain.

 

Well, yes and no. I agree generally, but your analysis doesn't take recordings into consideration. You could be a great recording artist and be as dull as poop in real life.

[Sauce]

Griff, You've given a lot to digest here so this is just my initial reaction to part of what you wrote.

 

Zuben touched on this some but I think a lot of this is colored by your background as a guitar player. At least when you're talking about having a unique voice on a given instrument. Talented musicians tend to develop strong musical personalities and as a result, sound like themselves. Most of us can distinguish who's playing guitar when we hear it, so much so that these days often from just a split second note I can tell you who it is and I'm sure you guys can too. But that's because we play guitar.

 

People that play or even just immerse themselves in other music or instruments can tell you who's playing that instrument. Some of them can't distinguish SRV from Jeff Beck yet are shocked that we can't tell Rachel Podger from Joshua Bell. It's all about what you really know because when it boils down to it Monk always sounds like Monk but you wouldn't know that if you didn't know what Monk really sounds like.

 

In my opinion versatility is great. Being able to master other styles is a vital thing for any musician and can often separate the hacks from the talented but, the truly great players will also develop their own voice and their own style. They will be able to play flamenco like a flamenco master and blues like a blues master but the whole time also be able to sound like themself.

[The Geoff]

Griff, Being able to master other styles is a vital thing for any musician and can often separate the hacks from the talented but, the truly great players will also develop their own voice and their own style. They will be able to play flamenco like a flamenco master and blues like a blues master but the whole time also be able to sound like themself.

 

That'll be Big Jim Sullivan, then.

 

 

Lighten up, all.

 

Geoff

[Dr. Ellwood]

HUH? "Maybe I am wrong to bait Ellwood in this discussion. But thats what people did to me to get me to accept things I resisted"

 

Accept what? open my mind to accept poor guitar playing? respect players that deserve no respect, as far as I know those are the only kinds of players I don't accept and are closed minded about, and rightly so. So what should I open my mind to exactly, should I accept and apprecitate Rap? should I accept marginal blues players who play as though they started playing three years ago? What exactly are you talking about here? I love and admire all kinds of music that is done well. How about specifics here, or do we just say accept anything because you call it art?

 

"But I had many people I looked up to persist in telling me to keep listening."

 

In this case, that might be a problem.

[picker]

I don't think the statement that a "will be able to play flamenco like a flamenco master and blues like a blues master but the whole time also be able to sound like themself" is at all accurate.

 

Eugene Fodor can play all the classics masterfully, but he couldn't play really convincing bluegrass fiddle if his life depended on it. He might be able to make some of the same sounds as the masters of that style, but he would never be a master of it without devoting years of study, as he did with the classics, to make it happen. Does that mean he is not a virtuoso? Of course not.

 

People like Hound Dog Taylor would never be considered a virtuoso in rock, country, or clasical guitar styles, but put a slide on his six-fingered left hand, and he was a blues virtuoso.

 

My point is that virtuosity can be achieved without mastering every style an instrument is capable of generating. If that were true, ther would be nno such thing as a virtuoso.

[Strategery]

Good subject and I have actually pondered this issue as well.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head but there may be several facets to this discussion.

 

In the days of OLDE... :grin: ...musicians were classically trained and the discipline and skills were immense.

I think so anyway....I wasn't around. :grin:

 

But yes, musicical skills and the demands & expectations of the masses have declined to a sad point.

It's down to a drum beat with window shattering bass and the chanting of equal English skills.

 

Don't get upset...I say all this with a grain of salt.

I mean, who the heck am I to decide what's popular and what's not? :grin:

 

I think the Guitar took the lead from the violin & piano that was prominent in the classical era, and from the trumpet & sax in the jazz era.

Why?

The advent of electricity and eletric guitars & amps.

 

In my opinion, the electric guitar was an amazing invention that had the star power of the automobile.

Everyone wanted one and it was amazing.

 

But, it had it's take off from where it was in time which was Big Band, then Jazz, and eventually on to 50's Bebop, 60's hippie music, and then the amazing era of Rock N Roll of the 70's.

THe rest is history.

 

One thing I did notice in the 70's were the efforts of bands like ELP & ELO...which almost tried to combine the Classical with Rock, albeit in different directions.

