Would you consider Genesis "virtuosos"?

micky wrote: just tossing this out...  for sh*ts and giggles..see Genesis  as the anti-Rush..Rush and the various members are lablelled often as virtuosos....  but in fact.... they really aren't, not on the pedestal that people put them.  What it is is the group EMPHASIZED is  their  instrumental talents...each player had his space to show off.  and being a 3 piece... they had a lot of room to cover.  but if you actually read the music.. or try playing it.. it isn't that complex.. and surely not that hard to play. Ask any player..  sh*t.. for me... I learned bass playing Geddy's stuff with Rush.. and I am good.. but not that good.Genesis. .for all the sh*t I love to give them.. are the polar opposite of Rush...  they are not considered virtuosos.. why.. .ahhh... because they do NOT show off as it were.. .their compositions are group compositions where the strength of the song is not a bitchin out front in the mix bass line ..but a situation where the sum.. is FAR greater than the parts.  are Genesis 'virtuosos'...   who knows.. none of you surely knows.. because the music they made deemphasized it.  And emphasized structure... over chops.   The cynic might call that covering up weaknesses..  but others might say...that was playing to their strengths. honestly...listen to anything Rush did...   can you pick one song that you feel that Rutherford, Hacket and Collins could not have pulled off.  Of course they could.. don't.. . .ever mistake not doing it.. for not being able to do it.

I tend to regard both bands as virtuoso in their own right. Both bands have the 'chops' when they are required, and both bands can excel in the compositional sense. I think the difference being that the emphasis in Rush was on 'rock' rather than 'prog' therefore they were more pre-disposed to 'orthodox' song structures, with a blues/rock 'n' roll base, especially up to 2112. After that they deviated from this, and 'progessed' and I feel that was evident on Hemispheres, and with tracks like Xanadu, Cygnus-X1, Jacobs Ladder and Natural Science, to name a few. In short, I believe they easily had the capabilities of a more symphonic or compositional band, but the Rush 'brand' may not have always called for that.

In answer to your question, though; No, I dont think Rush have ever written anything that Collins, Hackett and Rutherford couldn't have performed.

Good research Ivan. Mr Hackett approaches the criteria. He is playing several styles well. That does indeed make him versatile. Not a virtuoso, but definitely versatile. Blues is always good for the soul, and the bank account, is it not? Satie is easy music, slow tempos, predictable chythms and chords. Nice stuff though, I play 4 of those things myself.

88melter wrote: Good research Ivan. Mr Hackett approaches the criteria. He is playing several styles well. That does indeed make him versatile. Not a virtuoso, but definitely versatile. Blues is always good for the soul, and the bank account, is it not? Satie is easy music, slow tempos, predictable chythms and chords. Nice stuff though, I play 4 of those things myself.    Mr. Gabriel is a singer. What makes a virtuoso singer? Let's get some answers to that question next. I am having fun with this thread, hope you all are too. 88melter

Virtuoso = complete control over the instrument, approaching the limits of what is humanly possible in some of them. Using this definition, my examples for vocal virtuosos would be: Freddie Mercury, Peter Hammill, Daniel Gildenlow, Russell Allen.

Control is certainly one big aspect of virtuosity, but, to an artist, it is the BASIS, not the goal, of their art. It is the craft by which the ART is realized.

88melter wrote: Good research Ivan. Mr Hackett approaches the criteria. He is playing several styles well. That does indeed make him versatile. Not a virtuoso, but definitely versatile. Blues is always good for the soul, and the bank account, is it not? Satie is easy music, slow tempos, predictable chythms and chords. Nice stuff though, I play 4 of those things myself.   But Yehudi Menuhim, didn't praised your vitrtuosity as he praised Steve's Hackett's, as a  fact Menuhin choosed Steve Hackett's Bay of Kings for his farewell TV special.   If Mr Menuhim praises somebody as a virtuoso musician, honestly I believe him.   I also believe that if a ROCK musician reaches the top 10 in the elitist Classical charts, fits the criteruia of virtuosity.         Mr. Gabriel is a singer. What makes a virtuoso singer? Let's get some answers to that question next. I am having fun with this thread, hope you all are too.   As Mike said: "Virtuoso = complete control over the instrument, approaching the limits of what is humanly possible in some of them. Using this definition, my examples for vocal virtuosos would be: Freddie Mercury, Peter Hammill, Daniel Gildenlow, Russell Allen"   Peter Gabriel has a limited vocal range (BTW human voice is consuidered an instrument as far as I was taught), so he managed to change those limits into high points, that shows a complete control over his instrument which is the voice.   Plus very few achieve the success he has in a non commercial genre, plus the respect gained by the general audience.   Iván   BTW: I always enjoy a good debate.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 02 2008 at 19:21

I think Ivan says it very well.

Still I don't consider Phil Collins drumming virtuoso, it's not because his pop side, no! Not a bad drummer neither, his playing on Brand X and Genesis is really great, but as a virtuoso I would put Bill Bruford, Terry Bozzio, Chester Thomson, Billy Cobham, others..

88melter wrote:   Of course, if a Top Ten record meant anything more than sales, whether that be classical or polkas or Hawaiian music, we would still be dealing with non-musical criteria.

for me virtousity means raw technical prowess in terms of technique and extreme control over the instrument, not necassarily the ability to create great music. there is however a co-relation between the two but the defining criteria for me is how much mastery one has over the instrument in terms of its playing.

and in that sense i would humbly state that the members of genesis were excellent musicians and composers but not virtousos.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 88melter wrote:   Of course, if a Top Ten record meant anything more than sales, whether that be classical or polkas or Hawaiian music, we would still be dealing with non-musical criteria.     The Classical chart is an exception to the rule, normally the Classic listener and xritic are people who really know about music, and it's very hard for a Eock artist to bre there.   Of courseif you mention the Pop or even Rock charts, there's not much to say, but in Classical is totally different, starting with the fact that the Classic buyer is not a growing specie.   Iván

just because the music is enjoyable to classical listeners does not make it virtuosic. ill point back to 88melter's comment about satie. i really enjoy some of satie's pieces but by no means are they vitruosic. ill listen to him over mozart though . . . does that make it virtuosic? no. is mozart's music less so because of that? absolutely not.
i think gabriel falls within the same category. i dont think he was a very talented singer at all, but he has a charm to his voice. just because you enoy him more than say Pavorati or Adelina Patti doesnt bring him up to their vertuosic level.
when i think of virtuosic singers i think of classical/opera singers and to some extent, experimental vocalists such as mike patton. gabriel was, to me at least, a charmingly bad singer and by no means a virtuoso.

Most rock players couldn´t be considered virtusosos in the real sense. But who cares? Certainly 80´s shredders are not virtuosos, most of them are surprisingly limited, just repeating over and over the same scales and arpeggios at high speed. Being a good player is far harder than that. And Hackett is as good a guitar player as almost anyone in rock.