Talk:Virtuoso/Archive 1

Archive 1

List?

I added an {{expand}} tag. Maybe add some famous examples?

There used to be a list but I removed it since it's hopelessly POV and original research. ⟳ausa کui ^× 08:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Another list subject

I think we should keep the list, just make sure people don't mess it up. I play guitar, so I can name a bunch of guitar virtuosi, and a few bass and drum ones. I'll put it on my watchlist. - TMFSG

Please refer to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. This list is inherently original research, unless it is someone else's list from a referencable publication, in which case it should be cited. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinction between double bass and bass guitar

If we must have a list of virtuosi, and it does not look at all obvious that we should, can we PLEASE keep 'bass guitar' and 'double bass' distinct? I started separating the two from the useless heading 'bass' (see comment above) and the next person to edit the list decided to revert this with no explanation that made sense to me. Brequinda 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting on the list

I motion that we put up a vote concerning the list. I am personally against the list because, as mentioned several times, it is hopelessly POV research. Others don't seem to think so, though. Can we please just put an end to this with a simple vote?

I completely agree with that .... there is already a list of all Bassist, List of banjo players, List of drummers, List of violinists, and so on .... I don't think we have any chance of reaching an agreement on who is a virtuoso and who is not ... how does the procedure of a vote go ? tradora 09:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

you don´t need a formal voting here. Wikipedia is all about natural (chaos :-) selection. Remove or add a entry. If someone objects to it, he should delete it or discuss it in the talk page. Normally a consensus is reached and the article changed or kept to reflect it. That´s the way wiki goes! Loudenvier 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Guitar section?

Alright, now who in the hell erased the guitar entry?

Um, could whoever keeps removing Jimi Hendrix please cease to do so? He may not have been as fast as Malmsteen or Vai (though I suspect he could have been if he had concentrated his efforts on it), but a casual perusal of his live performances suggests that he is an extraordinarily skilled guitarist, to say the least. Some of his techniques are still unreplicable today. It would be another matter entirely if his virtuosity were under attack or not popularly agreed on, but I suspect that there are only a few people who really think that Hendrix looks out of place on this list.

I'm not adding him, because I don't want it erased, but I would appreciate it if someone else would, or would at least explain why he keeps being removed. 69.139.157.167 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hendrix IS a virtuosi. It´s consensus. Anyone removing him is clearly being POV Loudenvier 22:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

angus simply does not have the techniqal ability to be considered a virtuosi. not fast enough

He doesn't have to be fast to be a virtuoso. He might as well have a killer vibrato or bend notes perfectly clean. And don't tell me that isn't called "technicality".

Virtuoso or not?

While I think it´s very difficult to tell who is or not a virtuoso, I do also think we could stay with the consensus and try to prevent including in the list the people who aren´t widely regarded as virtuosi. Let me try to exercise this proposition on my instrument of choice, the electric bass guitar: While Billy Sheehan, Stu Hamm, Victor Wooten, John Myung, Les Claypol and others are widely recognized virtuosi, and could be listed without POV problems, others like Cliff Burton, Steve Harry, Paul McCartney and a few others aren´t recognized so widely as virtuosi players. The matter here is that compositional (music writing) skills and popularity must not be confused with technical proficiency. Cliff Burton is (was, sadly) a very interesting bass player, someone who introduced fresh new ideas for this instrument, and also helped the gaining evidence of the electric bass in the metal arena. Steve Harris is also one of the most influential bass player of all time, and a great music composer, and has a unique playing style. Paul MaCartney is a superb music composer, a music legend, and also one of the most influential bass player ever. Despite all this facts, I think none of those bass players qualifies as virtuosi. All of them were influential on my choice to play the bass, but I can not mix this influence with the analisys of their technical skills. None of them could be compared technically with the proficiency of Victor Wooten, Stanley Clarke or Stu Hamm, not even to Flea. Musically they are great, superb, but lack the technical proficiency to earn virtuosi status. While it´s a thin line we are treading here, I think, for the better of the article, that some names should be removed. When in doubt, the Talk page is the place to ask before adding an entry. If this list do not try to be the full list of virtuosi players, we could keep the entries to a mininum, leting in only those consensuality aclaimmed virtuosi, leaving the disputes out. What do you all think? Loudenvier 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if that's so, then why the hell do people keep removing David Gilmour from the guitar list? He is, at the very least, every bit as technically skilled with the electric guitar as Eric Clapton.

