Would you consider Genesis "virtuosos"?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51361
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 09:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Would you consider Genesis "virtuosos"?
Posted By: SilverEclipse
Subject: Would you consider Genesis "virtuosos"?
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 10:20
|
I'm not sure, after listening to a ton of Yes and ELP, I can't say that I think Genesis are anywhere as near as talented on any of the respective instruments, I think their progressiveness comes more from the song structure and themes.
------------- "and if the band your in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" |
Replies:
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 10:59
|
Why wouldn't you consider a virtuoso a guy who:
Or a keybnoardist who
Or a drummer who
Or a singer who despite some range lijmits.
Or a bass player
I do consider all of the virtuoso musicians. Genesis was not a solo based band, it was a team of virtuoso musicians who decided o leave their egos behind when playing for the band.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 11:03
 ------------- 
|
SilverEclipse wrote:Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 11:06
|
Mike Rutherford is a very talented bass player and also a 12 string guitar.
Tony Banks have the guts to prove himself in several Genesis tracks, try: solo organ in Musical Box, Solo Piano intro in Fifth or Filth, solo piano in Mad Man Moon, and many more.
Steve Hackett are one of the most underrated guitarrist but he do some extraordinary solos in Genesis and in solo albums.
Check Collins work in Brand X
After that hope that changes your mind about. -------------  |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 11:11
What I find odd about this particular statement is that every progressive band's "progressiveness" comes from song structure and themes - simply being very talented at playing your instrument has nothing to do with it. Despite preferring ELP and Yes to Genesis, to me it's no question that all the members of Genesis were superb musicians who excelled at their craft. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 28 2008 at 11:37
|
I'd say that most of them are virtuosos (Hackett, Howe, Wakeman, Banks, Emerson etc) but the technicality in their music is not quite on the same level as some of the music which was dubbed "shred" in the 80s, or as some of the fusion stuff which was also popular at the time (John McLaughlin, Al Di Meola). In the end virtuosity is only one facet of the musician anyway ... I admire musicians who really mastered their instrument, but they don't have to wear this ability like a crown in order to get my attention. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 03:05
| Hmm I dunno. They're all very good musicians especially Hackett and Collins, but I'm not sure if they're virtuoso level. I suppose they are, at least the two I mentioned. |
Posted By: Roj
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:17
| This is a tricky little question. I think it's fair to say that Genesis didn't set out to play purposely difficult-to-play, extremely technical music, ala ELP, Dream Theater etc. But that's not to say they're not virtuosos. I'll use Banks as the best example. There's no way his solos sound as tecnical, fast or flashy as Wakeman or Emerson. However, more often than not they're more attractive, ie, Cinema Show. So, yes I think the Genesis guys are/were virtuosos, it's just that they don't show off as much as some others. ( Incidentally, nothing against show-offs, I love pretentious over the top music, ELP, Yes, DT etc ) |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:21
Well, Gabriel is certainly a virtuoso singer compared to either Lake or Anderson, that's for sure - and a virtuoso songwriter/lyricist to boot.
As far as "talented" on the instruments is concerned, that totally depends on where you think the talent lies.
Tony Banks is a far superior keyboard player to Emerson, Kaye, Moraz, Wakeman (or any other keyboard player that Yes have had). He doesn't go for the bluster of Emerson or Wakeman, and as a result, his compositions and performances are more accurate, more melodic, and often more understatedly complex. The biggest point in his favour is that he wrote solos to suit the songs, rather than to suit the performer.
The piece "Firth of Fifth" sums it up really.
Lake isn't a bad bass player, but I wouldn't call him virtuoso - or in any way better than Rutherford. Squire, I would concede, is better than both at creating powerful and interesting bass lines - which is the meat and two veg of a bass player's job.
