Is they're such a tihng as a "Virtuso"


PDA

View Full Version : Is they're such a tihng as a "Virtuso"


cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:19 PM
My friend will not belive theyre is a thing as virtuso-nes as he says its impossible to master an insturment, then he compared becker to cobain, please help me get it into him?

Do you think it is possible to be a virtuso? silly question i know, but i firmly belive it I.E Holdsworth and govan

Lets talk

metal_man12
04-16-2006, 05:27 PM
i think the definition of virtuoso is someone who has gained a certain level of technical abililty(which is entirely based on opinion) on an instrument, thing, etc, not that they have mastered the instrument. so yes, i beleive alot of players are virtuosos.

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:30 PM
i think the definition of virtuoso is someone who has gained a certain level of technical abililty(which is entirely based on opinion) on an instrument, thing, etc, not that they have mastered the instrument. so yes, i beleive alot of players are virtuosos.


..technical ability cannot be measured in opinion, its fact. How much you like the artist and how they play and how well you tihnk they use it is opinion.

SnowballofDoom
04-16-2006, 05:30 PM
I don't think it's possible to master an instrument, and I certainly don't think virtuosity is mastery of an instrument.

Maybe some have come closer to mastery than others, but I don't think that should be a literal goal for any musician. A guitar virtuoso, to me, is one who's highly competent in all areas of guitar playing (though not necessarily speed), not one who's mastered every area of guitar playing.

Interesting question though..

EV6
04-16-2006, 05:33 PM
yes of course there is such thing as being virtuoso. but you can prolly count all of the virtuosos in the world on your hands. Steve Vai for one is definetly virtuoso.

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:34 PM
I tihnk it is possible, think about it, it is possible to learn and be able to play everything theyre is on guitar no? study the theroy, study all the styles learn to play in the styles and write in the styles, theyre is a limit to the amount of techniques and theroy of the instrument no?

EV6
04-16-2006, 05:35 PM
but anyone who openly admits their virtuoso will get thrashed on and people say their arrogant. so its probably better not to be virtuoso. lol :headbang:

EV6
04-16-2006, 05:37 PM
for example, IM VIRTUOSO!!!!!!!!!!! :) :) :) :) :headbang: :) :) :) :)

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:37 PM
but anyone who openly admits their virtuoso will get thrashed on and people say their arrogant. so its probably better not to be virtuoso. lol :headbang:


True dat, but i dont think anyone would admit to being a virtuso, people think they are however...

I.e yngwie and our favorite person here, The great kat.

But according to my mate you have to learn every song possible to be a virtuso, but if you learn sometihg like Road Games, would you need to learn smells like teen spirit?

metal_man12
04-16-2006, 05:37 PM
..technical ability cannot be measured in opinion, its fact. How much you like the artist and how they play and how well you tihnk they use it is opinion.

yea, your right, but wat i meant was the amount of technical ability you need in order to be considered a virtuoso.

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:38 PM
yea, your right, but wat i meant was the amount of technical ability you need in order to be considered a virtuoso.


Oh my bad, i think to me considered you would have to learn everything

EV6
04-16-2006, 05:40 PM
ok im not virtuoso lol. and yeah youre right. if you can play.....for example....arpeggios from hell by yngwie, there is no need to learn smells like teem spirit. because, when you can play arpeggios from hell, everyone and their mother knows that you can play smells like teen spirit.

metal_man12
04-16-2006, 05:42 PM
or maybe everything in a genre... like michael angelo, id consider him a virtuoso, hes mastered many techniques in rock context, so you could call him a rock virtuoso...

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:44 PM
Yeah i;ve fallen out with 3 people because of this subject aswell

the first person i told him that dimebag wasant a virtuso.
Second i told him that herman li and dimebag werent
Third because he wont listen to me that i think there is a possible thing

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 05:45 PM
from webster
1 : an experimenter or investigator especially in the arts and sciences : SAVANT
2 : one skilled in or having a taste for the fine arts
3 : one who excels in the technique of an art; especially : a highly skilled musical performer (as on the violin)
4 : a person who has great skill at some endeavor

I'd say 1-3 is possible. IMO a virtuoso is someone with great/vast technical skill/knowledge. Of course how this is measure is opinon but we can certainly tell the level of difficulty between lets say 2 power chords and a full on arranged orcestral concerto with variety of licks.

EV6
04-16-2006, 05:46 PM
or maybe everything in a genre... like michael angelo, id consider him a virtuoso, hes mastered many techniques in rock context, so you could call him a rock virtuoso...
this is very very true. i couldnt have put it better myself. micheal angelo batio is definetely a rock virtuoso. some guitar players are virtuosos in many different genres ie.yngwie (classical, rock, and metal)

AngilasGuy
04-16-2006, 05:46 PM
True dat, but i dont think anyone would admit to being a virtuso, people think they are however...

I.e yngwie and our favorite person here, The great kat.

But according to my mate you have to learn every song possible to be a virtuso, but if you learn sometihg like Road Games, would you need to learn smells like teen spirit?

Yngwie, I think, was never a virtuoso, I don't think he could play in any style he chose. Although when it comes to technique with what HE does, then thats virtuosity in his own category, if that makes sense. Joe and Vai are definite virtuosos, I honestly think they could play ANY style, and well.

And ew... Great Kat... She's no virtuoso, am I the only one who thinks shes sloppy? The notes sound jangly and mushed together. But she apparently thinks she's the best thing since sliced bread. What a douchebag.

SnowballofDoom
04-16-2006, 05:48 PM
I tihnk it is possible, think about it, it is possible to learn and be able to play everything theyre is on guitar no? study the theroy, study all the styles learn to play in the styles and write in the styles, theyre is a limit to the amount of techniques and theroy of the instrument no?

No.

There has never been a limit, and there never will be a limit. And for that reason, virtuosity is not a club you gain access to when you reach a certain level of proficiency.

