when did virtuosity become a bad thing?

in rock, i mean. because it's not a bad thing in the blues, country, funk, jazz, or hip hop (at least verbally). is it middle and upper class guilt somehow? does it have something maybe to do with rock critic chagrin about their own instrumental competence? was it just a marketing gimmick to sell punk? kind of curious. i was just reading geeta dayal's 33 1/3 book about brian eno and she keeps working this dialectic about eno's 'non-musicianship' vs. the hopeless prog rockers (which i think simplifies things (and really it's a great book otherwise! (but still))) and i couldn't imagine someone striking a similar chord discussing pharaoh sanders, albert king, bootsy collins, or ralph mooney, and being serious. not that rock musicians should be virtuosic. but i don't get why it's inherently bad, and why that is goes without saying, except, i guess, as a gimmick to sell punk?

not a bad thing in metal, either, as far as i know

she keeps working this dialectic about eno's 'non-musicianship' vs. the hopeless prog rockers

To be fair to her, Eno was the one who used to go on about being a non-musician, when he obviously was a musician

I came away from Geeta's book with an afirmed impression of Eno as a project manager who brought in the virtuosos - Fripp, Collins, etc etc.

was it just a marketing gimmick to sell punk?

It predates punk. See Eno.

but why is it a bad thing?

Possibly because a lot of arseholes in rock bands used to strut around like they were Mozart, and a Mozart with a massive cock in to the bargain, just because they could play the guitar really fast or play (actually relatively simple) pseudo-classical shit on two keyboards simultaneously or whatever. I've heard of "cock rock" but I've never heard of "cock jazz"... or "cock blues"...

I would guess that guys like Eno were reacting against the bombast and self-importance of a lot of guys (and they were guys!) who, when you got right down to it, weren't even that good

Bad thing because often prestige is borrowed - "classically-trained," for example- and this "virtuosity" substitutes for interesting songwriting, soundscapes, etc.
(xp)

but tom d that is a caricature, no? and you're dismissing virtuosity by virtue of a caricature? is that fair? i mean, a lot of them were good, were they not? isn't jay-z proud of his verbal dexterity and show it off?

and nick geeta does go on to say that eno became an instrumental virtuoso after the 70s. i am not knocking her book at all. the knocking of yes and genesis reminded me of gratuitous slams on the musicians in those bands i see all the time elsewhere. as if in rock and rock alone it's a bad thing to have chops. i am wondering why that is. i sort of get it, but not really

Do you know that story about Billy Zoom of X, Tom D, that he saw all the guys making all those tortured faces whilst they where playing something that after all really wasn't very hard so that's why he decided to smile all the time when onstage.

but yes had lots of interesting soundscapes! and i would bet a million bucks rick wakeman didn't always look tortured. this isn't a veiled defense of yes or anything. maybe to put a finer point on it -- why in rock and rock alone is virtuosity in music defined by its worst elements? what's wrong with steve hackett?

Virtuosity wasn't always a bad thing though, even in the punk era, Exhibit A being Television, it was self-indulgent virtuosity that was the problem.

but what is 'self-indulgent virtuosity' in rock, compared to, say, jazz? defining (and dismissing) any aesthetic by its worst elements seems lazy to me

and you're dismissing virtuosity by virtue of a caricature?

I'm not actually dismissing virtuosity at all

Difficult to play jazz (that's any good) without really good technique. Same isn't true in 'rock'.

Can someone who knows about jazz criticism confirm that jazz musicians don't get accused of self-indulgent virtuosity (or self-indulgence for that matter, given that virtuosity is taken as a given)?

i've seen lots of cocky blues and jazz solos. they tend to be thrilling

Sometimes people complain about 'self-indulgent virtuosity' in jazz too- Oscar Peterson was often accused of this, and Art Tatum used to get it all the time.

But yeah this:

Difficult to play jazz (that's any good) without really good technique. Same isn't true in 'rock'.

― R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Monday, June 20, 2011 6:59 AM (1 minute ago)

Yes, some jazz guys get accused of being flashy, lacking substance, being (counter-inuitively) facile (xp)

Genesis, prog rock in general I'd say.

Also the concept of 'empty virtuosity' certainly exists in classical music, for performers as much as composers.

