Virtuosos becoming a dime a dozen

Jack-Flash-Jr

Thought provoking article from NY Times via r/music:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/arts/music/yuja-wang-and-kirill-gerstein-lead-a-new-piano-generation.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

It sounds like they need a sprinkling of Killer:

Bob-Dubery

I think this is happening in all sorts of fields. In cricket fan boi circles there are endless arguments about whether or not Sachin Tendulkar can be ranked with Don Bradman (I want to know if Bradman can be ranked with WG Grace, but that's partly provocative). Now of course Tendulkar is not ahead of the field by anywhere near the marging that Bradman or Grace were, so some folks say "No. Not even close."

However there's a counter argument with some validity that says that overall standards tend to rise so that the gap between the very best guys and the average guys shrinks. So there are one of two ways to look at this
1) There aren't any virutosos around right now (and may never be again)
2) There are lots of virtuosos around right now (and so what)

I think in musical terms it's going to force the listener to decide what really counts and possibly the same things might occur to the players. I hear a lot of very good players these days. Really, they're all over the place. I hear less that I find really interesting, that make music with real emotional impact and where the emotion is sparked by something other than the sheer wonder at the excellence of the playing (which I think is a rapidly devaluing currency and wasn't worth that much in the first place).

I've been trying to find the interview I read recently, but can't remember who said this magical thing that I am about to reveal. But still, it was some highly regarded player known for his or her versatility and he was asked about incorporating things that he hears other people play into his own playing. The response (approximately) was "I can always figure out the structure of what they're doing, but how they get so much feeling in is another matter."

Last year I had the privilege (and it really was) of seeing Norma Waterson singing on stage. There is no doubt that technically she is a very good singer - her pitch is spot on, her control remarkable. Now you can say that of a fair number of singers (even in this autotuned day and age), but the real reason I remember that gig was not the technically great singing and occasional fireworks from Norma Waterson and her daughter Eliza Carthy, but the hair-raising emotion she could convey, they way she dealt with the story in the songs she sang (a gift which her husband Martin Carthy also has).

Martin Carthy tells a story of when he was seeking out one of the old "source singers" who were considered the magic touchstones for the folk artists in the UK in during the folk revival of the late 50s and early 60s. This was Walter Parden. If you don't know who Walter Parden is (and I have only the vaguest idea) it doesn't matter. Carthy talks about sitting around a table with Parden and discussing the songs they knew and liked. So Parden says "sing me [some song or other]" and Carthy obliges. Then, Carthy says (approximately) ' he said to me, "this is how I sing it" and he leaned forward and put his forearms on the table and as he started singing you could see the hair on his arms standing up, that's how much emotion he was investing in that song. And I thought to myself "I hope I can get to that place one day, and I hope I'll still be there when I'm his age." '

Last June I heard Norma Waterson sing Ewan MaColl's "The Moving On Song". I've heard quite a few people do that song. Nobody does it like Norma Waterson does, she'll break your heart with her performance of that song - and thrill you at the same time.

That's the really good stuff in music, that's the stuff that really interests me.

I hear this sort of distinction a lot in blues playing these days. There's a lot of guys playing the blues or with their style firmly rooted in the blues who are technically superb players and who bore me silly. It's all so perfect and so superbly executed and so polished that there's no life left in it.

I'm not saying skill counts for nothing, just that skill alone doesn't count for that much.

IMO

YMMV

Jack-Flash-Jr

X-rated Bob wrote
I'm not saying skill counts for nothing, just that skill alone doesn't count for that much.

Zigackly, ferpectly right. And if all those pianists have a little magic attached to them, well, how lucky we are! But I also think it's a lot more difficult to inject emotion into a genre that requires strict adherence to the score as a minimum requirement. No one get's their feather's in a froth if a Hendrix number is not played note for note as long as the invention matches the spirit of the original. The problem may not lie with the artists themselves but with the constraints of their art.

AlanRatcliffe

He, he... "cookie-cutter virtuosos". Sounds familiar... ?

Another good one:
"You might divide pianists into two basic groups: those who have the technique to play anything and those who have all the technique they need, thank you, to play the music that is meaningful to them. "

X-rated Bob wrote I'm not saying skill counts for nothing, just that skill alone doesn't count for that much.

Well said sir. ?

PeteM

Jack Flash Jr wrote The problem may not lie with the artists themselves but with the constraints of their art.

I don't believe it's the "constraints of their art" but the constraints imposed by the musicoligists/so-called-experts. To me the real art or creativity belongs to the person who composes the stuff. A performer is just that... someone who is trying to express what the composer intended. Yes, you get those who are able to add value as performers but they are rare animals.