Virtuosity is subjective.

Imo*

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 05:48 PM
And ew... Great Kat... She's no virtuoso, am I the only one who thinks shes sloppy? The notes sound jangly and mushed together. But she apparently thinks she's the best thing since sliced bread. What a douchebag.

no your not alone. she maeks bastardized version of once great classical pieces. At least Malmsteen does them some justice.

plsu her arrogance makes YNgwie seem like mother Theresa

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:49 PM
Yngwie, I think, was never a virtuoso, I don't think he could play in any style he chose. Although when it comes to technique with what HE does, then thats virtuosity in his own category, if that makes sense. Joe and Vai are definite virtuosos, I honestly think they could play ANY style, and well.

And ew... Great Kat... She's no virtuoso, am I the only one who thinks shes sloppy? The notes sound jangly and mushed together. But she apparently thinks she's the best thing since sliced bread. What a douchebag.

Im not saying they are, but the great kat seems to reckon she is amazing, i dont like her

cliff_em_all
04-16-2006, 05:50 PM
No.

There has never been a limit, and there never will be a limit. And for that reason, virtuosity is not a club you gain access to when you reach a certain level of proficiency.

Virtuosity is subjective.

Imo*


Touché and loving the IMO bit on the end isnt it weird virtusoty although it should be based on technique is based on opinion?

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 05:51 PM
^everything in music is abotu opnion.

splice
04-16-2006, 05:52 PM
yes

EV6
04-16-2006, 05:53 PM
nay, i believe yngwie is virtuoso. he can play classical very very very well, rock very very very well. metal very very very well. and yes, i have seen a few videos of yngwie playing blues very very very well. your right about vai and satch. theyre just probably the most perfect guitar players to live. i bet they wipe their asses with silk.



EDIT: they probably get their asses wiped with silk for them by hot sex servants that voulenteer for it lol.

SnowballofDoom
04-16-2006, 05:53 PM
Touché and loving the IMO bit on the end isnt it weird virtusoty although it should be based on technique is based on opinion?

Yeah, it definitely would make things easier for us :p:

Arguing virtuosity, to me, is like arguing over who the best guitarist is -- you can make some good points, but you'll never convince everyone.

mercedesisbenz
04-16-2006, 06:04 PM
from dictionary.com, interpret it yourself.

virtuoso - A musician with masterly ability, technique, or personal style.

the Great Kat is in no way a virtuoso, she transcribes pieces from the violin then shoves them down your throat on guitar. And either way, all she shows us is that she can shred which certainly doesn't come in under masterly ability, since that's only one technique used on the instrument. I don't believe Yngwie has achieved virtuosity either, for many of the same reasons. The 3 people that really come to mind for me are Joe Satriani, Eric Johnson, and Steve Vai. Also, I'll probably be flamed for saying this, but David Gilmour I believe is near the status of virtuoso as well.

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 06:06 PM
^ except yngwie doesnt make bastardized versions of classical pieces and atcually makes his own classical creations which IMO are up to par with alot of Baroque songs.

mercedesisbenz
04-16-2006, 06:08 PM
^^ you bring a valid point, but he doesn't compose the entire orchestral pieces the way chopin, mozart, etc. did in thier era.

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 06:10 PM
^ true but thats why i said up to par. The average onesand the little above average , not the superb ones. But ge has some exception in his Guitar Suite cd like Andante and Fugue IMO.

TheUltimateSin
04-16-2006, 06:25 PM
You know....while were on the subject of the Great Douche(er...Kat, if you prefer)....does she(or it) even have any fans? I mean, every single person I have ever met has hated her guts and believes she sucks. Does she just pretend to have fans or something? Does it go with her arrogance? her suckyness? Anything?

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 06:26 PM
^ im pretty sure there someone with no ears that is a fan

mercedesisbenz
04-16-2006, 06:27 PM
I think she has a small fanbase, but to me it looks like its the media that likes her controversial style, and we're basically doing exactly what they want us to by talking about her.

perpetual shred
04-16-2006, 06:42 PM
i would say guthrie govan is the nearest guy to have mastererd his instrument.... ever really, to my knowledge anways. i would say vai was a virtuoso not satch or malmsteen although they are freakin amazing at the styles they play. like other people have said its down to personal opinion. vai's probably took the guitar "the furthest tho" in my opinion.
oh.. an the great kat sux, why would you call yourself great, sadistic bitch.

TheUltimateSin
04-16-2006, 07:15 PM
I think she has a small fanbase, but to me it looks like its the media that likes her controversial style, and we're basically doing exactly what they want us to by talking about her.

I know that much. But what I mean is like, I've never heard anyone ever say "so are you getting the new Great Kat album? It's awesome!", or anything like that. It's always "Pff, Kat sucks"(and rightfully so) or varients of that. I just find it amusing.

PooKoo
04-16-2006, 07:22 PM
Paganini was a virtuouso.

I win, wheres my cookie?

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 07:23 PM
Paganini was a virtuouso.

I win, wheres my cookie?
Im sorry all we have are muffins....

PooKoo
04-16-2006, 07:24 PM
...

blueberry muffins?

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 07:25 PM
no. Peacans

PooKoo
04-16-2006, 07:28 PM
ewwwww..

and if you're a shredding mexican, wouldn't it be easier to just cvall yourself a shrexican?
lol!

sorry, im just freaked out cause of satch in less then 24 hours now.

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 07:30 PM
...you know i've never thought of it that way......



Im seeing satch also ,on the 29th yays

PooKoo
04-16-2006, 07:33 PM
yayyy

apocalypse13
04-16-2006, 07:58 PM
Snow put it good.

Most people we discuss in this forum are virtuosos. I know he's not the best, nor his he the best example of a virtuoso but I always think of Yngwie when I hear the word virtuoso. I don't know why, but I do.

Petrucci is a very good example of a virtuoso if you ask me.