Hackett has his own incomparable style, and has brought about some technical innovations, such as two-handed tapping - comparing him to Howe is comparing chalk and cheese. I'd rather hear a short and melodic rock solo from Hackett than a long, widdly Howe solo with classical pretensions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLTlAnVUx3A - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLTlAnVUx3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M0IM28uyoQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M0IM28uyoQ&feature=related
(Is it just me): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8mzSRiI_HA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8mzSRiI_HA
 Palmer and Collins likewise have very different styles, and I'd be hard pushed to choose between them - maybe Palmer by a whisker in the technical department, but Collins is an incredibly expressive drummer, and I prefer his style overall. Bruford is no slouch either, and I guess, neither is White. But I would still prefer to listen to a Collins solo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUR4k0LyTdc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUR4k0LyTdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DvgPpinkE&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DvgPpinkE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pOPUuIYL0c&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pOPUuIYL0c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O_wNLKJDco -
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Passionist
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:24
|
Might have been, that they didn't start out as virtuosos, no-one did. but they did play great music. Virtuosity doesn't only come from great technique. Gabriel might not have been the best flute player in the worls, and I sure have heard better singers, but he was a good writer. As were the rest. Of all of these I like to think that in the beginning Banks and Collins were the best in technical sense. Think about Anyway. I hear Banks wrote it really young. Collins is amazing on songs such as The Fountain of Salmacis. Actually to think of it, I've grown quite bored of ELP and Yes. Also bands who boast with their virtuosity are rather boring at times, like Dream Theater (Dont shoot me). |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:45
*Shooting you* Although veering slightly off topic, but I actually think Dream Theater are very tasteful with the way they use their technical abilities. Their is far more riffs than solos, and certainly plenty of space for vocals. Heck, Dream Theater don't even have solos on all their songs like some metal bands do. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:48
Pretty much agree with this statement. I would say, perhaps Hackett is a virtuoso, but he is not a virtuoso on the electric guitar nor the classical guitar, but because he is equally well rounded on both he is a general guitar virtuoso based on the sum of the parts of what he can do. Same for Steve Howe, he is obviously no Eddie Van Halen or Yngwie Malmsteen on the electric guitar, but combine his skills on both the electric and classical and I would say he is a virtuso musician. -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 05:38
|
I think they were virtuoso musicians. They just chose to use that virtosity in a different way. Overall I agree with Certif1ed, and his appraisal of each musican.
If, for some, virtuoisty is a measure of how fast a musician can play complex melodies, rhythms, bass lines etc, and sadly this may be the most important criteria for some prog fans, then there are examples of where Genesis performed in this way. Los Endos is one, as is 'In that Quiet Earth' You can hear 'flashy' playing in 'Dancing with the Mooonlit Knight' 'Suppers Ready' 'Can Utility and the Costliners' (check out Rutherfords bass) and the live versions of 'Cinema Show' and 'Firth of Fifth' on Seconds Out. Genesis were a very talented band. Virtuoso musicans? Yes. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 05:38
|
So what if they aren't virtuosos? Subtle musicianship and song-craft weigh 10,000,000x more on my scale than virtuosity and show-off. And of course their progressiveness came from their song structures and themes. Where else would it come from? Unless virtuosity is considered progressive...  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 05:51
This is the point. Virtuosity doesn't automatically equate to 'flashy' playing, it may do in the eyes of some young prog metal fans, but there are other musical considerations. Ultimately music is an artform and should therefore capture moods, and evoke emotions in the listener. If we lay the emphasis solely on complex time signatures or BPM, it becomes maths or sport... IMHO. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:01
Saying that their technicality is not of the same level is definitely not true. You can't blame then for not using techniques that were invented later. Paganini invented several new playing techniques for the violin, but that does not mean that Vivaldi was technically worse than Paganini. There are always new techniques which are being invented for instruments. Shredding is just a technique for playing extremely fast. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:01
|
I recently received an email from a Garageband member (complaining about my reivew of his music, naturally!) informing me that he was a super-duper music teacher who charged lots of money, and advised me (for free) that music = math.
Aside from the fact the word is mathematics, or maths, not math
 , the argument here is an obvious non-starter - but goes to show that some people actually believe it.  Naturally, I asked him to come and discuss the matter here, on a music forum, rather than via email - but I note that the thread has not yet arisen... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:08
|
I'd go along with that - the mark of a great musician is to know when not to play, not to fill every bar with as many notes as possible - witness Hackett's solo in Firth Of Fifth, Banks's Mellotron coda to Seven Stones - masterpieces of understatement ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:13
An unfortunate attitiude for a music teacher... 
Perhaps he should be teaching maths. |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:52
Only to you Brits. To the civilized world it's math. You guys are always putting extra letters in words. You know that's why the states really revolted against British rule. We got tired of putting all those extra u's in words. Speaking of which, in the UK, isn't it mauths? ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:56
You only call it math because you can't spell mathematics  -------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 08:15
In a keyboard magazine I once read that the way Tony Banks played at the same time Hammond organ and Mellotron in the 70-75 era was really virtuosic and no doubt that Phil Collins was a genius in the Gabriel-era so at least two Genesis members can be considered as virtuosic ....