So where are these creative geniuses, the serious composers of today... I know... they are making big bucks writing movie scores.

Bob-Dubery

Jack Flash Jr wrote
X-rated Bob wrote
I'm not saying skill counts for nothing, just that skill alone doesn't count for that much.

Zigackly, ferpectly right. And if all those pianists have a little magic attached to them, well, how lucky we are! But I also think it's a lot more difficult to inject emotion into a genre that requires strict adherence to the score as a minimum requirement. No one get's their feather's in a froth if a Hendrix number is not played note for note as long as the invention matches the spirit of the original. The problem may not lie with the artists themselves but with the constraints of their art.

You know, there are compositions where the good stuff is built in, or at least is available to the performer to bring out if they have what it takes. I used to go to listen to the JPO on a fairly regular basis, and it seemed to be that there were some pieces in which the main interest was how the pianist attacked a certain passage, or if the ritarnados were sufficiently ostinato (I don't know what those words actually mean, so don't shoot me, I'm just trying to illustrate the sort of conversations I'd hear in the lobby).

And then there are things like Beethoven's 5th Piano Concerto, AKA "The Emperor" which just seem to have the emotion built right into them. I do think that for pieces like that it does require a little more than just not fouling it up, and certainly in orchestral music I do think the conductor makes a big difference. I do think there is room in those solo passages - especially with a guy like Beethoven who has loaded the music with so much emotion in the first place - for the sensitive soloist to really pull something magical out. These things are quite subtle I think and hard to quantify, but something inside us senses the difference.

I suppose we're talking about "soul".

Jack-Flash-Jr

To me the real art or creativity belongs to the person who composes the stuff.

Indeed indeed. Perhaps the ultimate virtuoso requirement is that he/she be both the composer and performer of their own music.
Sometimes a virtuoso can also take the work of another genius and boost it to a new level viz. All Along the Watchtower

Bob-Dubery

PeteM wrote I don't believe it's the "constraints of their art" but the constraints imposed by the musicoligists/so-called-experts. To me the real art or creativity belongs to the person who composes the stuff.

Well yes... and this aspect of music interests me greatly. See the post I just posted - Beethoven, to me, is hard to beat because the emotion, the real magic, is built into the compositions. I do though think that something like the Moonlight Sonata (for me one of the most marvellous pieces of music ever composed) can be ruined by a sufficiently artless technical virtuoso.

Two nights after I saw Norma Waterson last year I saw Loudon Wainwright. Now he's actually quite limited as a musician, but as a songwriter, and especially as a lyricist, he's on a very different level and again the real magic is built into the songs at the time of writing.

A performer is just that... someone who is trying to express what the composer intended. Yes, you get those who are able to add value as performers but they are rare animals.

I think the distinction gets blurred or missed these days when so many people perform their own material. Not so long ago you'd get sort of double acts where somebody would compose the piece and the performer would perform the piece. The best example I can think of is Dionne Warwick doing all those Bacharach and David songs. In that case both sides, composer and performer, bought something to the party.

So where are these creative geniuses, the serious composers of today... I know... they are making big bucks writing movie scores.

You got to pay the rent. Randy Newman does a sort of balancing act. He does a lot of movie soundtracks (most famously the "Toy Story" and "Fockers" series) but also puts out his own albums (not so often these days, more's the pity) which are given over more to his songs and his singing.

singemonkey

With pianists getting better and better, so many are so good that, paradoxically, I am less impressed by virtuosity.

I think this has happened with guitar players too. I think everyone was amazed by Eddie Van Halen. But since then? Dazzling skill in rock guitar has almost become a cliche - never more so than when it was condemned by the grunge scene.

But I had an experience that really illustrated this for me. I went to see the sitar master, Ravi Shankar perform in London. First up was his daughter Anoushka, who is apparently the only student of his who learned with him from scratch. Her virtuosity and speed on the instrument were stunning. Her fingers raced up and down the neck of the sitar in a blur on some of the fast passages.

But when her father sat down to play, he played a single note with a wide bend that seemed like he'd put a hook into our souls and yanked it. It was phenomenal. He then went onto play in precisely the lazy, sloppy way that the author mentioned, and it was magic. He was so much more powerful a player than his daughter despite having long since lost those mach 3 chops. The power of his expression was much greater than the superficial thrill of being amazed by virtuosity.

As the author says, the two are not mutually exclusive, but it's sad when virtuosity trumps expression every time and where, as the author says, a great player would have been refused entry into the prestigious schools if he'd applied in today.