Gman400
04-16-2006, 08:02 PM
I'd have to say Malmsteen is a virtuoso, though probly not as much as Vai. I think this because he grew up with both classical and rock and plays both of them incredibly. Also when I saw him live he did a great blues song, it must've been his own because he added in a couple shred runs in the blues scale here and there and I have to say it''s probly the coolest thing I've heard him do (he sung to lol.)

Anyway, a virtuoso to me is somebody who can play anything that they want to. Like...if they wanna make a statement on the guitar then they can you know? Like they can get the exact sound they want, and also they can play any song they want by listening to it.

And I think there is a measure of certain technical proficiency. I mean boviously playign a classical guitar is differen t thatn shredding a million notes a second but you can be like "Okay look at what I can do, can you do that?" and if they can't then they're not as good at that certain technique.

Axegrinder#9
04-16-2006, 11:03 PM
there is no such thing as a "virtuso" although I've heard of the term "virtuoso" and I can't be bothered to elucidate further than that.

and for whoever said that Yngwie was not a virtuoso, well... I suggest you .. you know...

NevermorePsalm
04-16-2006, 11:13 PM
Ehh, i don't think Yngwie is a virtuoso either. He can play his style, and that's about it. I think virtuosity is being able to hold your own in all styles of playing, not being held in by the non existent limits (pointed out by snow) I'd say the most virtuostic player of late are Vai, Satch, GG, and maybe Lane. Gambale also, but most people might dispute that.

apocalypse13
04-16-2006, 11:16 PM
I think of Yngwie as a virtuoso, just there are better examples IMO.

I think if you put it the way NevermorePsalm put it, Friedman, Thal, and IA ought to be included. Quite versatile players.

NevermorePsalm
04-16-2006, 11:25 PM
I don't think of Thal or IA as virtuosos. I love their playing, but they have a rather set, quirky style. Friedman would be close though.

Axegrinder#9
04-16-2006, 11:30 PM
well I think virtusoity parallels closely with technical ability as opposed to being able to musically express yourself and flash out on different musical planes - I'd consider Yngwie a virtuoso 'cos I feel that if somebody randomly took out a part from say Vai's "Fire Garden Suite" I have faith that Yngwie would be able to play that and vice versa for Vai and a random Yngwie song... after that you had people like Shawn Lane who was a super-virtuoso, there are a very few guitarists who I consider untouchable in terms of technique, and I know that no matter how hard I try I'll probably never get as good as Shawn Lane or as clean Michael Angelo, but then even somewhere close to that will be good enough...

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 11:31 PM
Ehh, i don't think Yngwie is a virtuoso either. He can play his style, and that's about it. I think virtuosity is being able to hold your own in all styles of playing, not being held in by the non existent limits (pointed out by snow)
in concert thats a whoel differnt story.he just enjpys the classical styel more for albums

splice
04-16-2006, 11:33 PM
my teacher was in a few guitar mags.....one of them used the word virtuosity in describing one of his albums.....so yeah....u aint gotta be some big name to be a virtuoso

mexican_shred
04-16-2006, 11:34 PM
^ true, In my eyes my teacher is a virtuoso. He can play tons of styles very skillfully. And knows a ton about each like the techinique, the theory etc.

AngilasGuy
04-17-2006, 01:26 AM
You know....while were on the subject of the Great Douche(er...Kat, if you prefer)....does she(or it) even have any fans? I mean, every single person I have ever met has hated her guts and believes she sucks. Does she just pretend to have fans or something? Does it go with her arrogance? her suckyness? Anything?

Some fetishists are attracted insane gross bone thin loud women. Throughout the U.S. there's probably... like... around 20 total, that like her. I love it how whenever someone brings her up, we all go on and on about how much she sucks :p
I can't stand that woman, I'd rather masturbate to a moose on fire being shot with a nailgun than a poster of her. God what an awful awful ugly sloppy egotistical person.

And again with Yngwie, eeh, well I mean I love the guy, but he's sort of stuck in his own world, playing wise, I mean yea that's his style, but if he woke up one day next to his trophy wife and was like "hey man, I want to play some funky Satriani stuff," I don't think he could pull it off.

Virtuosity is to never be limited, ever. I mean I think Satriani or Steve Vai could play with their toes, tongue, ****, eyebrows, whatever you name it, I seriously can't really think it's possible they could get technically better.

Gman400
04-17-2006, 01:41 AM
Am I the only one who doesnt like Satriani? I mean I know he's awesome but....there's something about him/his playing/his attitude. Plus my dad's friend worked for him and he ****in hated the guy cause he was such an ass to him.

splice
04-17-2006, 01:45 AM
Am I the only one who doesnt like Satriani? I mean I know he's awesome but....there's something about him/his playing/his attitude. Plus my dad's friend worked for him and he ****in hated the guy cause he was such an ass to him.

u dont like satch??whatd ur dads friend work with him doing?

Night_Lights
04-17-2006, 03:43 AM
Am I the only one who doesnt like Satriani? I mean I know he's awesome but....there's something about him/his playing/his attitude. Plus my dad's friend worked for him and he ****in hated the guy cause he was such an ass to him.


are you sure you arnt confused with the other 26 Satrianis in this universe?

Evil_Empire24-7
04-17-2006, 03:54 AM
Jimi Hendrix is a virtuoso

Stratwizard
04-17-2006, 04:02 AM
Vai is probably the closest thing to virtuoso. In the matter of technique he's untouchable. He also composes the way that only few guitarists come close to his level.

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 05:45 AM
But according to my mate you have to learn every song possible to be a virtuso, but if you learn sometihg like Road Games, would you need to learn smells like teen spirit?

Not to learn, but to write. ^_^

And on another note, Django is a virtuoso if you ask me, altough he hasn't got chops like Holdsworth or something. So technique for a virtuoso isn't exactly a must have, but most of them have it.

