GuitarBizarre debates virtuosity

R

rexic1

New member
Inspired by a debate in another thread about 'virtuosity vs songwriting'.

Now bear with me here, this could go one of two ways. Either I piss off a lot of people, or nobody cares. I'm hoping for the first.

Firstly: EVERYTHING that can be done on an instrument has musical, emotional, and artistic value. and by everything, I mean EVERYTHING. Burning it, smashing it, playing it with bows, hammers, sticks, fingers, Playing the same chord for 3 years EVERYTHING.


Now, a lot of you are probably thinking one of 2 things right now. The first is that I'm a pretentious ****, in which case I take your views onboard and completely ignore them. The second viewpoint is more interesting, and its probably some variation on 'Well yeah, different sounRAB/things are cool!', so, I add another element to that mix. Extremely difficult playing. By the logic presented above, its another sound, another technique. It has value equal to that of any other technique.

But then again...a lot of music has the 'DIY ethic'. Thats cool too. I like a lot of it.

A lot of other music has the 'let the computer do it' ethic, particularly in trance or techno styles of music. Thats cool too. Unless you're the kind of total **** who thinks anything reproduced by a computer has no soul.

Now, both of the things I just mentioned have pretty big audiences. Punk and techno are HUGE.

But music with a great deal of virtuosity generally isn't. Why?

And there lies the crux of this thread. I believe virtuosity is no less valid than ANY other musical theory, ethic or idea. Its lack of mainstream acceptance is largely cultural in my opinion, since the DIY ethic is strong in rock music, and virtuosity has largely fallen by the wayside in favour of songs that are easy to sing or hum along to, rather than songs intended to convey emotion, setting, circumstance, or philosophy.

And I'm challenging anyone who wants to debate with me, to try and raise a valid argument or example for virtuosity being ANY less of a valid tool than any other. I know a lot of people will see a lot of different sides to this. I know I'm going to get replies that say 'virtuosity isn't the problem, is excessive virtuosity'. Those replies are fine. But I want you to QUALIFY what you think. I want to know how much virtuosity is too much and WHY. I want answers, reasons, theories, DEBATE.

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: Vibrasphere - Forever Imaginary
via FoxyTunes

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: Ozric Tentacles - White Rhino Tea
via FoxyTunes
 
Well, based on what I hear from people around me, read, etc, I don't think it's so much that virtuosity isn't thought of as a valid music theory in critical circles, it's that the rather small minority of mainstream audiences who actually care and pay attention to other people in a band besides the vocalist don't really know a virtuoso when they hear one. I mean, why else will people say things like "Man, Fall Out Boy has the best guitarist I've ever listened to, etc" unless they simply don't know it when they hear it, or, hell, never have heard someone play who is a master at their instrument?

On the other had, its not as if there wasn't a time when instrumental virtuosity and interplay wasn't the norm for the vast majority of listeners. How else can you explain prog. rock's massive popularity with a fairly diverse radio-listening audience back in the early-mid 70's? Yet, because virtuosity isn't something that today's majority of music consumers look for, the issue of when/where it becomes too much doesn't make for much of a discussion in today's world unless you are a musician yourself or someone who seeks out that kind of debate.
 
I was more referring to the kind of people who troll youtube comments posting 'omg no feeling' on videos that are obviously just technical demonstrations, and then throw out a bunch of blues players as if the slow blues bend is the upper limit of acceptable technique. Them, and the kind of people on rabroad itself who create endless angst over any music that errs on the side of technical proficiency by insisting it has no soul.

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: Ayumi Hamasaki - Never Ever [Eurobeat Mix]
via FoxyTunes
 
I don't think anyone's out to kill off the 70's really guitarman, there is a huge progressive rock/metal/etc following on here that would chime in; a lot of my favourite recorRAB of certain genres would not be the same without the supreme skills of the artists - Frank Zappa, King Crimson albums, rah rah, not to mention hundreRAB of others that don't involve widdly solos or indeed guitars.

I think musicians and people that work in guitar shops (god help them) listen to music in a different light anyway, they aren't capable of understanding things I might believe to be inspired and vice versa. I'm not going to try and change their minRAB either.