Keira-WitherKay

singemonkey wrote [, as the author says, a great player would have been refused entry into the prestigious schools if he'd applied in today.

yes but arn't we just on to that old discussion , a significant musican who contributes to the musical world need not be a technical one....... it's the "feel vs technique" argument

[deleted]

Oooh ooh ooh, I have a lot to say here. Firstly this reminds me of a Derren Brown episode I saw ...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown). He had a show where he hipnotised a musician into believing that she was playing the piano for the first time in a performance. Long story short the performance was thrilling and gave the performer and the audience something that had somehow been lost previously...the sense of the unknown.

I believe that for a performance to be really something special you have to venture into the unknown.....a lot. I think a boring performance has something to do with the performer getting scared, plain and simple. And that shows in your playing even if you're hiding behind good technique. I think it's good to always be aware that things can screw up HORRIBLY, so make the freaking most of it!

Malkav

singemonkey wrote
With pianists getting better and better, so many are so good that, paradoxically, I am less impressed by virtuosity.
I think this has happened with guitar players too. I think everyone was amazed by Eddie Van Halen. But since then? Dazzling skill in rock guitar has almost become a cliche - never more so than when it was condemned by the grunge scene.

I think it has alot to do with which generation you're growing up in at this point and the relevance that music will have on you, in the circles of guitarists I associate with (between 18 - 35 years of age) generally the feeling towards players such as VH, JH or EC is very apathetical but mention examples such as Guthrie Govan, Bumblefoot or Shawn Lane and the entire group will affectionately light up and start singing their praises. This is one of those things that's incredibly opinion based though and quite often the individual that one would see as a virtuoso will be a matter of opinion, the real question is can you objectively break down the requirements one would have to have in order to be classified as a virtuoso? Everybody probably has different parameters in this regard so it's my belief that we will continue having virtuosos till the very end. I think the main factor in virtuosity is originality and a powerful command over ones own ability to express, technique is important with in reason - While I don't think you need to be able to play like Guthrie Govan to be a virtuoso I think awarding that title to the guy from Green Day would be setting the bar far too low.

Bob-Dubery

Chad Adam Browne wrote I think it has alot to do with which generation you're growing up in at this point and the relevance that music will have on you, in the circles of guitarists I associate with (between 18 - 35 years of age) generally the feeling towards players such as VH, JH or EC is very apathetical but mention examples such as Guthrie Govan, Bumblefoot or Shawn Lane and the entire group will affectionately light up and start singing their praises. This is one of those things that's incredibly opinion based though and quite often the individual that one would see as a virtuoso will be a matter of opinion, the real question is can you objectively break down the requirements one would have to have in order to be classified as a virtuoso?

I think it's more a matter of perspective (which some might argue isn't necessary and maybe it's not) or of history (again which some people will feel that they can ignore).

EVH represented a substantial raising of the bar at the time. He may have been surpassed since, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a very significant figure and represented a leap forward. Ditto Hendrix.

Things follow on from each other. One generation makes the next possible. Isacc Newton said "I could only see so far because I stood on the shoulders of the giants who came before me."

Everybody probably has different parameters in this regard so it's my belief that we will continue having virtuosos till the very end. I think the main factor in virtuosity is originality and a powerful command over ones own ability to express, technique is important with in reason - While I don't think you need to be able to play like Guthrie Govan to be a virtuoso I think awarding that title to the guy from Green Day would be setting the bar far too low.

I think it's more nuanced (or something) than that. Is Keith Richards a virtuoso? No. Did he lay down great guitar tracks? Yes.

Jack-Flash-Jr

Defn: A virtuoso (from Italian virtuoso, Late Latin virtuosus, Latin virtus meaning: skill, manliness, excellence) is an individual who possesses outstanding technical ability in the fine arts, at singing or playing a musical instrument. The defining element of virtuosity is the performance ability of the musician in question, who is capable of displaying feats of skill well above the average performer.

Looks like it's got nothing to do with making music...

Bob-Dubery

There are guitarists who are significant and important but are probably not virtuosi. Two examples would be Keef and Edge. Some would argue Jimmy Page, who certainly could be sloppy.

Squonk

Maybe split the virtuoso from Guitar to Musician. Jimmy Page might not be as technical as Govan, Bumblefoot and Lane but what he did in terms of influence and music will go further than what they will ever achieve!

Jack-Flash-Jr

There's no virtuoso's in my top 10... or top 20, I'm pretty sure. But maybe the definition needs to be tweaked... virtuoso?

Bob-Dubery

I'm thinking of something that I read in a Robert Fripp interview years and years and years ago (back in the pre-crocs era ?)

The interviewer suggested to Fripp that he had surpassed Hendrix.