Hey man! I did not remove him, so your reply has no meaning to me. But you should consider registering into wikipedia so you coud sign your posts, have a watch-list to see if any article you like get´s vandalized, etc. It´s much better to be registered because you get good tools to watch over the articles you like. Regards Loudenvier 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But also about David Gilmour, his own article reads "Gilmour has explained that his lack of technique[sic] lead him to concentrate on melody over virtuosity and the enduring appeal of his major solos is that that they are expressive tunes rather than technical exercises". This could make him fall into the category I´ve mentioned of great celebrated composers not so technically virtuoso. I´m not removing him, but I really think it MUST be a bit harder to get into the list of virtuosi players. For example, Dave Murray is great, fast, etc, but in my opinion he is not a virtuoso. He could not get sheet music that he never saw before and start to play without any errors and rehearshal, just like Satriani, Vai and any professional classical musician could. To be Virtuoso you must be on the top of the top techinically speaking (you did not even need to know how to compose, since virtuoso is all about playing not writing). Loudenvier 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So Loudenvier, whenever you reach that consensus, let me know, mmk? Thanks. =P

Well, as I understand, articles are written by people just like me and you. Just because one person has decided that Gilmour is not the most techincal of guitarists, does not mean he isn't an extremely skilled guitar player. Like I said, at the VERY LEAST, he stands up to Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page, if not ahead of them. PS. I registered, forgot to sign in, though. Also, I know its not you deleting Gilmour, I'm just putting it out there, while you talk about deleting entries in the guitar virtuoso list. Communist47 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that nor Jimmy Page nor Eric Clapton are examples of virtuosi players. Gilmour said himself he isn´t a virtuoso guitar player. I think instead of trying to create a big list of all virtuosi, we could only list a few examples, because anything different is clearly POV. Someone is saying Jimmi Hendrix wasn´t a virtuoso for example, while I disagree completely and think he is trying to impose his own view (POV) on the subject I would gladly delete Jimmi Hendrix along with many others to help avoiding any POV problems. I would let in just the obvious virtuosi: Buckethead, Vai, Satriani, Eric Johnson and a few old-timers too. It´s hard to discuss this kind of thing: Take Yngwie Malmsteen - many people doesn´t like his (A melodic minor) playing but he is clearly, above any doubts a virtuoso. He can sound boring to some, but virtuosity is normally boring and prone to elitism (go listen to The White Stripes if you don´t like virtuosity :-). Someone who dislikes him will certainly try to remove him from the list. This is wrong (just like removing Hendrix). But if removing him could make this article a litle less prone to POV problems I would too remove him (not too gladly of course). But the point is that MANY, MANY others must be removed prior to removing both Hendrix or Malmsteen. I will try to contribute a litle watching over this article for a few weeks. Regards Loudenvier 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is another thing to consider: the majority of virtuosi players are not successfull media musicians, they are unknown session musicians and the like. This list is helpless, so I think we should keep the examples to a mininum (minimalism on the virtuoso subject? I always loved irony...) Loudenvier 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that Malmsteen is almost definetly a virtuoso. Although if Malmsteen is going to be the standard for a virtuoso, then Hendrix doesn't fit the bill either. I doubt Hendrix could do everything Malmsteen can, and since Malmsteen is a virtuoso, meaning he can do anything, and Hendrix couldn't do everything Malmsteen could do. Also, if Hendrix is considered a virtuoso, then wouldn't Stevie Ray Vaughan almost definetly be one too? And if Stevie Ray Vaughan is one, then wouldn't David Gilmour, Alex Lifeson, Eric Clapton, and Jimmy Page all be virtuosii too? I do agree with your idea, enough with the adding of virtuosos. Delete everyone he isn't OBVIOUSLY a virtuoso, where there is no dispute. People like Malmsteen and Segovia can stay, but everyone else shouldn't. Actually, maybe it'd be best for a list with JUST Yngwie Malmsteen and JUST Andres Segovia, so no more dispute.Communist47 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to remove everybody. Almost all classical guitar players are virtuosi. We can list with no risk of controversity Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Eric Johnson, John Petrucci for guitar. The bottom line is, if we try to list every virtuoso, then we will be in trouble because the list will be POV, so I suggest we stick a limit of entries for any instrument, let´s say 5 or 10 at most. Then we let only 5 representative virtuosi of every instrument (we can then subdivide into more instruments, electric guitar into classic guitar, acoustic guitar, etc.). Let´s limit a instrument to have 5 or 7 or 10 virtuoso entries? What do you all think about it?

