Would you consider Genesis "virtuosos"?

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..

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.

Well, people who can compose and perform a stroke of genius like Firth of Fifth are certainly great musicians.

The Doctor wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I  Aside from the fact the word is mathematics, or maths, not math     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?

jimidom wrote: 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.

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".

^ 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.

BaldFriede wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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. 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.

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.

Blacksword wrote: ^^^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.

No problems mate

Blacksword wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: 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... 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.

BaldFriede wrote: 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.

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.

You only call it math because you can't spell mathematics