There's also the Mark S school of thought that there's no such thing as empty virtuosity in any genre.

i wonder why the invective is so much more pronounced when discussing rock. maybe it's class-based somehow, or something

Don't think Genesis were particularly virtuosic anyway - apart from Phil Collins. Why bring class in to it, it's got nothing to do with it, Jon Anderson was a milkman from Accrington!

A lot of people had a problem wuith the wankiness of free jazz.

this seems an ... outdated view, in some ways

in rock its head v groin. too much of that noodly stuff kind of loses the wild raw spontanaety that is part of 'rock's very nature. thats my theory anyhow.

i think i know more people who will refuse to see a band who can't play their instruments very well than who will refuse to see a band who play their instruments too well

A lot of bizarre Hongroesque statements being made here. How do you explain 15 years of Radiohead acclaim if it's a question of 'head v groin' or 'virtuosity = bad'?

that said, i think the idea that this idea has ever held true anywhere is wrong

So Who ARE The Mystery Girls?

matt dc i was going to cite tv on the radio winning the pazz and jop, i don't know if that is a good example or not

thats true but those people are wrong. ever hear the music in a train?

i have to go to bed now. nighty night. i will find the results of this inquiry in the morn.

this seems an ... outdated view, in some ways

Definitely

i think a lot of people, musically, have worked the positive version of this case -- WE AS A BAND BELIEVE THAT A NAIVE APPROACH TO MUSIC-MAKING CAN BE THRILLING AND FUN. but i don't think you can find a band who stand for virtuosity being bad.

thats true but those people are wrong. ever hear the music in a train?

i have to go to bed now. nighty night. i will find the results of this inquiry in the morn.

― Hinklepicker, Monday, 20 June 2011 11:12 (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^ valuable new posters

hmmm if anything free jazz was seen as anti-virtuosic - crude,untutored, r'n'b-derived etc - when compared to the chops of more traditional jazz players

I think the success of Muse, amongst others, suggests this is now a dead ideology, at least commercially (if it ever lived, commercially).

There was the interesting PJ Harvey quote about how she never plays an instrument except when songwriting or performing live, never practices, in order to maintain a sense of discovery that fuels her songwriting.

but i don't think you can find a band who stand for virtuosity being bad

Well, there's a lot of bands out there, I'm sure there's at least one!

no i think it is maybe ontologically impossible? i don't know

There was the interesting PJ Harvey quote about how she never plays an instrument except when songwriting or performing live, never practices, in order to maintain a sense of discovery that fuels her songwriting.

maybe she'll discover some more chords someday

I think it's about when virtuosity becomes self-indulgence. Someone like Steve Vai and his guitar noodling peers I can't stand, because the music is about the virtuosity. This virtuosity isn't just in the genes or a background of the music, it's virtuosity for virtuosity's sake. Which is nagl imho.

Steve Vai doesn't actually have any fans at all who aren't guitarists though, as far as I know?

paul bley is famous for never playing unless he's recording or doing a gig but he's... an acknowledged master of his instrument

Oh, you may well be right about that, yes xp

(but i wouldn't be surprised if his reasons are similar to pj harvey's)

xp

I like the concept, but goddammit, it just conjures up images of those long-haired dudes who are always hanging around rehearsal studios and guitar shops, playing "Stairway To Heaven" or killer metal riffs. ::shudders::
― Paranoid Spice (kate), Thursday, 20 October 2005 15:44 (5 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

If you ain't got the chops, you can always play "Chopsticks."
― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 20 October 2005 15:44 (5 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I mean, the only thing worse than "HOTT chops" is "Killer Chops!!!!"
Dude.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Thursday, 20 October 2005 15:44 (5 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I guess it makes more sense when you hang out with a lot of horn players, who actually use their "chops" to play.
― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 20 October 2005 15:45 (5 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Wish I could remember who was the jazz bass player who was practicing like crazy in his hotel room when Ray Brown knocked on the door and said something like "Man, if you're going to go to all that trouble, why not just play guitar instead?"

Ha!

Then there's some story about a horn player- George Coleman, maybe- who was playing all kinds of stuff at a gig and Miles Davis turned to him and said something like "I don't pay you to practice on the bandstand"

all these rules

don't point your plastic finger at me

just my noodle

seriously though, part of what's great about electronic music for example is the freedom from all of the restrictions, limitations, and traditions of physical instruments. I can't understand the desire to shoehorn old classical notions of instrumental technique onto something that's an entirely different practice. It seems... rockist to me (classicist? I dunno). but then maybe I've bought into this whole "virtuosity as a bad thing" sentiment too much in relation to certain modern styles of music.

but surely Miles' approach [to the trumpet] was a form of virtuosity?