And NevermorePsalm, what the hell have you smoked? Calling Satriani a virtuoso and Lane "maybe".

Hell, I can't Satriani, sure he was one of the first (if not the first) instrumental rock guitarist, but he's getting lamer (lol is that a word) with every album he makes.

My list

A few non-virtuosos

JOE SATRIANI
JASON BECKER
MARTY FRIEDMAN
Buckethead
MAB
Cooley
Paul Gilbert

A few virtuosos

Oscar Peterson
Shawn Lane
Mike Stern
Guthrie Govan maybe, have to wait for his solo album for the "final decision" though.
Yngwie Malmsteen of course
Steve Vai, meh
Richard Hallebeek
Allan Holdsworth
Al Di Meola
Django Reinhardt
Béla Fleck

The guys even beeeyond virtuoso level

Xia Jang (Head harp player from the Sjanghai Orchestra)
Srinivas
Michel Petrucciani
Bireli Lagrene
Stanley Jordan

ILoveHarmonics
04-17-2006, 06:00 AM
Endless discussion. It depends on what the word virtuoso means to YOU.
For some people a virtuoso is someone who plays far above average level in technical terms and to others it's someone who plays solo's longer than 10 seconds. To me someone is a virtuoso if it takes several years of consistent practising to get to that level (including ears and theory) and not just owning a guitar for some years. For me all the people MoS posted are virtuoso's because I think they are incomparable with regular players on just technical ability already.

Hammett88
04-17-2006, 06:15 AM
Satriani isn't a virtuoso? I don't see how, and Becker not a virtuoso? I thought virtuosity is "measured" by technical abilities, and these guy have ****loads of it..

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 06:16 AM
That might but if you "compare" their technique to Xia Jang's for an example or Srinivas' they are pretty much nothing.

Stratwizard
04-17-2006, 06:19 AM
Satriani isn't a virtuoso? I don't see how, and Becker not a virtuoso? I thought virtuosity is "measured" by technical abilities, and these guy have ****loads of it..

Satriani is a wanker, that's why he's not a virtuoso. Becker is pretty good though.

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 06:21 AM
^Still not virtuoso level.

His 'godly' sweeps are pretty much as predictable as a hammett solo.

Stratwizard
04-17-2006, 06:22 AM
Umm... okay. Why are Xia Jang and Petrucciani on that list? They're not even guitarists.

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 06:25 AM
Neither are Oscar Peterson, Béla Fleck and Srivinas.

They're virtuosos though :D

Hammett88
04-17-2006, 06:33 AM
MOS, you said something about predictability, what do you mean?

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 06:36 AM
^If you know your 'theory' about sweep picking you will know what I mean.

So I suggest you should start with a bit theory now ;)

Paganini was a virtuouso.

I win, wheres my cookie?

How do you know that so sure? ;)

mr_clapton
04-17-2006, 06:37 AM
you ever heard a becker solo without a sweep?

Hammett88
04-17-2006, 06:37 AM
So you mean like a predictable pattern I assume..

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 06:41 AM
So you mean like a predictable pattern I assume..

Yeah pretty much.

Ohshi I forgot Charlie Parker on my list :sad:

Hammett88
04-17-2006, 06:47 AM
Being predictable has to do with creativity more than just control over the instrument, in that case I can say Led-Zeppelin(sorry if I spelled them wrong) are virtuosos because they could write great songs.

mr_clapton
04-17-2006, 06:49 AM
scuse me if i am wrong but i heard page ripped off many riff from american blues players - sorry if that is completely wrong, john paul jones was the talented member...

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 07:02 AM
Being predictable has to do with creativity more than just control over the instrument, in that case I can say Led-Zeppelin(sorry if I spelled them wrong) are virtuosos because they could write great songs.

Speaking of sophism :o

cliff_em_all
04-17-2006, 07:13 AM
you ever heard a becker solo without a sweep?


....touché :p:

I love that word.

Looks like ive started an endless discussion... :p:

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 07:23 AM
haha yeah, and learn how to spell :p:

cliff_em_all
04-17-2006, 07:24 AM
haha yeah, and learn how to spell :p:



:p:, dick.

I can spell im tired, im only on UG really early or late at night

Hammett88
04-17-2006, 07:25 AM
MOS, I can see that you are trying to look all cool and cocky in the shred forum but that doesn't mean you need to start looking up big words in the dictionary. If you don't think my statement is valid you could say why and not be a conceded dick about it.

cliff_em_all
04-17-2006, 07:27 AM
MOS, I can see that you are trying to look all cool and cocky in the shred forum but that doesn't mean you need to start looking up big words in the dictionary. If you don't think my statement is valid you could say why and not be a conceded dick about it.


:haha, MOS is always like this, he's either using big words or eating Mcchicken sandwhiches.

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 07:42 AM
:haha, MOS is always like this, he's either using big words or eating Mcchicken sandwhiches.

Or buying new gear ^_^

Anyways, Hammett88, get it, I AM COOl.

lol, na just kidding, I guess all dutch are like that, if a dutch got a problem with something/someone he'll tell you right away like he feels it, not in the most polite way at times.

Altough I have to say that it's a bit more extreme in my family than it is in other dutch familys, I get to hear every day that I haven't shaved myself that I look like a tramp... ah well.

Anyways, on topic: Writing good songs/creativity is just one part of virtuosity, and you could have known yourself that LedZep ain't virtuoso musicians :rolleyes:

cliff_em_all
04-17-2006, 07:50 AM
Shut-up and go shave, you look like a tramp :p:.

You crazy dutch

Resiliance
04-17-2006, 08:08 AM
This is getting so damn old.


Who gives a flying ****?

ILoveHarmonics
04-17-2006, 08:51 AM
What was the big word? Sophism or theory?

pavan
04-17-2006, 09:21 AM
MOS, I can see that you are trying to look all cool and cocky in the shred forum

..