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 08:27
This is all fair enough, but you have to remember, the most sincere artists are about self expression before playing for anyone else. Personally I prefer to listen to the playing of Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, John Petrucci, Michael Romeo and other virtuosos over Howe, Hackett etc, because it's what emotes to me most. I was into shred guitar well before I was really greatly into prog anyway, so I guess you can see how that works. I can understand people not being able to feel anything listening to the high speed guitar slingers... fair enough. I was the same once. It changed for me once I took up theory study and starting to analyse the playing of the 80s onward virtuosos. Chopin and Liszt played as fast as anything. I had to learn how to understand the nuances in their playing to finally begin to feel it. Same for Steve Vai or Joe Satriani. I've heard emotions in their playing I could never get from Hackett or Howe. Shredding is just a technique for playing extremely fast= Not true in everyone's opinion. Chopin's and Liszt's virtuosity was just as 'shred' as today's guitar virtuoso. There is many times I've heard people say "not enough space" in their music, but to me it all worked, because the space between every phrase doesn't have to be long and obvious to have meaning. Shred doesn't imply strictly fast playing, something you learn from having spent years in the shred guitar culture. The best shredders put so much into their bending techniques, their slow playing, their subtle nuances, their vibrato etc. I could reel off a long list of 'shred' guitarists that have played slow ballads without fast playing, because they realize the shred only belongs in songs that need it. Shred guitarists don't need to be put below other musicians, they are just as good any anyone out there, i's just a matter of whether you feel the emotions or not. If people don't like, I think we can be mature enough not to say things which are rather offensive for eg comments like "Shredding is just a technique for playing extremely fast". Understandably, I assume the intention was not to offend, but it offended me and I'm sure many others here that have worked hard to be able to play at a shred level would also feel that way. -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 08:39
|
^^^Indeed there was no intention to offend. Apologies for any caused, Hughes. Musical taste is a personal thing, and we all respond differently to different types of music.
I think the point I was making was that virtuosity can mean a number of things. I'm not a fan of the 'shredding' technique, and I dont claim to have a technical understanding of it. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 08:44
No problems mate  -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 10:41
|
I simply laugh when I read about Genesis members supposed lack o virtuosity, especially because I know what some people believe being a virtuoso is. People equate virtuosity to: 1. Soloing 2. Speed 3. Difficulty o If a band doesn't make constant solos, people state that they are not virtuoso musicians........Why can't they think that their music simply doesn't require solos? o If Hackett DOESN'T play as many notes per second as Malmsteen, they consider him as a not virtuoso Maybe they should think Hackett doesn't play metal and of course his music normally doesn't require that speed. o This one was great, a guy who hates Genesis wrote some time ago: "Hackett is not a virtuoso, I can play his parts but no matter how much I try, I can't play Howe's parts" This guy evaluates Hackett's virtuosity a third person’s inability to play the music of another guitar player. A few guys write here, only because they have fingers, because if they ignore something they write about it anyway, a real virtuoso is the musician who knows what, when an when to play something. If a solo is required TO ENHANCE THE MUSIC, NOT TO BOOST HIS EGO, he will make a solo, is a song requires speed BEAUSE IT’S WRITTEN FOR A FAST SECTION, he will play fast. Don’t judge the virtuosity of a musician because you can play his parts, better see if Hackett can play Howe’s parts, and I’m 100% sure that both musicians can play each other’s parts with no problem. Iván . -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 11:17
I meant that the technicality *in their music* was not on the same level. I don't doubt that they could compete with the typical "shredders" which emerged in the 80s (Malmsteen, Satriani, Vai etc), but the music back then simply wasn't designed to emphasize the technicality. Emerson came close, but definitely not Yes or Genesis. BTW: Later some of them recorded some shred albums ... Steve Howe's Quantum Guitar is a good example. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 11:48
That is a completely different statement. Indeed, the music back then was not about technical w***king, with the exception of some excursions of Keith Emerson. That is rather a positive thing than a negative one, in my opinion. Technicality should be the means, not the purpose of music. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 11:59
|
^ still, especially in classical music virtuosity/technicality has always been present. I'd even say that the most difficult pieces ever conceived are from that genre.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 12:05
|
Virtuosity is not just in the chops. It's like comparing Liszt to Rachmaninoff, two great composers of Romantic era piano works. Liszt's pieces may have been the more technically-demanding of the two, but Rachmaninoff's music required much more passion and ultimately proved more difficult to perform for many concert pianists. ------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 13:19
Exactly. As a classical pianist (I think it was Alfred Brendel, but am not sure) once said: "Mozart is too easy for a kid and too difficult for a grown-up". ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 14:22
Harry I may have to assisst you in the shooting.