Many people are saying that the fact that Malmsteen or Petrucci are virtuosi is undebatable. However, can Malmsteen play rhythm and lead simultaneously with the "thumb over the neck" style like Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn or John Mayer? Can he play complex jazz chords? Can he employ slap techniques such as John Mayer or Justin King? No real evidence is given whether such commonly held players can perform such techniques. All of the players commonly called virtuosi are leaders in their style of playing ("shred guitar"), but would come short in other styles of playing, perhaps even unable. The real reason why we are facing such difficulty classifying virtuoso in the guitar section is because there are no true virtuoso of guitar. There are no players at this time (who are famous) who are technically proficient in every possible technique and style of guitar. Perhaps it is because guitar is a very spread out instrument which has a vast number of techniques and styles. Hence my suggestion would be to classify virtuoso under the style which they play. Hopefully this will solve alot of problems which this page is facing at the moment. User:Himurakenshin 17:13, 17 February 2006

Well, I´m really sure that Petrucci could do anything Stevie Ray could do, and easily, while the opposite may not me so sure. On the other hand, just because someone did not display this or that style, It can´t be infered that they would not be able to play it (so my affirmation about Steve Ray is also POV and prone to error by my own conclusions :-) ). But let´s take the bass guitar (my area of expertize) Les Claypool is and avant-gard artist. He can play anything. He just doesn´t like to play by the rules of Jazz, fusion, etc. He wanted to create his style of playing. But he could, for sure (I can assure it) play just like Stanley Clarke. I can´t see a Pastorius performance he could not play too. So he is a bass virtuoso. On the same way of thinking, certainly Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and Eric Jhonson are WITHOU ANY RISK OF POV, VIRTUOSI to the fullest extent of the word. Just bring in two more (jazz players) to the list, and keep it to 5 people. We end up with no risk of POV and a good article to explai what is a Virtuoso. I think your comments on the definition of virtuoso should enter the main article body, because it will help to explai because many players are out of the list All of the players commonly called virtuosi are leaders in their style of playing ("shred guitar"), but would come short in other styles of playing, perhaps even unable. I will do this myself with no one opposes (and let the flame begin after that, perhaps commons sense will prevail :-) Loudenvier 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

As the instruments are technically quite different, maybe we should think about adding an entry Double bass and leave the entry bass for the electric bass ... someone juste changed bass instrument to bass .... anybody against the idea ? The problem is maybe that some people (but who?) are virtuosi on both instrument but I guess we can come up with a way to deal with this .... like putting them in both categories for example ... tradora 11:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC) bass, I was thinking about the double bass part ... I agree with you on the idea that we should be more precise in the terms ... tradora 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Clapton and Hendrix

I believe two guitarists who should be on the list of guitar virtuoso's are Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton. Both of them have inspired countless electric guitar players, and are still considered by many to be amongst the best in the world. By almost all guitar polls (regardless of the actual validity of them) Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton almost certainly makes the top 10, if not top 5. As of writing this, neither Hendrix nor Clapton is on the list and I believe if we are to represent what most people believe as a virtuoso, then Hendrix and Clapton should both be on the list.

RE: VIRTUOSI

I think the page does a fairly good job of stating that virtuosity is a matter of opinion - I personally think there are a few arguable folks on and off this list.

It's difficult to classify a virtuoso - nobody doubts Hendrix's skill and influence on the electric guitar (or his status as a virtuoso), but it's questionable whether or not he could keep up with, say, Malmsteen, Becker, or any of the other great modern influences. Would Hendrix's ability seem as incredible today? Though I'd like to think so, it probably wouldn't.

You're more than welcome to make your own changes to the page as you see fit. The only thing I'd ask - keep it in alphabetical order. =P

can't keep up? watch this-http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2460058168987804953&q=jimi+woodstock

and keep in mind that the 'shredding style' wasn't even around until the late seventies. and it simply confounds me why hendrix and clapton are not on the guitar virtuosi list. there is a reason that they are often considered the finest guitarist around. the guitarists list simply confounds me.Joeyramoney 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Instruments?

No clarinet virtuosi? I'm not saying I'd like to be the one to determine who should be on the list, but I'd like to point out that it ought to be there. I think most people would agree that Benny Goodman should be mentioned somewhere, even though I'm not particularly a fan of swing music. Richard Stoltzman? Baerman? Anton Stadler?

If there's going to be a list of flute and saxophone virtuosi, there should be a list of clarinetists.

Way Overboard

Guys, this list is getting way out of hand. People are just listing some of their favorite musicians without taking into consideration whether they were actually a virtuoso or not. -Wade Houston

Wade Houston, many people - like yourself - are also taking down musicians that are generally considered virtuosos. I can understand some questionables, but you'd be absolutely out of your mind if you thought that John Petrucci wasn't a virtuoso.

Solution for POV - Need for article wide policy or risk deletion by wikipedia´s own policies

We have been discussing how to make this a list that is acceptable by wikipedia standard. First we must ensure that the three content policies are followed: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Verifiability. If this article does not fall within those policies, it could risk deletion. If some administrator happened to read this and think it insults any of wikipedia policies it could simply delete it, or freeze it.