 

You had bands like Queen which to me, have a great Classical flair to them.

 

I LOVE...to listen to bands and you can ALMOST hear their influences and guitar heros.

 

It's hard to hear because most of we guitarists tend to BLEND all of our heros together into our own sound...which brings me to my next idea.

 

When I hear guitarists like Malmsteen or EVH, sure, I have the utmost respect for their knowledge, skills, and playing....but a lot of it really comes across as a player that is saying..."Look at me, look at how much I know & how fast I can play!"

 

I don't mean that as a complete cut because if you ask me, guitarists like them are the FEW that even resemble the Classically trained violinists or pianists from the days of old.

It doesn't matter where they got the knowledge from, whether it was self taught or from a university.

 

But, I think what's lacking....are musicians just STOPPING, taking a breath...and listening to themselves...from what is within.

 

As with a great story teller, you wouldn't want to see one just spouting and reading from an English grammar book, would you?

NO, HELL NO.

You want to hear one that has a great story to tell, even with grammatical screwups and weird quirks.

Why?

Because it's intersting...it's new, it's....THAT PERSON.

 

Myself, I was afraid early on to do that because when you're young, you think you don't have much to say musically when you compare yourself to your guitar heros. You're embarrassed.

But hey, that is EXACTLY how your guitar heros got to be who they are.

 

MY POINT?

Stop, listen to what's inside you, and bring THAT....to your fingers and to your fret board.

 

That's my rant.

What say Ye'? :grin:

 

Randy

[Billster]

Yet, as I consider "virtuoso" guitarists like Yngwie Malmsteen and, to a lesser extent, folks like Eddie Van Halen, and even Al DiMeola and John McLaughlin, I can't escape the lack of dimension to their playing styles. When I hear any of these guys play, I can instantly recognize their "style". Maybe the definition of virtuosity in other instruments is the ability to play any style, on demand, without "sounding like yourself"... Maybe the virtuoso guitarist will only get the kind of respect Itzhak Perlman and Erick Friedman do once he demonstrates the ability to play flamenco like a flamenco master, and blues like a blues master, and jazz like a jazz master, etc, etc....

 

As to this issue, I see what you are getting at. The distinctive stylists who get labeled "virtuoso guitarists" are somewhat one-dimensional. I think John McLaughlin has the broadest repertoire as far as straight jazz, far-out jazz, the Indian stuff, and having written orchestral works.

 

But OTOH, nobody ever really expected Isaac Stern to play bluegrass.

 

Furthermore, from a visibility standpoint, guys who cross genres well tend not to demand the spotlight so much as a person who does one thing so over-the-top that it demands attention. Steve Morse ended up doing time as an airline pilot because nobody could pigeonhole the Dregs and sell them the way they could promote a guy like Joe Satriani. So the players who meet the standard of a broad range styles tend to go under the radar. We here in the field probably know more of them than the general public.

[Sauce]

I don't think the statement that a "will be able to play flamenco like a flamenco master and blues like a blues master but the whole time also be able to sound like themself" is at all accurate.

 

Eugene Fodor can play all the classics masterfully, but he couldn't play really convincing bluegrass fiddle if his life depended on it. He might be able to make some of the same sounds as the masters of that style, but he would never be a master of it without devoting years of study, as he did with the classics, to make it happen. Does that mean he is not a virtuoso? Of course not.

 

People like Hound Dog Taylor would never be considered a virtuoso in rock, country, or clasical guitar styles, but put a slide on his six-fingered left hand, and he was a blues virtuoso.

 

My point is that virtuosity can be achieved without mastering every style an instrument is capable of generating. If that were true, ther would be nno such thing as a virtuoso.

 

Yeah definitely, I agree with you completely. I intended it as a bit of a broad statement and kind of the "ultimate example" if you will.

[Griffinator]

Thankfully, we got some people digging into the larger issue.

 

Lee, the problem I have with your premise is that it contributes directly to the lack of respect guitar "virtuosos" receive from the more "educated", as it were, listening public - the folks who actually attend and/or review classical performances, opera, etc. Pop guitarists of danged near any flavor are sneered at by these folks.

 

Oh - and...

Accept what? open my mind to accept poor guitar playing...