Prophet of Page
04-17-2006, 09:45 AM
If you can play everything you could care to play cleanly, then you're enough of a virtuoso for me.

TheUltimateSin
04-17-2006, 11:42 AM
MOS, I can see that you are trying to look all cool and cocky in the shred forum but that doesn't mean you need to start looking up big words in the dictionary. If you don't think my statement is valid you could say why and not be a conceded dick about it.


....Dude....just..no...just no....

Matt_Malmsteen
04-17-2006, 12:33 PM
This is silly, who is a virtuso is down to opinion.

Axegrinder#9
04-17-2006, 12:45 PM
I think somebody needs to come up with a good argument that points out that virtuosity is NOT a matter of opinion. Virtuosity is not subjective. And technical mastery of the instrument runs parallel to being a virtuoso. Maybe I'll write a good philosophical argument elucidating this.

Matt_Malmsteen
04-17-2006, 12:51 PM
^^Lol..I don't think anyone can because you can be a virtuso in terms of your type of music i.e. you could say Gary Moore is virtuso in terms of his blues playing, which he is but compare him to say Vai in terms of technique etc and Vai pwns him, so really it depends on the type of music considered and person preference.

NevermorePsalm
04-17-2006, 02:02 PM
Not to learn, but to write. ^_^

And on another note, Django is a virtuoso if you ask me, altough he hasn't got chops like Holdsworth or something. So technique for a virtuoso isn't exactly a must have, but most of them have it.

And NevermorePsalm, what the hell have you smoked? Calling Satriani a virtuoso and Lane "maybe".

Hell, I can't Satriani, sure he was one of the first (if not the first) instrumental rock guitarist, but he's getting lamer (lol is that a word) with every album he makes.

My list

A few non-virtuosos

JOE SATRIANI
JASON BECKER
MARTY FRIEDMAN
Buckethead
MAB
Cooley
Paul Gilbert

A few virtuosos

Oscar Peterson
Shawn Lane
Mike Stern
Guthrie Govan maybe, have to wait for his solo album for the "final decision" though.
Yngwie Malmsteen of course
Steve Vai, meh
Richard Hallebeek
Allan Holdsworth
Al Di Meola
Django Reinhardt
Béla Fleck

The guys even beeeyond virtuoso level

Xia Jang (Head harp player from the Sjanghai Orchestra)
Srinivas
Michel Petrucciani
Bireli Lagrene
Stanley Jordan

I can't believe I said Lane was maybe a virtuoso. That was bad. Cause I know Lane's a virtuoso. Maybe I meant it the other way around, Satch maybe and Lane hell yeah... I dono...im hoping it was a slip of the fingers. :( And really, Stanley Jordan? I like him, but Im not sure beyond. I'd say in the virtuoso category for sure, but? Bireli is great though. I can't say that I've heard of the other three there, but Srinivas sounds familiar.

PooKoo
04-17-2006, 02:08 PM
wheres michel petrucciani from? ive heard of him somewhere. (probably from mos)

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 02:09 PM
Jordan is quite amazing, the godfather is touchstyle.

Bireli pretty much is django, only the "more technical version"(please Resi, don't quote me on that ;) )

And the other three, well, Srinivas is pretty much the god of mandolin(from India, pavan and axe ;) ) , Jang from harp and Petrucciani is an amazing jazz pianist.

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 02:10 PM
wheres michel petrucciani from? ive heard of him somewhere. (probably from mos)

And when did you created the illusion that paganini was a virtuoso? :p:

NevermorePsalm
04-17-2006, 02:14 PM
Jordan is quite amazing, the godfather is touchstyle.

Bireli pretty much is django, only the "more technical version"(please Resi, don't quote me on that ;) )

And the other three, well, Srinivas is pretty much the god of mandolin(from India, pavan and axe ;) ) , Jang from harp and Petrucciani is an amazing jazz pianist.


I love Bireli, no doubt, as do I love Jordan, it's just you know, I hate his tone. :p: I don't know he is quite a good player. And that's probably why I recall Srinivas, because I did a bit of research on Indian musicians. And I may have seen a vid of Petrucciani from either you or resi.

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 02:16 PM
Yeah, well the tone part is true I guess, but on the other hand, if you play touchstyle with **** loads of fx....

PooKoo
04-17-2006, 02:17 PM
And when did you created the illusion that paganini was a virtuoso? :p:

just felt like saying that, this whole thread is nothing but opinions so i figured id pull something outta my ass as well. :p:

Master Of Shred
04-17-2006, 02:20 PM
just felt like saying that, this whole thread is nothing but opinions so i figured id pull something outta my ass as well. :p:

Yeah okay, but when was the last time that you heard Paganini actually play? :p:

pavan
04-17-2006, 02:42 PM
^^Lol..I don't think anyone can because you can be a virtuso in terms of your type of music i.e. you could say Gary Moore is virtuso in terms of his blues playing, which he is but compare him to say Vai in terms of technique etc and Vai pwns him, so really it depends on the type of music considered and person preference.

I dont know why people think that playing that kind of music doesnt require technique. It does, and its a different kind of technique.

pavan
04-17-2006, 02:43 PM
JOE SATRIANI
JASON BECKER
MARTY FRIEDMAN
Buckethead
MAB
Cooley
Paul Gilbert

They are all virtuosos in their own right.

Evil_Empire24-7
04-17-2006, 03:26 PM
there are guitar virtuosos:

al dimeola
steve vai
shawn lane
joe satriani
mab

and many others

and there are guitar ''legends'' :

jimi hendrix
john mclaughlin
julian bream
lenny breau
ry cooder
charlie christian
leo kottke
michael hedges
eddie van halen
andres segovia
sabicas
B.B King
jimmy page
jeff beck
wes montgomery
john williams
joe pass
francesco tarrega
django reinhardt
t-bone walker
robert johnson
chet atkins
merle travis
paco de lucia

Matt_Malmsteen
04-17-2006, 03:37 PM
I dont know why people think that playing that kind of music doesnt require technique. It does, and its a different kind of technique.