I think the following solutions are acceptable:

A) Limit 5 entries per instrument, and let in only the absolute masters of the instrument, which are, by consensus, virtuosi (must let out personal opinions, while I think Petrucci is a virtuoso, someone could tell him a shredder. How could I deny a fact that is only subjective? On the other hand, no one in good sense could deny that Steve Vai IS A VIRTUOSO PER SI BEING CAPABLE OF PLAYING PERFECTLY WITHOUT MISTAKES ANY ELECTRIC GUITAR TECHINIQUE OUT THERE. So Steve Vai is IN the list)

B) Limit to 10 entries per instrument as per A. This will help easy some people opinions about omissions, but will also make it difficult to reach consensus.

C) Separate not only by instrument, but also by musical style. Rock Electric Guitar Virtuoso, Shredder, Funky Bass Player, etc. And limit also those entries to 5 or 10. (we will need to find which categories to create, because it could turn out to be ridiculous to have, for example, John Frusciant listed as virtuoso in any category, as happened before).

Please vote like this:

• (B) Loudenvier 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (this is my actual vote, change B for your preference...)

Loudenvier, as I understand it, you told me several weeks ago that a formal vote was not necessary on Wikipedia. Why are you starting one now?

To define "guidelines" for disputed content we should try to be as cooperative as possible. A few people in the world did really care about this or that page on wikipedia (see Heavy Metal and you will know why voting is important - read the merging posts about Metal and Heavy Metal). This people will certainly be interested in improving the page they like. And will watch over it. These are the people attracted to the talk page. If these people defines a guideline for an article it will be easy to maintain it because you will be backed by other interested people. I propose the vote to write this guideline for the virtuoso article. If people do not want to make this a better article I will give up. Loudenvier 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I´d prefer to go with the majority, not to be too dictatorial. There´s no article in wikipedia that belongs to someone in special, but wikipedia has is guidelines. This article is at least infringing one (No Original Research), so we must take care. We could get rid of the list entirely too, and only explain what is a virtuoso, and cite only barroque players and classical players, while current players are left out. I just don´t want to decide it by myself alone. This is wikipedia after all. Loudenvier 04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be even more comfortable if we simply had an in depth definition without examples. JoshIsNumber3 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)JoshIsNumber3

5 to 10?

There may be a large number of guitar virtuosi but, to include only ten is nearly unthinkable. Yngwie Malsteen, Buckethead, John Petrucci, Vinnie Moore, etc. are all technically considered virtuoso, even though they may not have mastered every type of guitar playing style they are, as stated earlier, not capable of mastering all of the huge number of techniques associated with the guitar. What upsets me the most though is the pre-occupation with Jimi Hendrix, not(Sorry) a virtuoso, and the lack of attention given to more techinically proficcient players who are not as famous or well known. Back to the point, expand the list, edit as nessacery (according to definition) and research the players before we decide to add or remove what might turn out to be an incredible talent. Please, for the love of GOD, stop changing this page!

(For the love of GOD is a music by an actual virtuoso, Steve Vai :-) I think there will be a edit/revert war soon, because everyone who likes a player drops here and write it down on the list. I think this article would be much better without any listing... (I really like the idea of making this list, but there´s no place for such work on wikipedia). If mastering of many (not all) guitar techiniques is not the correct way to define a virtuoso, then all shredders will be called virtuosi... But then well, let the list grow! Pleople really DO NOT KNOW what is a virtuoso, and will know even less after seeing this list (with John Frusciante, Jimmi Page, etc). Loudenvier 04:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the electric section into genres. I also cut a large number of guitarists; this was more in the interest of simplicity than an actual beef with the listed ones. Deltabeignet 07:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

the guitarists list is simply bizarre

jimi hendrix is the greatest guitarist ever. that is a general consensus, and is even stated on his article. there has been some debate that he could not 'keep up' with some heavy metal guitarists, but one must keep in mind that the 'shredding' style did not even evolve until the late 1970s. not that he couldn't- watch this-[1]. the rapid, visceral style that you see in the opening of this improv was also utilized by him im many live performamces, for example the berkeley performance of 'new rising sun' and several points in 'machine gun', which is a piece i doubt anyone else could have performed. it should also be noted that both hendrix and clapton are explicitly referred to as virtuosos in a few articles on here. furthermore, the top of the page states that one must be proficient at playing many different musical styles on their instrument, and once again, jimi fits that perfectly. i'm adding him, and it would be downright proposterous if anyone took him down.Joeyramoney 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)one more thing- PLEASE, we do not need a restriction on the number of players. of course, we can't have people adding guitarists that they just like, but there's probably more virtuosos on electric guitar than any other thing here. it is needless and misleading to claim that each instrument can only have 10 virtuosi. it has (thankfully) been expanded, and i beg that nobody mess with it.