― shake it, shake it, sugary pee (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:49 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

i don't know why we'd need to make this claim on miles' behalf. i honestly don't know whether or not his playing was extraordinarily adept from a technical perspective. we have plenty of words with which to praise musicians we admire without turning "virtuoso" into some basically meaningless all-purpose honorific like "genius".

You could probably make a case for Prince as a virtuoso based on the sheer number of instruments he can play technically well and the rhythmic precision of his multi-tracked, solo arrangements.

― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:05 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

this seems reasonable, same with the claim that he was a virtuoso master of the recording studio, though that stretches the definition quite a bit.

I also agree that there's something of a conflation of "precision" with "virtuosity" in this discussion. (apologies if this convo already happened) A virtuoso's palette is much wider than just precision; to me, anyway, the term means that the person can play or sing ANYTHING. You're talking clean, messy, complicated, simple, overwrought, cold... the person you're talking about can play or sing any of those styles/moods and is, if not equally excellent at them all, well beyond credible in them all.

― chupacabra - a delicious burrito (DJP), Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:03 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

i don't know about this. many celebrated instrumental virtuosos (glenn gould, jascha heifetz) worked within a fairly narrow range of musical approaches. within that range, they were capable of enormous variety, but that's not to say that they could or would want to play absolutely anything. hard to say though, because virtuosity generally means you get to play what you want the way you want in a context that suits you.

i don't know why we'd need to make this claim on miles' behalf. i honestly don't know whether or not his playing was extraordinarily adept from a technical perspective. we have plenty of words with which to praise musicians we admire without turning "virtuoso" into some basically meaningless all-purpose honorific like "genius".

Your last point was OTM. And I'm not necessarily saying that Miles' reputation as a player was particularly embattled (although he's far better on his recordings with Parker than the one-fluffed-session and sticky notions of youthful ineptitude would suggest) and needs to be defended. I guess I'm saying that Miles was a virtuoso at being Miles: as much facility as Wynton has, he can't approach Miles' sound, no matter how hard he tries.

(And I'd go as far as saying the Shaggs were virtuosi at being the Shaggs. Though I can see how continuing down that road might make things, um, problematic.)

Though I can see how continuing down that road might make things, um, problematic.

It sure would. I think stuff like "Miles was a virtuoso at being Miles" is counterproductive in this thread.

ha yes, thank you

It's nice to be nice to the nice

Just because we lack the linguistic precision to describe precisely the ways in which certain pieces of electronic music are virtuosic doesn't mean there isn't something to the claim that they are. The word "feel" is dubious and inexact, sure, but it relates to a sense that we, as listeners trusting our ears and instincts and comparing a piece of music or a performance to others like it that we've heard, realize something special and different and "next-level" is going on. I want to second Geeta's earlier assertion that there's a difference between virtuosity and manual dexterity. Two people can both play a complex passage for guitar "correctly" (i.e. hitting the right notes on the page, etc), but if one comes across dry and flat and the other comes across resonant and feeling "right" we wouldn't say that both were equally virtuosic, would we?

― Clarke B., Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:52 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

last one. would agree that one might make a case for the virtuosity of certain pieces of electronic music ― from a compositional standpoint. though "virtuoso composer" might be a metaphorical stretch, it's something of a commonplace and makes sense to me. certain pieces of classical music are clearly the product of prodigious skill. they work extremely complex musical/mathematical ideas out with almost superhuman precision and elegance. if we can say the same thing, or something similar, about a piece of electronic music, then it might be reasonable to call its composer a virtuoso.

but virtuosity isn't something we perceive intuitively, at the gut level. if we reduce it to that, there's no need for the term, we might as well just say "genius" or "greatness" or something equally vague. music can seem "next-level" to us without there being any sort of virtuosity being involved in the performance or composition.

as for the last question, relating to the difference between manual dexterity and virtuosic skill, i don't think there's a clear answer. first, "manual dexterity" isn't the same thing as instrumental skill. one can be dextrous without being able to play an instrument, and one could probably fight an innate clumsiness to achieve some level of instrumental mastery. what we call virtuosity seems generally to result from a combination of innate dexterity, diligent training, deep fascination and some neurological/psychological X-factor. if someone were to possess staggering technical skills but no apparent "feel" for music's emotional significance, we might call them a "technical virtuoso" (or some such), but would qualify this by noting their deficiencies in other areas.