 

Was not Gruupi's point. Quite the opposite. He was merely pointing out that your premise, on its face, demands that any guitarist who is capable of being an entertainer, no matter how badly he played, is a virtuoso. I seriously doubt he (or anyone else here) believes that Kurt Cobain was a virtuoso guitarist.

 

This would be the tell there...

 

Amidst all the glam surrounding popular music, sometimes I just hope for substance.

 

Dead on, Gruupi. And pretty well dead on with the rest of that post. I'm another one who wishes he had time and discipline to become a true virtuoso, albeit my primary motivation there is to be able to write what comes out of me without curtailing it to my actual physical abilities. It's very, very frustrating not being able to play what I hear in my head.

 

I don't think the statement that a "will be able to play flamenco like a flamenco master and blues like a blues master but the whole time also be able to sound like themself" is at all accurate.

 

I'm not saying it's accurate right now, Picker, I'm merely postulating about what it might take for the guitar "master" to acheive the same respect as a violin "master".

 

As with a great story teller, you wouldn't want to see one just spouting and reading from an English grammar book, would you?

NO, HELL NO.

You want to hear one that has a great story to tell, even with grammatical screwups and weird quirks.

Why?

Because it's intersting...it's new, it's....THAT PERSON.

 

Actually, I think you were more on track when you were talking about the bar being lowered, Stratergy.

 

Shakespeare didn't read out of a grammar book, nor did Homer, nor Emily Dickinson.

 

Carry on, gents, there's plenty of good food for thought coming out here from many directions.

[Griffinator]

Addendum...

 

Just had a thought...

 

Perhaps, looking back at the 60 or so years we've had the electric guitar around, the ultimate issue with the instrument is that we're just finally coming out of the "exploration" stage - we're still collectively figuring out what the "limits" really are on this very young instrument.

 

Maybe it's going to take a good 50 years before we know what the true "virtuoso" guitarist looks like....

[Strategery]

True, but there must be ORIGINAL content.

Sometimes I just don't say it correctly. :grin:

 

As with Hendrix and a few others....they seemed to open a window into their soul and allowed us to peek in.

Not many people have the balls to do that.

 

Sure, it's risky and scary...but look at the results.

 

Great points all. I'm enjoying this.

 

Randy

[Strategery]

Griff...I agree.

 

When the electric guitar was new...it was all original because it was at it's starting point and the exploration had just begun.

 

Now that so much is established, musicians have seen the money that can be made, and many have squandered their time and talent on the almighty dollar.

 

The ones that will take the music forward will be the ones that refuse to include the dollar as their reason for musical inspiration.

 

I must say though, that composing is a balanced process.

Even the great symphonic composers had to balance out what they thought was a great piece of music and satified them and what the audience would approve of and liked.

In that sense, nothing has changed since music must be profitable for the full time, career musician.

 

But having said that, I think there is a thresh hold the composer must endure when CHANGING a STYLE of music, with little to no profit, until by chance...the general public catches on.

You have to be willing to take that chance though and have the financial means to endure it unless you're just writing for yourself. :grin:

 

This went through my mind when the Talking Heads and Devo first came on the scene. :grin:

 

Randy

 

http://panther1.last.fm/proposedimages/original/6/191/509556.jpg

[gitfidler]

Very interesting discussion.

I think that to try and pigeon hole the word 'virtuoso' might be a mistake. It's a very subjective thing. You say Yngwie -- I say he makes me nuts. Technically, even mathematically, he may be without peer, but I can only take so much of that style. Is he a one trick pony? I say Chet Atkins, because he took so many types of music, put his own bent on it and made it musical, you say 'hick'.

One big difference, and why we are all on this site, is that our weapon of choice, is, by far, the most versatile, varied, passionate instrument there is. Violin is a one trick pony. Single notes, or, at best, a few close intervals or arpeggiated chords are all you can do, whether it's classical or bluegrass. Same thing with trumpet, sax and all the other single note instruments. I think I can get my mind around calling Josh Bell or Perlman a 'virtuoso'. But a guitar player? That's tougher. So you can play with EVH, how about Segovia, flamenco, Joe Pass, or my favorite, Doyle Dykes.

If 'virtuoso' means a someone who is a complete master of the instrument -- more than just a great, versatile player -- then IMO there ain't none!