Who told you Jimi Hendrix is the greatest electric guitar player ever? He was very influential, but Satriani can play anything he did, much more easily, and flawlessly, while the opposite is perhaps not true. Jimi Hendrix is not a guitar VIRTUOSO to the full extent of the term. It is misleading to let him in the list. His playing style, mainly live, was full of imperfections. He was a superb musician, but he could not cope with a real virtuoso. Loudenvier 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a recording from the late 60s with John McLaughlin and Jimi Hendrix doing a duet sort of thing. Johnny Mac simply wipes the floor with Hendrix, melodically and technically; it's in this recording that you can hear how limited Hendrix really was. JoshIsNumber3 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Josh

I'm sorry, but because of comments like, "Jimi Hendrix is the greatest guitarist ever," that guitar is not taken seriously in the professional world. There are also many more piano and violin virtuosi than guitar ones at all. There are plenty of people who are extremely talented at guitar ala Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page, but they do not in any shape or form exhibit virtuoso-esque qualities. JoshIsNumber3 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)JoshIsNumber3

No listing,

A thought occured to me while arguing about wether or not David Gilmour is a virtuoso.(I'd still say he is, though :p)

The actual qualifications to be a virtuoso is impossible, making virtuoso a complete oppinion, Virtuoso is just a fancy way of saying "a musician who is really good and i like him"

So maybe, seeing as how it's going, we do not list any virtuosi, as a who is or isn't a virtuoso is complete oppinion. We just list the definition. There is no guitarist who can play flawlessly. Remember, virtuoso means that the level of playing is untoppable, it's the absoloute peak of playing. Since nobody has ever acheieved such a state, and nobody ever will, it's stupid to actually list virtuoso, because it'll be an endlessly debatable topic.

So I say we omit the whole list, and just leave the definition.

Give me your oppinion on this.Communist47 10:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you´re wrong. There are lots of virtuoso out there. The majority didn´t even see the lights of fame. Many are club jazz players. Fame came with compositional skills and a lot of luck. Bach wasn´t very well regarded at his time. It was his son who was responsible to have opened people´s eyes to Bach geniuos. The problem is that only a formed musician, or perhaps a board could tell if X and Y are virtuoso, and even then consensus will be hard to achieve. Old players are more or less easy to qualify as virtuoso, because time and research on them already classified them as virtuoso or not. You will not deny Chopin, Franz_Liszt, Sergei_Rachmaninoff and many others are all virtuoso to the full extent of the term. And be assured, some do really play flawlessly! I think it´s best to remove the list and only list some old piano, violino, classical guitar players who are already regarded as virtuoso by everybody. Loudenvier 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for additions/removals here

Considering the conflicts we've been having, I ask that all alterations to the lists (especially the electric guitar section) be discussed here. Anyone who wants to add or remove a player, please propose the artist here, ideally with a reference. I don't have any authority to set up a voting system, but rough consensus usually works. Deltabeignet 06:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. Nobody's going to stop anyone from altering the list. "Rough consensus" isn't going to get you anywhere. You're wasting your time. Seriously. It's hopelessly POV research. GET RID OF THE LIST!

I did also think it´s best to remove the list, but It´s not helping. PEOPLE loves listings... :-) So I´ve added my two cents and created the Heavy Metal section, put Malstem there and added Petrucci and others (sorry, did not discuss it here first...) only not to let it with only one entry. I think the ones I´ve added are well regarded virtuoso on their styles. The list, like it stands is good because it´s not misleading on the sense that it shows people who are masters of the style, which, in some sense is a kind of virtuosity. Let´s not just get it grow out of control... Loudenvier 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To clear some things up....Jimi Hendrix is NOT a virtuoso. WTF do you people know anything about music? Jimi Hendrix was a great player but he was never that skilled. He was sloppy and his leads weren't technically challenging or fast. Eric Clapton wasn't really sloppy but not that skilled either...a great player and important player but not a skilled player. David Gilmour....a great player but once again Gilmour says himself that he never had much technique so he concentrated on feel...he was never that good technically speaking. Angus Young....don't make me laugh!!! His stuff is VERY simple. Jimmy Page once again was not very skilled technically speaking. Now about some of the guitarists left off.....Randy Rhoads! This guy is a fucking virutoso.....he does everything and can do it fast slow and he always does it clean. It's a crime that he is left off the list. Jake E. Lee another guy.....the leads he does in the studio are enough to make him a sure virtuoso but he can sweep pick, play with his thumb, stretch 10 frets, roll on the floor and play, simulate a whammy bar without using one and he can play amazingly fast and clean. George Lynch.....go Listen to his playing!!! Timo Tolkki of Stratovarius.....almost as good as Yngwie! Where is Alex Skolnick who has often been called the master of sweep picking.

