Resolution to the frequent debates about speed

gobba, gobba, hey....

Here's what happens on a virtuoso get-together hehe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kilLE3R-mFM


Edit: Maybe I should've posted that in a separate thread
Dont let this throw the discussion off course please =)

Why does Steve Morse Come to mind when i think of Virtuso?
Im sure he cant play Semiquavers at 200bpm+ but his a great musical mind any body agree?

I would think that Steve Morse could be put in that category of virtuoso---at the very least in terms of speed. His compositional ideas and lines are nice, I think.

My favorite player, by the way, for anyone interested--is Angus Young, who is far from being the fastest, cleanest, etc.

Personaly i dont think Steve Morse would be a virtuoso from speed :confused: I respect Angus Young for his playing and how he use's a completly Dry signal he's game to just got from Guitar Straight into the amp.

Also why does every one seem love Zakk Wylde, his not that great his good realy good; but not at the level of so many other players. :confused:

Originally Posted by: damagedAlso why does every one seem love Zakk Wylde, his not that great his good realy good; but not at the level of so many other players. :confused:

He plateaued after his days with ozzy and he really hasn't done anything different since his Pride and Glory and Book of Shadows albums...... He's a rock/metal guitarist... he's not trying to be Steve Vai and Joe Satriani... so I don't see why anyone should compare him to them.

I forsee a 300000 page semantic argument over the term 'virtuso'.

Yeah this pretty much is an argument over sematics which makes it pointless. Music is relative, you like what you like, no offense to the thread started but just because you go to berklee doesnt mean you know what a virtuoso is and we dont. I feel that a virtuoso is someone with advanced skill, Satch, Vai, Petrucci and yes even Wylde.


Alot of peoples assumtions of zakk wylde are only based on his recent work, lets say The Blessed Hellride, Mafia and Shot to Hell. Any albums earlier than that have much better lyrical and compositional content (especially P&G and Book of Shadows). Also I've seen him improvise and it can be pretty impressive especially when hes on an acoustic. Zakk actually has a huge range of styles he can play, he's not all pinch harmonics, pentatonic scales and palm mutes. Is he the best out there? not by a long shot, but dont sell him short he's a great player.

Speed is over rated btw :p (I'm sure someone else has said that)

Originally Posted by: BLS33

Speed is over rated btw :p (I'm sure someone else has said that)

Yes... I have stated that. haha

'Yeah this pretty much is an argument over sematics which makes it pointless. Music is relative, you like what you like, no offense to the thread started but just because you go to berklee doesnt mean you know what a virtuoso is and we dont. I feel that a virtuoso is someone with advanced skill, Satch, Vai, Petrucci and yes even Wylde.'

It's funny--the thread was started to dispel myths concerning how fast the fastest players play.

I never once said that my education at Berklee predisposed me to name who everyone should like and who they should not. ((Yes, I do feel that the term virtuoso is one that is easily defined and that it is WAY overused---so do most musicians, to be honest))

Satch and Wylde, if you want to talk about a virtuoso--do not have a particularly advanced skill level on guitar. When you say something like 'someone who is highly skilled on a musical instrument' you have to remember to compare the skill displayed by Zakk Wylde with the skill displayed by Al Di Meola, Paco De Lucia, Allan Holdsworth and several other guitar players---genre doesn't matter, only the fellow players of the instrument.

Put Zakk Wylde next to guys like that and he simply doesn't measure up to that caliber. Same thing with Satch.

A virtuoso is someone that you could mention to a professor of music theory, director of a classical orchestra, guitarist in a rock band, jazz musician, and session guitarist---and they'd all agree that the person is indeed a virtuoso. Ask any of those guys about Yngwie---they will tell you that, while Yngwie overplays--his ability is almost beyond compare and that he is a virtuoso. Ask them about Holdsworth---they will say the same thing, provided they are musically informed enough. Ask them about Paco, they will say the same thing.