[miroslav]

Well...a side discussion is to consider if you even HAVE TO be a virtuoso on the guitar (or any instrument) in order to create good music and to perform it well...?

 

I don't think so.

 

I actually feel that being a virtuoso is a bit overrated.

I've heard a few in the past...great pianists or violinists...great guitarists...

...and yeah, they do tend to be rather one dimensional, and often after you hear them play for awhile it can begin to get a bit boring at some point.

It's not like just because they are a "virtuosos" that you can listen to them play forever in awe.

 

Plus, at some pointthe greater their virtuositythe more they seem to disconnect from a wider audienceand their appeal becomes more of a niche thing.

 

These daysas far as guitar playing is concernedI just think that we are not seeing as much guitar oriented music as there use to be in the 60s/70s/80sso a lot of the new musicians are playing guitar more and more like a backing instrument instead of as a lead instrument.

[Eric Iverson]

I don't have a problem with "virtuoso" as musician of excellent technical skill and musicality.. sometimes I have a problem with the showbiz aspects of it!

 

I just don't think the guy up front being the star of the show is necessary the best musician there....

 

To Gitfidler: violinists and trumpeters don't think of their instrument as a "one trick pony". They talk endlessly about the many different styles of playing, and about their heroes, the same way we guitarists do!

 

But, yes indeed, we can play chords and melodies both, and some guys can both at the same time..... I love being a guitar player, and much as I love to hear violinists and trumpet players, I wouldn't switch!

[Strategery]

Great points!

 

I haven't thought of some of those nor in that manner of thinking.

 

But Eric is right.

You don't have to be a master of your instrument to be a great writer.

A guitar can be a great lead instrument or back ground instrument.

 

Whether acoustic or electric, the guitar can be a great means in the path to musical and lyrical creation.

 

Randy

[Guitar55]

A couple of thoughts from what I've read....

 

We're talking here about virtuosity...NOT entertainment. A great entertainer may not be a virtuoso, but MOSTLY, a virtuoso will entertain (althogh possibly to a more limited audience).

 

Many instruments can be used to create very different styles of music. A Blues virtuoso, may not be a Classical virutoso or Jazz virtuoso and vice versa. It is more likely that you find a virtuoso in a particluar style than a cross-genre virtuoso (although they are out there - I think Steve Morse may qualify).

 

 

[Eric VB]

To Gitfidler: violinists and trumpeters don't think of their instrument as a "one trick pony". They talk endlessly about the many different styles of playing, and about their heroes, the same way we guitarists do!

Just to tag onto this subplot, there aren't a whole lot of polyphonic instruments (for this discussion, those that can play chords) out there today. In the world of pop it's primarily guitar and piano/keyboards. But even on guitar we can get a lot of mileage out of "double stops" -- sounding two notes simultaneously -- the harmonic weapon-of-choice of violinists. Of course I prefer to bend one of those notes for more of a bluesy feel, which doesn't really translate well to violin.

 

Before synths came out in the '80s piano was a "one trick pony" of sorts. That is, it only had one sound. In the world of guitar the "next big thing" had to do with constantly developing new techniques and new technologies. Jimmy Page had a lot to do with the latter; I understand he had some ungodly electronic devices before Boss started making those nice little stomp boxes.

 

Now synths and sample libraries put an awful lot of sounds at the touch of keyboardists. Guitarists can tap into that, too, either with a MIDI setup or a good synth pedal. Perhaps all these sounds have flooded our ears to the point where a new sound is no longer even noticed? [bTW, aren't electric solid-body violins something new to violins? Have they gone MIDI, too?]

 

In my own personal musical journey I think I've come full circle and have a new appreciation for the tones and timbres of acoustic instruments and less of a fascination with all of the electronic stuff. Not to say I don't like the sound of a distorted electric guitar, just that if I were looking for a cool new sound I think I'd be happier finding it in an acoustic instrument. This is where things like Ellen Fullman's long string instrument enter. To me, at this point in time, this has more appeal than getting a modelling device and dialing in "Jimmy Page" or "EVH" or whatever.