extra "being" in paragraph 2, dag

when did it become a bad thing for Miles to be a virtuoso at being Miles? lol

This might be a dumb thought, but does the concept of the virtuoso only make sense within the context of a canon? That would explain why the concept doesn't really translate to something like electronic music, and why it doesn't quite make sense to expect a virtuoso's skills to cross over to another totally separate musical style. And also it would explain why the concept does seem to make a sort of sense within jazz (how fast can you play over the Cherokee changes, or what kind of new interpretation can you bring to How High the Moon).

And the period of time where rock music valued technical mastery might also correspond to the emergence and then disappearance of a type of canon. (starting with maybe "what can you do with Hey Joe" and culminating in "how fast can you play Eruption").

I"M THE OPERATOR WITH MY POCKET CALCULATOR

Irving Berlin was a virtuoso at being Irving Berlin.

Nothing nothings.

I wish I was a virtuoso at being myself

guys, miles is a terrible example of a virtuoso, especially next to a trumpet player like, say, clifford brown. he's the ultimate example of using your technical weaknesses to create a unique style, and concept trumping, well, virtuosity.

btw this is such an old school ilm thread, i feel like it's 2002.

(not a bad thing!)

You forgot Maynard Ferguson, Jordan.

That was a good point, wk. You need a general consensus of a body of experts to decide where a performer is placed on the spectrum of virtuosity. And the way an instrument is played in one style might sound wrong or bad judged by another style- for example Broadway singing style vs. operatic singing or jazz swing time vs. rock straight eighths.

right, maynard would be the yngwie of trumpet, if you want to go the opposite end of the spectrum.

``He's got bad intonation, bad technique. He's trying new things, but he hasn't mastered his instrument yet.'' - Maynard Ferguson on Ornette Coleman!

"I'd listened to him all kinds of ways. I listened to him high and I listened to him cold sober. I even played with him. I think he's jiving baby." - Roy Eldridge on same.

Did you know anybody that played in the Maynard Ferguson band, Jordan?

Bill Dixon used to talk about "all those people that laughed at Ornette, and then had to learn how to play like him."

half agree that virtuosity demands a canon, or at least a shared baseline reference for what constitutes excellence, but also disagree. the point's been made countless times in this thread, but instrumental virtuosity is much like athleticism ― the skills involved are self-evident and easily cross cultural boundaries. for this reason, virtuosi are often celebrated internationally, far outside the cultural context in which their abilities would supposedly make the most sense. while not everyone likes or even understands the same sorts of music, the ability to play with blinding speed, dexterity, subtlety and grace is something of a universal language.

And the period of time where rock music valued technical mastery might also correspond to the emergence and then disappearance of a type of canon. (starting with maybe "what can you do with Hey Joe" and culminating in "how fast can you play Eruption").

― Ktulu says, I've come to hate my body (wk), Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:45 PM (52 minutes ago) Bookmark

i dunno. one could argue for the existence of a contemporary alt/art rock canon built around the likes of the velvet underground, joy division, sonic youth, the pixies, my bloody valentine, and radiohead. it's a canon that shuns ostentatious instrumental virtuosity, but it's no less a canon.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, contenderizer...

"music can seem "next-level" to us without there being any sort of virtuosity being involved in the performance or composition."

Right, but I meant that it seeming "next-level" is a necessary but not sufficient condition of virtuosity.

"what we call virtuosity seems generally to result from a combination of innate dexterity, diligent training, deep fascination and some neurological/psychological X-factor."

This elusive X-factor is exactly what I mean by "next-level," but I'm super-hesitant to discuss it as something instantiated in the brain, something neurologically/psychologically encoded (that gets into REALLY murky waters). Why not just leave it as something that comes across in the execution, something that we can perceive as spectators but can't articulate adequately? On a different note, it's hard for me to process the notion of "hedged virtuoso"--i.e. a virtuoso who can, I dunno, play real fast but has no sense for drama or tension/release. There's no such thing as perfection (well, nothing provable as such), but when I say someone's a virtuoso I mean that I can't imagine them playing in any way differently that would make their playing better.

guys, miles is a terrible example of a virtuoso, especially next to a trumpet player like, say, clifford brown. he's the ultimate example of using your technical weaknesses to create a unique style, and concept trumping, well, virtuosity.