Fripp said (more or less): "Technique is like vocabulary. There's how many words you know and there's what you have to say. I might know more words than Hendrix did, but he had much more to say."

Malkav

Squonk wrote Maybe split the virtuoso from Guitar to Musician. Jimmy Page might not be as technical as Govan, Bumblefoot and Lane but what he did in terms of influence and music will go further than what they will ever achieve!

It's all really a matter of perspective I guess, yes they achieved more than most but that's not to say they're going to stand out to everybody. As far as influence goes, I know that the three above mentioned players have had more influence on me and my friends than Page ever will, this isn't to say that we can detract from what Page has done, it's just not everyone's cup of tea so to speak.

I have noticed though that there's a very tiring mindset in the musical community that states that noone will ever come close to these giants of old and they all tend to be venerated a little too much sometimes, I think this is probably one of the most off putting factors of this kind of debate though as it's all pretty much opinion based and lots of people have very strong opinions. I know that by the time I heard JH for the first time the hype of him had been built up so much that I was really quite disappointed, as I stated before though it's all about the relevance that they would have had to your life, which in my case is not really much. Yes no doubt my heros were influenced by him, but that's not to say that I have to like him.

These days it's very hard for there to be a comparison though as the audiences of those days were fairly captive in a sense, only really discovering stuff based off of radio play or via friends, no doubt some people sought out new players but for the most part there was one glaring and huge difference - THE INTERNETS. These days if I want to find music I can enjoy a quick search through a forum or a bit of a trawl over google or youtube can deliver to me tons of incredible new music, in a way essentially the market has become super saturated and segregated (Spelling?) and when so many more people are getting equal exposure to the fan base pie it makes sense that in this day and age it's harder to build up a rep. Take into account that a player like Govan is almost a household name in musician circles I'd say he's achieved quite a bit. We're in a constantly changing climate now, the rules have become very different in this day and age.

Also popularity doesn't equate to virtuosity, another problem with these sorts of discussions. There's this 18 year old Polish kid named Jakub Zytecki that I got into about a year ago, I'd say his playing style and music has had more effect on me as a musician and player than any of the aforementioned "big guns". I consider him a virtuoso, I feel an emotional connection to the music he makes, others most likely won't feel the same way but that's not to say he isn't one. It's really just a question of popularity and mass consensus far too often, instead of objectivity. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though, it's just that ultimately the question of who is and isn't a virtuoso will boil down to opinion because we're trying to gauge something everyone will have a different reaction to.

For those interested here's Jakub Zytecki:

He definitely has the skills, and in my opinion the compositional flare, but I can understand why others may not feel the same way. For anyone with more interest you can download his demo album for free right here: http://got-djent.com/release/demos-2010 (Legally)

Now on this forum there'd be little to no interest in him, on another forum that I'm a member of (Where I discovered him) he's definitely toted as being a player of virtuosic proportions who's future releases are being greatly anticipated.

Sorry for the rant, I'm essentially just saying it's all opinion, and that's what makes music so amazing, everyone resonates differently ?

Bob-Dubery

Chad Adam Browne wrote I have noticed though that there's a very tiring mindset in the musical community that states that noone will ever come close to these giants of old and they all tend to be venerated a little too much sometimes, I think this is probably one of the most off putting factors of this kind of debate though as it's all pretty much opinion based and lots of people have very strong opinions.

You get that everywhere. Modern batsmen can't be as good as Bradman or Sobers. Modern racing drivers can't be as good as Senna or Clark (for those that can think back past the 80s).

It's to do with definitions of greatness. Lots of modern physicists have surpassed Newton. Loads of people can do math that Newton couldn't even dream about. But are they GREATER? Hmmm......

Actually I do think there is a case to be made for an objective measure of virtuosity. There are players now who can demonstrably play faster than Hendrix, who have mastered techniques that he demonstrably had not (or at least there's no record of him demonstrating). But that's only part of assessing Hendrix and his important to rock music and electric guitar playing.

Guthrie Govan V Keith Richards is no contest by any thing that you can measure.

So, in, one sense, the now guys are nearly always superior by cold clinical measure to yesterday's guys. Donald Bradman never played a reverse sweep. WG Grace never had to deal with a googly. Fangio never drove a car with wings and slick tyres. Eddie Irvine said that he'd been round Silverstone in an F3 car faster than Jim Clark ever did in the F1 cars of his day. Jimi Hendrix never even got close to the two-handed stuff that Eddie van Halen put down on record.

The rest of the argument, especially when to comes to things like painting and music, is much harder and hangs around intangibles. That's where the real fun is.