Virtuosity I think (in a broad sense) has it's place in those continuums of classical and jazz. Classical>>prog>>metal. However virtuosity has no place in, to use your example, techno, the aims, performance aesthetics and outlook of which are completely removed from that tradition. i.e. there are rarely multiple performers and there are no solos. One I almost left out is hip-hop - turntablism - youtube that and what you'll see I think you will agree is virtuoso stuff.
 
I've often catch myself wondering if it's more of a problem with limiting yourself to what you can and can't do. As a guitarist myself I sometimes find myself frustrated with my own limitations while writing a song. Trying to find the right chorRAB to fit in with the right scale, making sure it all fits into the right key can sometimes be a very oppressing process. Music theory by in large is a confusing but necessary thing to learn, however I've seen a growing nuraber of musicians just learning how to read tab and the very basics of theory (the I,IV,V chorRAB and whatnot).
 
You could say so, but the Young Punx have recently toured with Guthrie Govan as their Guitar man, and they are nothing if not an electronic act. There are also plenty of Ayu-Trance tracks with guitarwork in them of at the very least a reasonable performance standard. Adding virtuosity to such works is certainly possible, its just very rarely done.

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: Mazedude - Earthbound See Sixty Funk OC ReMix
via FoxyTunes
 
truesay, Infected Mushroom are a psytrance (dont know it we mean the same guys?) act that incorporate guitars really seamlessly, they obviously know what they're doing too, but I was really speaking broadly.

I wouldn't play down musical talent, I know someone who is one of those naturals, just seems to have the whole thing mapped out in his head, sees everything in diminished eighths or whatever but equally... Gang of Four changed his life! I've got the before/after audio evidence, just because you can doesn't follow that you should. Yet again it all just comes down to subjective taste. Personally my favourite artists inhabit that middle ground, they know enough theory to be able to subvert expectations but don't ... show off (
 
Your point about can and should depenRAB on musical context. Germanic tradition says we should NEVER compose music that moves in parallel fifths, yet some of the earliest recorded music from the western world is plainsongs and chants that do exactly that. You can do anything in a valid context. Popular music might not be that context, but experimental music and art music most certainly could be.

For the same reasons, a song comprised entirely of silence would have a lot of people claiming it isn't music. Yet John Cage argues that the only thing we can truly say is not music, is that which lacks a defined structure. Take structure away from any sound and it is not music. Give it even a basic structure and it becomes music.
 
I'm sure you've already read it but if not I would totally recommend the book "This Is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel J. Levitin. It really delves deeply into this debate actually.
 
I listen to jazz a good bit and I'm fairly aware that most of what I listen to falls under the "virtuosity" urabrella. What I find to be repulsive is this cheesy pseudo-progressive metal that supports shitheaRAB like Malmsteen, Batio, and all those other idiots that get a hard on from seeing how fast they can play without regard to what they're playing.
 
I guess it's all about content for me. If there are a lot of notes then they damn well better be saying something. John Coltrane is a good example of one of the only true masters of playing lots and lots of notes, most of which sound like they have a real point to me (I'm mostly referring to the middle part of his career where the free thing and the form started to mix together). I guess what happens to a lot of musicians is that the things they can play very very fast/ cleanly are things that are ingrained in their muscle memory and therefore aren't necessarily anything that they really thought out, just something they've practiced a lot. Usually when a musician gets to a higher tempo or a smaller subdivision, they have to resort to the things they know rather than really developing their ideas to their full potential. To me this is not really the definition of virtuosity but a lot of listeners will mistake someone who is super technically proficient for a virtuoso. As far as I'm concerned, more often than not, someone playing A LOT really sounRAB like they are playing nothing to me. Content. That's what it's all about in my mind.

As an afterthought, I think a virtuoso is someone that can make one note more impressive than a thousand and then as soon as you're used to that, they can melt your face with a blistering run, bursting with inspiration.
 
I personally wouldn't say that virtuosity is any less valid but the majority of people just don't like it. There has to be a line when music is played for the sake of it that crosses my own criteria for listening. This can be any musical genre whether it's Jazz, Rock or vocal operatic virtuosity. They may well be technically brilliant but it's not what I want to hear. Maybe if I was a musician they I may look at it differently but I have held this stance since first hearing Malmsteem in 1986 and being a rock fan too. Sometimes I can barely tolerate EVH's soloing because it's sonically far too busy. I think for the same as say Mastodon's music, the drum tracks are far too busy and I consider them superfluous and they detract from the music.
 
Back
Top