Originally Posted by: aschlemanDon't get me wrong man. I know I've argued plenty in these threads with you... I get what you're saying, I really do. That the term virtuoso is a definite term with a definite value... of which can be easliy determined by comparisons in technical ability amongst guitarists... I somewhat agree...

My best friend, and co-owner of my studio is currently in music school in Los Angeles.... and he uses phrases like the one that you've used above and nothing gets me more fired up than that... Not to take away from any of your personal achievements of attending Berklee... But I've noticed on more than one occasion how jaded people become when they're exposed to such a high level of musical ability and perfectionism... People go into music school loving music... and they come out loving perfect music. Nothing about music to me is suppose to be perfect... Virtuoso to me means perfection of a specific instrument... very very very few can be labeled virtuoso's... I personally wouldn't even call Yngwie a virtuoso... and I would like to think that I'm very much musicially "informed". I agree with you on some of your main points... and I can respect your outlook on music from someone with an education from Berklee....... music isn't about being perfect... it's an expression of the soul... If someone beats a drum offbeat and calls it music, I will respect that because it's conveying an emotion that they felt inside... Doesn't make it any less "musical" because it doesn't follow those good old laws of music theory that they taught you at Berklee. I guess what I'm trying to say is that music is such a broad spectrum... and with that come lots of perspectives of which to view... Yours is just one of them... I personally find it interesting to listen to you explain yourself further... It reminds me how I never in a million years would let myself go to Berklee.... hahaha. (it's a joke, don't take offense... I hold Berklee in the highest regards.)

Again, me and you agree about most things.

I don't really like 'perfect' music, and neither do most of the people at Berklee. ((Personally I don't think there is a such thing---a lot of classical musicians are very lax with their tempos and instead are taught to simply feel out the music)) The only reason I had to bring it up was just to explain why I feel some are virtuosos and some are not.

And I think you are right, that according to this strict definition--even Yngwie doesn't make the cut, I said that awhile ago in one of my other posts.

I mean, I can accept that people like different things, that was never the issue. There are a ton of rock guitarists I like---from Hendrix to Beck to Eddie and beyond. Maybe I don't feel they are the best musicians/guitarists ever, but that doesn't mean I can't respect them and what they did on the instrument and how they expressed themselves.

And again, I agree with you about speed. Speed by itself will never replace outstanding musicianship.

All this being said, I really would like to just return to the original point of this post: The fastest guitar players---moderately famous ones anyhow--are playing at sustained 16ths at 220 bpm with short bursts of sixteenths ((8-9 notes)) at 240 bpm. The reality of playing fast is that getting up to and past 180bpm is a truly monumental feat that not everyone can accomplish.