I've never grown tired of listening to ELP, one of my favorite bands. And as far as Dream Theater boasting with their technichality, I find the tech that they add to their music quite fitting. But, it's just different taste.
Back to the topic question:
  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 29 2008 at 16:48
Well, we used to call moths http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mo%C3%BE%C3%BEe - moþþe , which is pronounced "Moththuh"...
Only in England is "Featherstone" pronounced "Fuston", "Cholmedley" pronounced "Chumley" - and "Mousehole" pronounced "Marzul".
In that light, we should start calling this site Proughue Aurchivues as soon as possible - so mauths makes sense...
I think it's too difficult for anyone except, possibly, Mozart.
Having said that, Emma Johnson's interpretation of his Clarinet Concerto is simply astonishing - I defy anyone not to be moved by it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_qJbENqHvo&watch_response - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_qJbENqHvo&watch_response , especially considering how young she was when she first recorded it. I think this is the first recording - but it's hard to tell, as I've seen Emma many times, and she's consistently an emotionally moving and technically disciplined virtuoso. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 04:00
I love the interpretation of Sabine Meyer. Here is a short video of her rehearsing it.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2GQJgig8s - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2GQJgig8s And here a longer video of her, playing Bernstein's sonata for clarinet and piano: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq1VCj5UdBo&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq1VCj5UdBo&feature=related ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 08:46
| Well, people who can compose and perform a stroke of genius like Firth of Fifth are certainly great musicians. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 22:19
|
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. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 08:20
|
Well Tony is a virtuoso keyboard player without a doubt (e.g. in Apocalypse in 9/8, Cinema Show, Firth of Fifth). Phil Collins is a world class drummer (i really mean that, look at Brand X) and we all know what Steve can do on the guitar. About the other two? Peter is quite amazing on the flute. Mike writes a lot of the songs, making him a genius songwriter. Yes i would consider them virtuosos. ------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 08:45
| Ivan and Certif1ed have basically got all my thoughts covered on this. Micky is also dead right in that post. |
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 20:26
|
No. The original or "usual" Genesis members were seat-of-their-pants rockers who wanted to write songs.They actually thought that they could sell that kinda stuff to OTHER MUSICIANS! whoa..
To call them, or anyone, virtuosi, you ought to define what criteria you are using. Are they ROCK virtuosi, all-around virtuosi, or something else?
I believe their are NO rock virtuosi, because one of my criteria for virtuoso status is for a person to have very few, if any, techinical or artistic limitations in their genre. There is SO much music in ROCK, or other genres as well, and most rock bands of any type only play their own compositions. Thus, they never get a chance to show that they lack these limitations, and are true virtuosi.
This, of course, is only semantics. The music Genesis, or YES, or even Dream Theater, makes is theirs alone, and usually has a high degree of difficulty. This level of composition does not make them virtuosi, but we all enjoy the music regardless of what words we use for describing it, or its performers.
Jazz and classical music use this term more realistically, since these genres have repertoire that most of its adherents will be expected to master, and perhaps display a new level of mastery theirin.
88melter ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 02:18
Seems you know a bit of history, but you don't say that when they thought in selling their stuff they were a bunch of shy kids in school who played vocal POP, one of them had such stage panic that had to leave the band because he got sick (Anthony Phillips).
But when they released their first Prog album, one or two years after leaving school, they decided to make a career in the most complex Rock genre of those days.
Have you heard:
 Hackstt's own compositions, masterpiece.
 Hackett playing Acoustic/Classical guitar
 Top 10 Classical album of 1997 with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
 Now playing blues
 Now playing his version of Gensis classics
 Did you mention Jazz? But not only Jazz,. also Acoustic, Prog, Avant, etc, all in one album.
 Oops. now he goes for Satie's music
 Now playing Asia, King Crimson, Genesis an his own stuff all in one night.