I was just using that as an example, I realise blues requires technique.

Axegrinder#9
04-17-2006, 03:45 PM
^^Lol..I don't think anyone can because you can be a virtuso in terms of your type of music i.e. you could say Gary Moore is virtuso in terms of his blues playing

that is the point of contention, which I wish to refute. For this I will yet again stress on the definition of virtuosity as having technical mastery (I forgo the word complete, because I think that is relative even at supersonic shred levels)

I understand people saying that one could be a virtuoso in his style of music, but I think what they mean is slightly different. For this I will choose two polar styles of music and guitarists for comparison, to elucidate my point.

Yngwie is a virtuoso (and really don't argue against that). Now if he were to play the blues, would that make him the greatest blues player by default of his being a virtuoso?
Of course not, people like BB King or John Lee Hooker would still pwn him in terms of what it means to really play "the blues". However that doesn't make the latter guitarists virtuosos.
Consider thus this statement: "the greatest blues player in the world, need not be a virtuoso, or anything close to one"

The philosophy of my argument is to point out that being a cornerstone, pioneer or one of the best exponents of a particular musical genre doesn't necessarily make the musician concerned, a virtuoso by default.

And besides my relating the term "virtuoso" with technical mastery, I would also make another qualification. A virtuoso should be able to, if he chose to, virtually play in any style of music, exhibiting the same technical mastery. A perfect example is Steve Vai who dabbles in some of the most arcane forms of music (Bulgarian wedding music?!) and yet exhibits his mastery of the instrument through it. To extend that example, I'm sure that Frank Gambale if he chose to, could play a Jason Becker piece, and Joe Satriani, could play an Allan Holdsworth piece.

These people are all virtuosos. period. the whole phrase "in their own right" I feel is a gross error to qualify the term virtuoso, 'cos I feel it completely negates the meaning of "virtuoso".

Thus I think I have a very valid proof here which makes the word "virtuoso" objective in meaning rather than a subjective or relative one.

Indeed, the greatest guitarist in the world could have been Jimi Hendrix, but the best guitarist in the world would first and foremost have to be a virtuoso, which Hendrix certainly was not.

PS: I'm going to be extremely pissed off if some retarded **** comes up and totally ignoring my post says some form of verbal excrement.

slash_620
04-17-2006, 03:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso

I would agree wholeheartdely with this descirption

Axegrinder#9
04-17-2006, 04:03 PM
^I think I will add my argument to Wikipedia, cos it truly qualifies and gets to the heart of the thing. btw: heard England lost the ODIs against India? weird how they could've possibly won the Ashes against the Ozzmen... but hey I think Flintoff kicks major ass.

splice
04-17-2006, 10:34 PM
a simple yes or no wouldve answered the question :)

Axegrinder#9
04-17-2006, 10:52 PM
not really, 'cos then you have people bickering over the very definition which I think itself was under some scrutiny - but I feel I might have actually successfully ended that controversy. People are welcome to point out any fallacies in my theory of course.

splice
04-17-2006, 11:01 PM
not really, 'cos then you have people bickering over the very definition which I think itself was under some scrutiny - but I feel I might have actually successfully ended that controversy. People are welcome to point out any fallacies in my theory of course.

ohh ok i see :cheers:

SnowballofDoom
04-17-2006, 11:20 PM
not really, 'cos then you have people bickering over the very definition which I think itself was under some scrutiny - but I feel I might have actually successfully ended that controversy. People are welcome to point out any fallacies in my theory of course.

So to you, a virtuoso is one who has technical mastery over a style, and can exhibit the same mastery in any style? Tell me if that's not exactly right..

Personally, I don't see how an agreement on technical mastery can ever be reached. Isn't that highly subjective? Couldn't it be said that Hendrix mastered his own style? And how do we know Vai has technical mastery of Bulgarian wedding music, or that Satriani could in fact play a Holdsworth piece?

We would have to assume such things, and tbh, assumptions don't really make for an objective definition of anything.

You argued your case well, I just don't see how a concrete definition for terms like mastery and virtuosity can ever be unanimously reached.

Please prove me wrong :p:

splice
04-17-2006, 11:29 PM
:rolleyes:

this thread is starting to hurt my head

and that rhymed like a chime

yo

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 12:33 AM
So to you, a virtuoso is one who has technical mastery over a style, and can exhibit the same mastery in any style? Tell me if that's not exactly right..

Personally, I don't see how an agreement on technical mastery can ever be reached. Isn't that highly subjective? Couldn't it be said that Hendrix mastered his own style? And how do we know Vai has technical mastery of Bulgarian wedding music, or that Satriani could in fact play a Holdsworth piece?

We would have to assume such things, and tbh, assumptions don't really make for an objective definition of anything.

You argued your case well, I just don't see how a concrete definition for terms like mastery and virtuosity can ever be unanimously reached.

Please prove me wrong :p:

nope you completely misunderstood.
A virtuoso has:

technical mastery over his own instrument
can exhibit that same level of technical proficiency in any style, if he chooses to


I specifically didn't say "complete" technical mastery of his instrument because then you have to deal with the more detailed issue of which what constitutes "complete" technical mastery, and honestly that is probably impossible and in any case irrelevant.
We can simply agree that a virtuoso has a certain degree to technical mastery over his instrument.
Of course, one can argue over minor details like what constitutes that level of technical mastery - nps? how clean is the picking? what sorta crazy intervallic legato licks can he play?
To do away with such confusions, I choose to quantify the first premise of what constitutes a virtuoso, with the second premise by saying,
- that he should be able to exhibit the same level of technical ability in any style that he chooses to play in.