What is subjective here is whether or not you 'like' the musician and/or feel that they are very accomplished in terms of technique. Yet, the term virtuoso isn't one that's made to be tossed around so freely.

These are my views only---just explaining myself more clearly

Once I read bout Addam Nusbaum (a jazz drummer) he was presenting at the Modern Drummer weekend festival, he was playing with guys like Terry Bozzio, Dave Abruzzese (ex pearl jam) and I think Mike Portnoy was there too...

Adam came after a row of blazing solos and hard_to_play chops performed by many of those mentioned above on massive drumkits... he came out to the stage with a newspaper and a pair of brushes... and played "tea for two" sitting in the edge of the stage ON the newspaper.

His approach to music keeps ringing on my head today... he said:

"when it comes to music I don't just want fast hands... but fast ears"

Speed is cool, I wuold love to play as fast as anyone here, but we MUST serve music first... if it fits... go ahead but most of the time it's just Dragonfoce ...cough... cought....I ment posse.

Originally Posted by: PlatonicShred
If you research the history on the term virtuoso and what it means, you'll see that, in the modern sense of the word, a virtuoso is someone who's ability inspires 'awe' in those who watch them perform.

Forgive me if I'm completely missing the point here (which is likely :o), but if a virtuoso is defined as somebody who inspires awe in their audience, then virtuosity by definition has less to do with technical prowess and more to do with pure, subjective difference in taste.

For example, David Gilmour practically NEVER plays fast or technically convoluted passages, but he inspires utmost awe in countless thousands of Floyd fans - can he not, then, be considered a virtuoso? I for one think so. However, many others may not be awed by his playing - accordingly, they do not consider him a virtuoso, which is perfectly valid, because the point I'm trying to make is that the perception of virtuosity is purely subjective. If John Petrucci, or Joe Satriani, or Zakk Wylde, or Gary Moore, or Wes Montgomery, or Neil Young, or even Billie Joe Armstrong - if any of those people inspire awe in you with their musicianship, then you have every right to consider them a virtuoso. Others may not agree with you, but if you see them as virtuosic, you are 100% entitled to your opinion - which, I think, is the point that both PlatonicShred and Mr. Creta have been trying to make all along. (Similarly, you don't have to agree with the above definition of a "virtuoso" - but I think we'd all rather avoid an even more protracted debate on semantics)

Whew! Long post, considering I may be completely missing the point... :D

Just putting in a post to subscribe to the thread. Jon must have fixed the spam issue because I haven't had the chance to ban anyone in awhile. Trigger finger's gettin' itchy. This looks like a good thread to get some practice in.

/hint

Originally Posted by: PlatonicShred

Ask them about Holdsworth---they will say the same thing, provided they are musically informed enough.

Don'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.)

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.

Originally Posted by: polanskyOnce I read bout Addam Nusbaum (a jazz drummer) he was presenting at the Modern Drummer weekend festival, he was playing with guys like Terry Bozzio, Dave Abruzzese (ex pearl jam) and I think Mike Portnoy was there too...

Adam came after a row of blazing solos and hard_to_play chops performed by many of those mentioned above on massive drumkits... he came out to the stage with a newspaper and a pair of brushes... and played "tea for two" sitting in the edge of the stage ON the newspaper.

His approach to music keeps ringing on my head today... he said:

"when it comes to music I don't just want fast hands... but fast ears"

Speed is cool, I wuold love to play as fast as anyone here, but we MUST serve music first... if it fits... go ahead but most of the time it's just Dragonfoce ...cough... cought....I ment posse.

I mentioned this earlier, actually. I wouldn't consider someone as able to play at virtuoso speed unless they were actually using their ears while doing so--not just re-running their pet licks ad nauseum. Yngwie has his pet licks--true--but the man also does a whole lot more. Slow down his solos and you'll see what I am talking about---if he did a lot of that stuff at medium tempo they would make pretty good melodies in their own right.

So, yes, I fully support that. Playing fast is also about playing smart and with good aural skill as well.