Lets not forget that Peter Gabriel has released
Albums....Is this enough versatility for you? BTW: Tony Banks has wrote and performed Prog; Rock and Pop only in Genesis, alone he released one Prog album and Seven, a classical album that also reached the top ten Classical chart which is very elitist and hard with Rockers that dare to invade their field.
I believe yor argument is starting to make water everywhere.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 03:05
| the 'shredders' do what they do cause they love that aspect of music, as do the people that buy their music.. they had the nerve to say "You know what? I like technicality, I like athleticism, and I like an emphasis on progressive technique. So sue me." Few of those players claim any superiority in other areas as jazz, blues, classic rock form&feeling, or (believe it or not) classical. They offer a small, specialized aspect of rock and don't often try to compete with the other areas of mastery |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 04:17
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. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 07:53
Ivan showed the vast originality of Hackett via album covers, so how about Collins?
Pity the album title is very slightly mis-spelled... -------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:12
|
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 ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:14
|
quite true, ARS. Hot players,but in one bag, still, no mean feat, eh?
88melter ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:23
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.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:25
|
Indeed. Geddy Lee often says he is a singer first, a bassist secon and barely a keyboard player. In our band PROG, we do only Genesis, Rush YES and Tull material. We are always trying to figure out what Rush to play, so I am not twiddling my thumbs, but using them.
When I pay my hosting bill, the website http://www.prog-music.info - www.prog-music.info will be back up, and everyone can hear what I mean
88melter ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:34
|
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.
Repertoire is the test by which an artist can be judged virtuostic. The music itself is always the focus, and "virtuosity for the SAKE of virtuosity" (quote from Evgeny Kissin, Russian pianist) is not the point, to an artist. It IS the point in the show business world, however. Flash sells tickets.
Again, there are NO rock virtuosi. The musicians are in show business, so they can really play, but only in their own bag, often only their own music. A great accomplishment, but not virtuostic. Great music, but a band that did lots of different prog stuff would qualify for virtuoso status, PERHAPS. PROG (see www.prog-music.info) does this, but we are decidedly not virtuosos. We simply have the means to play the music we have chosen.
thanx,
88melter ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:47
|
Exceptional teachers in their respective instruments... But virtuosos... No!!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 19:20
-------------
|
Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 19:25
|
Yawns
-------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 21:00
|
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.. |
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 22:40
|
Success is not virtuosity, but is is success, or recognition in the show business sense. Just as webwriters are prone to say very nice, (or very disparaging things) online, so too are special guests on TV shows.
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.
AND as a final note, cuz I'm done with this thread, there are lots of classical and jazz virtuosi whose music I don't want to listen to. We ought to be grateful that PROG music, whether virtuostic or not, is so artisically rewarding to listeners.
bye for now,
88melter ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 03 2008 at 00:02
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.
BTW: You forgot to comment the Yehudi Menuhim opinion.
 Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: September 03 2008 at 05:12
I think Collins drumming is every bit as 'virtuoso' as most other prog/fusion drummers at the time. His playing with Brand X is testimony enough, IMO. I know Collins was going to audition for Yes at one point, and I would go as far as saying that certain Yes tracks could have been improved upon, had Collins been drumming instead of Bruford. Runs for cover... |
Posted By: slayericed
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 22:08
|
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. |
Posted By: 88melter
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 22:49
|
Precisely.
88melter ------------- 88melter |
Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 02:33
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 02:59
I could agree about Gabriel, he has some limits of range, and his main merit is in the composition.
But Hackett, I consider a musician who plays Classic music (HIS OWN CLASSIC MUSIC), other Classic artists music, Jazz, Acoustic and Rock in the highest level, a man who was the first to adapt a revolutionary technique to Rock (Tapping technique for which Eddie Van Halen is wrogly credited), a man who has been praised by one of the most most important musician of the 20th Century as Menuhim a virtuoso without any doubt.
Tony Banks has one of the clearest styles, as Certified (who's knowledge about music I respect) said, he's probably more skilled than Emerson or Wakeman, a man who created and performed 7 excellent albums in a row, a man who composed Seven and topped the British Classical charts, also a virtuoso.
If somebody says they aren't, should point some flaw, give some argument in contrary, something that I haven't read all along this thread.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: ignatiusrielly
Date Posted: September 12 2008 at 13:28
|
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.
------------- Four pails of water and a bagfull of salts |