Thus the problem of relatively high level of technical ability is done away with, if one considers the example in my earlier post - where you have one shredder playing another's piece. That would entail that the guitarist concerned has mastered his instrument sufficiently to flash out in his own style of playing, and if he chose to, in a style similar to his contemporaries' or equals'.

I think that should clear any confusion whatsoever regarding my argument, and if it does not, then I suggest you read both my earlier post and this one a fair few times before it sinks in.

As to me assuming that say Satch could play a Holdsworth piece - the only thing I can say is that you seriously undermine Satch, I have seen that dude play live, and since I am conceited and consider myself to be a good judge of ability, I guarantee you that though Satch once said that Holdsworth was untouchable, he himself could pull off a Holdsworth solo.
And note my stress on the word could, it's more likely than not, that Satch will in all probability never play a solo which equals Holdsworth's but that doesn't negate the fact that he could play like that if he chose to

peace.

AngilasGuy
04-18-2006, 12:35 AM
So to you, a virtuoso is one who has technical mastery over a style, and can exhibit the same mastery in any style? Tell me if that's not exactly right..

Actually you really made me think there.

Virtuosity is technical mastery over an art form. But yet every style of music is almost it's very own art form and unique. Perhaps virtuosity isn't over the instrument abroad, but over whatever style they exhibit their technique in... For example, Engineers. The principles of making and designing are all the same, but a bio engineer couldn't work in the shoes of a nuclear engineer.

Yet another topic for me to contemplate over.

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 12:37 AM
^please let us stop confusing that. Have the patience to go through what I said before you guys keep on quantifying virtuosity in terms of musical expression.

AngilasGuy
04-18-2006, 12:40 AM
^please let us stop confusing that. Have the patience to go through what I said before you guys keep on quantifying virtuosity in terms of musical expression.

I basically said what you said a few pages earlier, I'm not confusing anything.
But i'm just debating it with myself further, and perhaps other people can comment.

SnowballofDoom
04-18-2006, 01:30 AM
nope you completely misunderstood.
A virtuoso has:

technical mastery over his own instrument
can exhibit that same level of technical proficiency in any style, if he chooses to


I specifically didn't say "complete" technical mastery of his instrument because then you have to deal with the more detailed issue of which what constitutes "complete" technical mastery, and honestly that is probably impossible and in any case irrelevant...

...I think that should clear any confusion whatsoever regarding my argument, and if it does not, then I suggest you read both my earlier post and this one a fair few times before it sinks in.

Ahh, I understand what you're saying now. Just looking for a clarification was all.


As to me assuming that say Satch could play a Holdsworth piece - the only thing I can say is that you seriously undermine Satch, I have seen that dude play live, and since I am conceited and consider myself to be a good judge of ability, I guarantee you that though Satch once said that Holdsworth was untouchable, he himself could pull off a Holdsworth solo.
And note my stress on the word could, it's more likely than not, that Satch will in all probability never play a solo which equals Holdsworth's but that doesn't negate the fact that he could play like that if he chose to

peace.

Those were just examples, I never undermined Satch's technique. I was simply listing that as an example of the subjectivity of technical mastery over another style, which you cleared up with your post.

I've seen him live as well; I don't doubt his abilities.

mikeman
04-18-2006, 01:53 AM
Becoming a virtuoso is like being inducted into the Rock and roll hall of fame.

It's another one of those titles given to the select few based on opinions.

Unless there is some law that says if you can pick 40nps you are a virtuoso. Which doesn't exist.

pavan
04-18-2006, 08:14 AM
classic shred forum! Pointless endless rambling! Way to go !

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 09:26 AM
It's another one of those titles given to the select few based on opinions.


dear god... are you that thick?

flamencogod
04-18-2006, 09:36 AM
I love these conversations on UG... they don't go anywhere and the subject doesn't matter at all

(yeah I still post this anyway)

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 10:38 AM
not really, I think I have successfully defended the idea of what a "virtuoso" is, if other people are too retarded to comprehend that concept or unable to successfully debate it(unlike Snowball) then it becomes pointless for those poor fools... not me. I was sick of people upholding subjectivity to everything, this is not ****ing ethics.

JkHalen
04-18-2006, 10:53 AM
Axegrinder...man..you are the sh*t, period. At first I belived that you know, "maybe virstuosity is something unachievable" like an ideal that is simply impossible to accomplish but I see your point and you know how to defend and explain what you mean. :cheers:

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 12:10 PM
virtuosity is certainly achievable, though I doubt complete technical mastery over the instrument ever is... I mean I s'pose I could conjecture that Rustey Cooley is probably a virtuoso among virtuosos, but then again it is possible someone could take technique to a greater level - what that would be like, is pretty impossible to conceive seeing some of the stuff that guys like Cooley, Ron Thal are doing, but I think above a certain point though - it starts becoming solely means to an end, and loses musicality.

It has to be noted that a virtuoso is also a musician, and shouldn't get too caught up in the technicalities so as to lose focus of musical value. The thing is, genres like neoclassical rock/metal, progressive metal and jazz fusion lend themselves more towards virtuosity than some other genres, because often, a standpoint of that genre is dazzling technical ability.

pavan
04-18-2006, 12:37 PM
and who will draw that fine boundary of musicality?
who will define it?

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 12:55 PM
in any case, musical value is not too relevant in my case, that may still remain subjective - the second premise of my argument takes care of any such discrepancies. If you think Satch's music is more "emotional" than Yngwie's; one could have Yngwie playing "Flying in a Blue Dream" and thus you can level things up. In any case, if you understand my main argument, I think you will know that musicality can remain subjective and in any case is not too relevant.

If you don't understand that, well your bad...

pavan
04-18-2006, 01:21 PM
To each his own
Anyway, I dont like pwning good old Jacobians (in public at least) ;)
Virtuoso will still remain a subjective term.