^^^OTM. Miles being cited in this thread is very strange

I think they were actually referring to Mies, Mies van der Rohe, who was an architectural virtuoso.

"empty virtuosity" About 6,200 results

People's aversion to musical virtuosity

I gave up on Maynard Ferguson years ago when I saw him in the Kenton band lying on his back kicking his feet in the air while playing nonsense in his ultra high routine. Sounded for all the world like air escaping from a balloon.

I was basically trying to pin down a definition of virtuosity. Some were limiting it to technical facility, and some said an emotional component should figure in. My thinking was, Miles had a technical mastery of certain things that other more technically proficient trumpeters (by the generally-accepted standards) could not approach, technically or otherwise.

xxp

James Redd/Blecchs deserves a laugh for his "Some Like It Hot" photo

like what? to me, it still sounds like you're talking about making smart musical choices.

My thinking was, Miles had a technical mastery of certain things that other more technically proficient trumpeters (by the generally-accepted standards) could not approach, technically or otherwise.

― shake it, shake it, sugary pee (Tarfumes The Escape Goat)

not sure the first "technical" belongs in there? most seem to think that miles wasn't the world's most adept or versatile instrumental technician. his mastery lay in his: clever deployment of his abilities and inabilities, development of a personal style, emotional expression, skill as a composer and arranger, and ability to recognize and cultivate ability in others.

Thanks, MVB. I like that picture so much thought about reposting it further downthread.

Miles' greatest strength was as a bandleader, right? Which also seems like a weird thing to try to apply the label "virtuoso" to.

btw this is such an old school ilm thread, i feel like it's 2002.

lol, true. "when did actually talking about music earnestly become a bad thing?"

i dunno. one could argue for the existence of a contemporary alt/art rock canon built around the likes of the velvet underground, joy division, sonic youth, the pixies, my bloody valentine, and radiohead. it's a canon that shuns ostentatious instrumental virtuosity, but it's no less a canon.

Yeah true. I guess I was thinking of, not so much a critical canon, but something more like a shared canon of "standards" among musicians. There's no indie rock fake book that you're expected to memorize. I doubt that somebody auditioning for a Sonic Youth type band would be expected to play a Thurston Moore solo squeal for squeal. Whereas I think that kind of was the case with metal (eruption, etc).

half agree that virtuosity demands a canon, or at least a shared baseline reference for what constitutes excellence, but also disagree. the point's been made countless times in this thread, but instrumental virtuosity is much like athleticism ― the skills involved are self-evident and easily cross cultural boundaries. for this reason, virtuosi are often celebrated internationally, far outside the cultural context in which their abilities would supposedly make the most sense. while not everyone likes or even understands the same sorts of music, the ability to play with blinding speed, dexterity, subtlety and grace is something of a universal language.

Yes, that's also true. I guess I was thinking more of the process by which musicians actually get their technique to a high level like that though. So a generation of guitarists who grew up trying to copy EVH developed serious chops, while a slightly younger generation who grew up wanting to be Kurt Cobain didn't. Which I guess goes back to as you were saying, there is a canon, but it's just not one that requires much in the way of instrumental technique.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI4NzI2NDM1NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDIxNDI2._V1._SX450_SY306_.jpg

not sure the first "technical" belongs in there? most seem to think that miles wasn't the world's most adept or versatile instrumental technician. his mastery lay in his: clever deployment of his abilities and inabilities, development of a personal style, emotional expression, skill as a composer and arranger, and ability to recognize and cultivate ability in others.

― And the piano, it sounds like a carnivore (contenderizer), Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:26 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark

All of that is certainly true, but the reason I noted his technical mastery was because of the distinctiveness of his sound, one which marked something of a turning point in the sound of the instrument. Even symphony players have said that, over time, Miles' sound changed the way classical trumpeters approach their instruments.

which brings up the difference between influence and virtuosity. i mean, kurt cobain was one of the most influential male pop/rock singers of the late 20th century, but i'm not sure that this was a product of his technical mastery. suppose that gets into subjective criteria for "mastery"...

creativity does not = virtuosity

Sorry, forgot to add the caption Cannon to my last post

Surprising that the discussion of multi-instrumentalism made no mention of these guys

lol

or this one ~ mccartney ii is sick

recorded the whole thing himself