The fact that a player is known primarily as a pioneer or an innovator does not prevent him from being a virtuoso. As much as I respect your point of view, without references, your post is just an editorial. Here's some sources:

• • Clapton-
    • "Clapton's virtuoso guitar playing..."
    • "...with Clapton's virtuoso solos setting a new standard of technical prowess..."
    • "...he is noted especially for his virtuoso guitar playing..."
    • "Clapton perfected his virtuoso style..."
    • "...as did the budding guitar virtuoso Clapton..."
  • Hendrix-
    • "But most of all Hendrix gave the song his virtuoso playing..."
    • "He was legendary for his virtuoso experimental technique..."
    • "What caught most people's attention at first was his virtuosic guitar playing..."
    • "...the young virtuoso..." Deltabeignet 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact is that nor Hendrix nor Clapton can keep up with other virutosi on the list, for example Vai or Satriani. Both are extremely technical, their songs are so challenging that I think Hendrix would not be able to play perfectly (as they do). But Liszt was more technical than Chopin. His compositions were much, much more challenging to play (although Chopin is really hard too). But both are VIRTUOSI. Perhaps, one is more techincally perfect, but both are really great. That´s what Clapton and Hendrix are, two virtosi, but not the top virtuosi of the electrict guitar... But please, that guy from Stratovarius is not this good (and I own a bunch of albums from them...) Loudenvier 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)\

Timo Tolkki of Stratovarius wipes the floor with Calpton and Hendrix technically speaking. Timo is 1000 times faster and cleaner and the leads he plays are more technical. If Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix are virtuosos than Timo Tolkki, Randy Rhoads, Jake E. Lee, George Lynch, Michael Romeo, Vinnie Moore and many many others must be added!

I still did not think Timo Tolkki to be that good! Michael Romeo, Randy Rhoads, Vinnie Moore, all of them are VIRTUOSO!!!! I´ve never said the opposite!!! Loudenvier 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok but what is going on with B.B. King being added? His stuff isn't technically challening. I like B.B. King but his stuff isn't technical at all. Buddy Guy is no virtuoso and neither is David Gilmour.

Man, now you´re seeing what I was talking about. That´s the problem with this list. It´s helplessly POV!!! I was trying to keep it to a mininum of consensuality accepted virtuosi for each instrument, but it was of no avail. People love listings.. So now I will split this article in two, one for defining Virtuoso, and other with a List of Virtuosi Players. At least the Virtuoso article will be POV free and the Listing, well, let the community take care of it!!! Regards Loudenvier 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: the lists

You know things are bad when it comes to a straw poll. This is purely to see what the consensus is; feel free to add new sections, and please leave comments. Deltabeignet 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Split Article Virtuoso and List of virtuosi performers

• If no change, suggest article retitled "List of virtuosi". Suggest separate articles for lists of classical and rock virtuosi. If someone a virtuoso in both genres, include in both lists. Regards, David Kernow 23:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• The best idea anyone had till now. Let´s creat an article that is a list and leave the important Virtuoso main article with only one or two classical virtuosi examples. It would be good too if we could find some classical composer who were NOT a virtuoso on his instrument, only for completeness. Loudenvier 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I´ve just separated the articles. Now we can keep Virtuoso POV free, and try to expand the List of virtuosi performers cautiously. Loudenvier 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Other

• Moved David Kernow comment to split article section above

Definition of Virtuoso

In Music in the Western World by Piero Weiss and Richard Taruskin, it states that "a virtuoso was, originally, a highly accomplished musician, but by the nineteenth century the term had become restricted to performers, both vocal and instrumental, whose technical accomplishments were so pronounced as to dazzle the public" (pg 430). I think we need to define more explicitly which definition we are using. That will simplify the arguments a lot. If we decide to stick to a "highly accomplished musician" as a virtuoso, someone like Brian Eno would make the cut, but as for his technical skill, I would not say he is a virtuoso. Personally, I think the second definition is what we should be focusing on, as the first is too broad.

Also, the definition of virtuoso as someone who can play all styles very well, that doesn't make much sense to me. Someone like Paganini, who can be creditted as being the first real violin virtuoso, would probably struggle trying to play in an Indian music style. And Taffanel and Gaubert under the flute virtuoso's category most certainly were not known for their jazz work. I'll wait for people to respond before I make some changes. Feel free to argue with these ideas. Amalozemoff1 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and by reading the article you can see that we are using the second definition of Virtuoso as stated by Richard Taruskin. But for the sake of completeness, I think we should mention both on the article. As for technical skill, you may be right, but I did also think (POV?) that a virtuoso should be technically perfect in almost every technique available on his/her musical instrument. That´s not to say it must be recognized as a great in every style, because being good on a style, in my opinion, has more to do with compositional skills than performatic ability. I think that Paganini would have no trouble playing Indian music, even regarding the fact that it uses different tempered scales. Given his abilities, he would play Indian music after just a litle adaptation. That´s the same with Steve Vai. He can play any guitar style he wants to. That´s what a Virtuoso is all about. But I also think that the fact that some player prefers of focuses on one style only should not be used against him. Let´s talk about Michael Angelo Batio. Despite the claims that he is much more a mechanical player, he is, in my opinion, a virtuoso per se. Virtuoso is about technical ability. What he did on the electric guitar is simply amazing, almost unbelievebla. But could he be as versatile as Steve Vai? I can´t tell you yes or no. Taruskin´s saying "...whose technical accomplishments were so pronounced as to dazzle the public" really captures what I was ever trying to say. It helped easy my disconfort in regarding Michal Angelo Batio a virtuoso and disregarding Eric Clapton as such (this is POV, since I´m expressing my opinion). Batio simply DAZZLES with his performatic abilities and tremendous technical skill and precision. Is this virtuosity, isn´t? Loudenvier 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