 

At least in the world of bass guitar there are a couple of guys trying to make a name for themselves by being "firsts". The first guy to play 10-string bass. Then 12-string. (Supposedly 13 is in the works, but 14 is beyond the limits of what can be done.) These aren't doubled strings like a 12-string guitar; these are 12 separate strings. The idea appeals to me, but I don't care for the attitude that if I were to start playing one of these instruments I would be intruding on someone else's turf. (The harp guitar guys seem to be better at sharing their sandbox. )

 

In short, it is increasingly hard IMO to be unique and noticed. If you sound exactly like EVH or SRV that's only news if you're a young child, like 5, and then you're a child protege. Maybe a gimmick like a guitar/drums duo a la White Stripes can put you on the map ... at least for a time. (Is Jack White a virtuoso or just a great marketing product?)

 

Part of the problem is recorded music. Musicians are finally being made to compete with an ever-growing library of great recordings. Recordings that can be quite polished in the studio. It's similar to how photography changed painting and drawing. I wouldn't think too many artists make their living comissioning oil-on-canvas portraits anymore.

 

In terms of the virtuoso guitarist, I like Griff's take, that the musician and instrument become so close that there are no limits between the music in the mind and what comes out of the instrument. Of course that also means there's some exciting music going on above the shoulders, too. I'm perfectly fine if that music comes from a previously recorded virtuoso, a transcription, or a new improvisation/composition. Then, too, the guy that can cop Jimi Hendrix exactly would be exciting to hear, but the one that can do Jimi and pick up compositionally where he left off ... that I'd definitely want to hear. (No, Lenny doesn't quite do it for me.)

 

Anyway, yeah, a virtuoso is just someone that can play the crap outta their instrument. Is being a virtuoso necessary or sufficient to becoming a popular musician? Probably only in the realm of classical music, not pop.

 

Also, IMO pop music as a whole has been stuck in a holding pattern for a while, even trying to bring back old styles in a desperate attempt to find that new sound. That sound that puts rock out to pasture with jazz and Sousa marches. Electric guitar was instrumental in rock's rise. Will it become less important when rock fades away to the new sound?

[Quixotica]

I've always though of virtuosity in terms of technical skill, rather than artistic expression. As such, it is more of an objective standard. That's why I would probably agree with anyone who called Petrucci, Malmsteen, or Vai virtuosos even though I don't particularly care for their music. In contrast, few people would probably call Dave Grohl a virtuoso player, but I loved that first Foo Fighters disk.

 

I don't think that virtuosity is necessary for good music, but it can be a problem if an artist is limited by his lack of technical skill.

[revolead]

Like many things in this world, it is very easy to take the subjective cop-out on the definition of what is or what is not a virtuoso. However, I don't think Griff asked us what that is. We all have our opinions about particular players, but no one has really offered a definition. After three pages of posts, no one has really identified anything, so here goes.

 

The word virtuoso comes, like many things in music, from the Italian for "scholar, connoisseur." In it's adjective form, the word means "skilled, learned, of exceptional worth." Both words did not even originate as words of music until 1743, when they first described a musician of such caliber.

 

As for present day, I do not think the definition has changed. Certainly, according to that definition, I am no virtuoso, the Edge is no virtuoso, and many other "mediocre but I like their music" players are not virtuosi. Argue all you will, but one cannot change the meaning of a word to elevate their favorite guitarist to legendary status.

 

The only part of the above definition that could even be debated would be "of exceptional worth," where one may or may not choose to place their favorite player into such a category. However, I do not believe that in this instance, exceptional worth means respected by a substantial majority of people, but rather, it is an objective standard for what is or is not a fantastic, above the ordinary player. I.E., Yngwie Malmsteen, as much as we all dislike the man, certainly is a virtuoso. As much as I like Robert Cray, I'm not sure I could place him in the same category. Maybe a master of his genre, but of his instrument, I'm not so sure.

 

However, in a modern society, where men are judged by glory and popular opinion, it is easy to place certain individuals above others rather than by actual talent. I'm not knocking anyone's favorite guitarist here, but let's be honest: most people on this forum would rather attend a Robert Cray concert while doing a handstand for hours on end than hear two minutes of Yngwie or Petrucci or anyone else. Does it make Cray a virtuoso? No. It simply means he has won the crowd and as such, he has the glory and the respect. But I would rather take a guitar lesson from a true virtuoso, i.e. "a scholar" such as Petrucci, than from Cray any day of the week.