Evil_Empire24-7
04-18-2006, 01:52 PM
and why should i care if somebody is a virtuoso , music is everything , u could hear a virtuoso playing and doesn't have emotions in his music but u could hear people like gary moore who put tons of emotions in their music and people don't credit them for being virtuosos.

slash_620
04-18-2006, 02:31 PM
^I think I will add my argument to Wikipedia, cos it truly qualifies and gets to the heart of the thing. btw: heard England lost the ODIs against India? weird how they could've possibly won the Ashes against the Ozzmen... but hey I think Flintoff kicks major ass.


Yeh, we went down 5-1. We're so bad at ODIs it's unbelievable for a country with such a good test side, no one cares about the one dayers in England, test matches are the real deal over here.

On subject, i think it's foolish to talk about complete mastery of an instrument, not because i think it's unnatainable but because no one can say when guitarists ahve pushed the boundaries as far as they can go.

Sorry if that sounds a bit out of line with the debate, because i haven't read all these super long posts.

Axegrinder#9
04-18-2006, 03:32 PM
then I suggest that you do read them.

AngilasGuy
04-19-2006, 03:11 AM
Actually I'm not quite sure on my definition, I'm not sure if Virtuoso is JUST technical flawlessness, or perhaps it must include how one plays...

If someone designed a robot to play guitar, and it played Rusty Cooley flawlessly, would that be a virtuoso, or does one need other traits and qualities to be a tride and true virtuoso?

slash_620
04-19-2006, 07:02 AM
then I suggest that you do read them.

Wow, that didn't take as long as i thought.

I think the point you make about being able to show a certain level of technical proficency in any style is a very good one because it drasticaly lessens the amount of virtusos making the mean a lot more than just a good guitar player.

ILoveHarmonics
04-19-2006, 07:35 AM
I kinda agree with that but it's still subjective to say at wich level and at wich number of styles we speak of a virtuoso. To me it's also possible to be a virtuoso in different kind of ways. If you can play string skipping licks at 25 nps you are a virtuoso to me, but if you can play over a fast and complex chord progression using all kinds of scales without thinking about them creating melodies you are a virtuoso aswell in the sense of improvising.

Erich yeung
04-19-2006, 07:59 AM
and why should i care if somebody is a virtuoso , music is everything , u could hear a virtuoso playing and doesn't have emotions in his music but u could hear people like gary moore who put tons of emotions in their music and people don't credit them for being virtuosos.

GOD HAVEN"T YOU READ ANYTHING THESE GUYS HAVE DISCUSSED!!!!! HOLY ****, You're the dumbest person on this forum by a mile. You attempt to make a point by rehashing what the general public has said, (except in a more buffoonish manner) and completely neglected posts by some actual knowledgable people. Try reading, or atleast learning how to read before you make any sort of contribution.

ANywhoo, i think that that music is subjective, i suppose, but now a days anybody who even has an ounce of chops is called a virtuoso. I mean its been thrown around so much that the term has lost its overall meaning. Originally i believed that its someone who has complete mastery over their instrument, but I honestly don't kow if complete mastery over an instrument is possible. In my terms i come to think of a virtuoso as someone who is versatile enough to play virtually anything the person wants, have mad chops (though not always use them ;)) and has a vast amount of knowledge of theory and history.

Resiliance
04-19-2006, 08:54 AM
To me a virtuoso is someone I think is a virtuoso.

Ain't nothin' more to it. Useless defining.

perpetual shred
04-19-2006, 09:07 AM
blh bajkdwe3yf34t45

Axegrinder#9
04-19-2006, 10:32 AM
To me a virtuoso is someone I think is a virtuoso.

Ain't nothin' more to it. Useless defining.

well Resi I urge you to read my argument and then make subjective comments regarding the definition of a virtuoso. Point out any fallacies in my arguments if you will...

Resiliance
04-19-2006, 10:38 AM
I've read them... And I came to the conclusion I'm not going to bother even refuting them because it's not worth my time or effort as this whole subject is ridiculous.

Axegrinder#9
04-19-2006, 12:55 PM
then I think you are completely ungrounded in saying that it is a matter of opinion... and uhh can you refute them in the first place?

slash_620
04-19-2006, 12:59 PM
then I think you are completely ungrounded in saying that it is a matter of opinion... and uhh can you refute them in the first place?

I don't want to put wors in his mouth, but i think Resi thinks this topic is dumb, i mean, all your doing is debating over what a word means, does it really matter?

Axegrinder#9
04-19-2006, 03:10 PM
why not? If somebody defined man as a biped which cannot fly, someone could pluck a chickens feathers and deem that to be a human being.

splice
04-19-2006, 05:32 PM
axegrinder#9 do you talk this proper in real life?

maybe its just bc im from ms....

Axegrinder#9
04-19-2006, 05:35 PM
I really have no clue as to what you're saying, stay off the grass...

splice
04-19-2006, 06:52 PM
yeah man il do that

slash_620
04-20-2006, 05:59 AM
why not? If somebody defined man as a biped which cannot fly, someone could pluck a chickens feathers and deem that to be a human being.

Hence why we have a dictionary.

The thread starter asked is there such thing as a virtuoso, which is a pretty dumb question because we wouldn't have created a word for something that doesn't exist, unless it was some kind of legend...

Anyway, the thread has somehow changed into a debate of the meaning of virtuoso, which i think is kind of pointless because it already has a meaning and i don't think it's that important if it didn't.

However, i have no objections to peopled ebating it if they want to.

:peace:

Axegrinder#9
04-20-2006, 12:58 PM
never the mind, that is not what I intended that statement to be interpreted as... but anyway, yes of course the word "virtuoso" is defined in the dictionary too, but everyone seems hell-bent on twisting the meaning of the word to make their favorite guitar players fit the description, especially the classic rockers - hence I stated my arguments to get rid of the ambiguity attached to it. But most people even them seem to thick to come to terms with that.

pavan
04-20-2006, 02:04 PM
Another abused word is Genius.