major rewrite and reorganization - please copy edit

I´ve just made a major rewrite to the article. The problem is that I´m not a native english speaker, so the article is in need of a copy editor... Please, could someone review it? Loudenvier 13:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

keyboard

I took out Brian Eno. I also think we should divide the keyboard section up to seperate the jazz musicians from the rock oriented ones. Amalozemoff1 04:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Virtuosity vs. simple talent?

It seems that commonly, people have a misconception about the defintion of virtuosity. They take it as exceptional ability or talent on a musical instrument, someone who has technical prowess at most facets of the instrument. While there are other areas to be a virtuoso in, I'll simply concentrate on music, as it seems to be the area that has most confusion. If we come from the simple view of technique, then we should look at at those who do not only have the ability to have flawless technique but also use it as a part of their music, matching the ability to write and compose with the technical flair that comes with practice. I support this because it is objective, there is a way to tell whether or not someone is more technically advanced on an instrument than another. Melody and harmony, on the other hand, are completely subjective, they occur in any piece of music ever and are inherent to the actual presence of such, therefore, it's impossible to judge one person's use of melody and harmony over another, eliminating the possibility of having that as your rule of thumb for virtuosity.

I do not agree that the ability to write and compose music has anything to do with virtuosity. Many (really many) classical pianists do not know how to write or compose, yet the majority of them are piano-forte virtuosi. And I do not agree either that it is an objective measurement. For example, who was more technically advanced: Mozart, Bach, Lizt, Chopin, can anyone, obectively tell who is the most advanced virtuosi (many will tell Lizt, but I do not agree...). On the other hand, I completely agree with everything else you said, and also about Jimi Hendrix (I´m giving updefending him on the virtuoso list because, at least, hist virtuosity is controversial). Loudenvier 13:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That being said, there seems to be a tremendous confusion about those who are virtuosi and those who are simply very talented at their instrument of choice. It seems that those who have not studied music and performers with the intent to see who is indeed a virtuoso and who is simply, what we call, "really good," are the ones who confuse talent and marketability with virtuoso. For my main example, I choose Jimi Hendrix, most commonly referred to as, "The Greatest Guitarist There Has Ever Been." Unfortunately, people take his extreme popularity for face value and use that as their judgement on how proficient on guitar he actually was. It doesn't matter that he wasn't able to read music to any degree, it doesn't matter that he had a limited knowledge of chord and melody contstruction, it doesn't matter that much of his music followed the exact same pattern time and time again and it doesn't matter that there were much better musicians out there at the time. Simply because he made new and interesting noises with his guitar and performed with some amount of, "Soul" in his music, the ultimate subjective defense, he is deemed to be the standard to which all guitarists are sized up to.

Simply, Jimi Hendrix and those of his kind should not be credited with the title of "virtuoso." While they are extremely talented at their instrument, they do not possess the knowledge or the capability that sets apart actual virtuosi from the talented or common musician. It is because of his influence on guitarists today that makes guitar a rarely appreciated and respected instrument in the professional world, where all they see is a number of people who claim to be "musicians" but refute the need and desire to further themselves musically, learning how to read standard notation, the actual laws and rules of music, learning how to bend them to their will, so and what-not, they choose not to do this because, "It's not what Jimi Hendrix did." User:JoshIsNumber3 19:48, 14 February 2006

I would like to say that a Virtuoso = Perfection, is somebody who has a peerless technique and can play exactly today what he played the night or day before. What tends to amaze is the visual thing, but what it really matters is what is listened to. Many musicians that are mentioned here are not virtuosos, and have seen some of them, they show that they hardly ever practice their scales and arpeggios. I can safely say that virtuoso was Lizst, Paganini and is today Malmsteen. Some of the electric guitar players rely too much in effects, tremolo bars and different tunings. Virtuosity comes only out of the fingers and their ability/technique to play over the strings and frets, or the keys of a piano or other instruments some difficult passages. Playing somebody else's music with almost the same technique, tone and feel that the composer wanted is also another way of virtuosity. We can mention classical pianist Claudio Arrau playing Beethoven, Brahms and Lizst. On the other side a small example is Malmsteen playing Spanish Castle by Hendrix. Also some of the players mentioned on these lists are fast improvisers and this is not virtuosity at all. Jazz players especially in a world without repertoire cannot be rated as virtuosos. This is not a very difficult topic, the problem seems to be that the same as in politics, fanatism tends to blind the views of the many. Yes and you can delete my view an continue living your petulant ignorance. Regards. Francisco 25 Feb 2006.