And my answer to the person referring to Dave Gilmour--I'd say you were right, he does inspire awe. Yet, that awe is not due to his technical command in terms of speed. You could say that his vibrato and bends are virtuosic--but not that Dave Gilmour himself is a virtuoso, if you were to use my logic.

Every aspect of a virtuoso's playing, again according to MY previous definition, would inspire awe---from vibrato to tone to speed.

Hmmm...

Playing sustained 16ths at 180 is something that anyone with enough time, discipline and determination can acheive. I have never believed that anyone is born with or without the capacity to achieve something.... it's all practice / application. Maybe you're born with a predisposition to be musical, but not with the skill.

It seems the 'what makes a virtuoso' question has taken over, so my thoughts on that one - Platonic... your definition of virtuoso exceeds the accepted definition by a distance, and accordingly very few players make the cut. The definition of the word, depending on source, is someone who has 'masterful technique' or 'excellent command' of their instrument in a musical context - if we use this as the benchmark, alot of the guys around here would make it. On Gilmour above - if he inspires awe, then by your definition, he is a virtuoso regardless of why that awe exists.

When I play live, I hope people cheer because they enjoyed the music, not because they assume that I read music, have a grip on theory, and have passed through music education.

We talk about speed because it's a tangible benchmark. There are many guys who play with more feel than me, but I'm faster. I think they're better, they think I am - I think it's about wanting what you don't have. That's why for the most part only people who can't play fast run down playing fast (and I did it myself once too when I couldn't :eek: )... while guys who can often focus on it to the detriment of everything else (Which I've also been guilty of back in time).

The cops don't pull you for speeding because that's the most dangerous thing on the road, they do it because it's easier to bust you for doing 80mph than it is to say they had the feeling you weren't very safe. If all the discussions on speed here had been 'Who is the most tasteful guitar player?', how would you measure it?

Originally Posted by: renHmmm...

Playing sustained 16ths at 180 is something that anyone with enough time, discipline and determination can acheive. I have never believed that anyone is born with or without the capacity to achieve something.... it's all practice / application. Maybe you're born with a predisposition to be musical, but not with the skill.

It seems the 'what makes a virtuoso' question has taken over, so my thoughts on that one - Platonic... your definition of virtuoso exceeds the accepted definition by a distance, and accordingly very few players make the cut. The definition of the word, depending on source, is someone who has 'masterful technique' or 'excellent command' of their instrument in a musical context - if we use this as the benchmark, alot of the guys around here would make it. On Gilmour above - if he inspires awe, then by your definition, he is a virtuoso regardless of why that awe exists.

When I play live, I hope people cheer because they enjoyed the music, not because they assume that I read music, have a grip on theory, and have passed through music education.

We talk about speed because it's a tangible benchmark. There are many guys who play with more feel than me, but I'm faster. I think they're better, they think I am - I think it's about wanting what you don't have. That's why for the most part only people who can't play fast run down playing fast (and I did it myself once too when I couldn't :eek: )... while guys who can often focus on it to the detriment of everything else (Which I've also been guilty of back in time).

The cops don't pull you for speeding because that's the most dangerous thing on the road, they do it because it's easier to bust you for doing 80mph than it is to say they had the feeling you weren't very safe. If all the discussions on speed here had been 'Who is the most tasteful guitar player?', how would you measure it?

Well put, might I add you cant messure taste in a number so its not as easy to see how tastfull you and say I play at XXX tastiness but you can easily messure speed and say I play at XXXbpm. After a certain speed is reached its more about the competative side of playing then for the actule good of it being "another tool in your arsnal of sonic assult" so to speak. So why does being fast due to competativness or being the fastest make you musicaly better?

Originally Posted by: damaged...So why does being fast due to competativness or being the fastest make you musicaly better?

It doesn't, it just makes you the fastest! being 'better' is subjective as well. I learned to shred because I wanted to, and because I reasoned that if I could play something at 100mph, I could do it even better at the usual 40mph. Thing is, once you get in to playing fast, it's kinda hard to stop.... at least in my experience...