You shone your view on us, and really you bring in some good points. But you oversimplified the matter a little (in my humble opinion). I still think it´s best to get rid of the list and only mention good old virtuosi players (Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Paganini, etc.) Loudenvier 17:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

more definitions

Here are some more definitions I've found. This first one is from Grove Music Online (www.grovemusic.com)

"A person of notable accomplishment; a musician of extraordinary technical skill. In its original Italian usage (particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries) ‘virtuoso’ was a term of honour reserved for a person distinguished in any intellectual or artistic field: a poet, architect, scholar etc. A virtuoso in music might be a skilful performer, but more importantly he was a composer, a theorist or at least a famous maestro di cappella. In the late 17th and 18th centuries a great number of Italian musicians carried the term ‘virtuoso’ to the courts and theatres of northern Europe, regularly applying it to themselves whether or not they merited such distinction in the traditional Italian sense. Brossard (Dictionaire, 1703), writing in France at a time when debate raged over Italian music and musicians, approached the word ‘virtuoso’ by way of its Latin root ‘virtu’, emphasizing that the true virtuoso was a musician of exceptional training, especially in theory (the same emphasis is found in Walther’s Musicalisches Lexicon of 1732). Johann Mattheson, however, in his Der brauchbare Virtuoso (1720), while honouring the traditional ‘theoretische Virtuosen’, paid tribute also to the ‘virtuosi prattici’. Others drew the line less respectfully; in his tract Der musikalische Quack-Salber (1700) Johann Kuhnau left no room for confusion between the true virtuoso (‘der wahre Virtuose’) and the highly gifted musicus (‘der glückselige Musicus’) who enjoyed the support of German princes and emperors but had little to commend him apart from practical facility.

With the flourishing of opera and the instrumental concerto in the late 18th century, the term ‘virtuoso’ (or ‘virtuosa’) came to refer to the violinist, pianist, castrato, soprano etc. who pursued a career as a soloist. At the same time it acquired new shades of meaning as attitudes towards the often exhibitionist talents of the performer changed. In the 19th century these attitudes hardened even more. Liszt declared that ‘virtuosity is not an outgrowth, but an indispensable element of music’ (Gesammelte Schriften, iv, 1855–9). Wagner, on the other hand, expressed the kind of reservations often voiced in his time: ‘The real dignity of the virtuoso rests solely on the dignity he is able to preserve for creative art; if he trifles and toys with this, he casts his honour away. He is the intermediary of the artistic idea’ (Gesammelte Schriften; Eng. trans., vii, 1894–9, p.112). Pejorative implications are present in such German expressions as Virtuosenmachwerk (a piece of routine display), Pultvirtuoso (an orchestral player of virtuoso temperament) and Taktstockvirtuoso (a virtuoso of the baton). But though there has been a tendency to regard dazzling feats of technical skill with suspicion (and even, in such cases as Tartini and Paganini, to ascribe them to some supernatural power), the true virtuoso has always been prized not only for his rarity but also for his ability to widen the technical and expressive boundaries of his art."

This definition should eliminate most people from the list (which should be deleted), because they do nothing to "widen the technical and expressive boundaries of [their] art."

Here's another from the Harvard Dictionary of Music:

"A performer of great technical ability. The term is now most often associated with the tradition of celebrated soloists that began in the 19th century with performers such as Paganini and Liszt and is applied to conductors and singers as well as to instrumentalists. It sometimes pejoratively implies technical skill in the absence of musical sensitivity. Earlier uses of the term reaching back to the 16th century imply training in theory or composition as much as skill in performance."

Amalozemoff1 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done work, very good sources. I´ve based some edits on the dictionary definitions (see dict.org). I think we should strongly incorporate some of the information you´ve dig on the net, although stricly speaking, those definitions match the one we gave in the article. The last sentence is really a definitive answer to the elimination of the list. Although I do think that Steve Vai really have widen the technical and expressive boundaries of electric guitar playing!!! Loudenvier 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Common misconceptions" section removed

I removed the following text from the article:

Common misconceptions

Many performers commonly called virtuosi are leaders, very influential or famous in their style of playing (shredding guitar, blues or rock for example), but would come short in other styles, perhaps even unable to perform. Such players cannot be accounted as virtuosi players to the full extent of the term, unless it is used in a stricter definition, meaning someone who excels in a specific technique or style of playing.

Virtuosity should not be confused with fame or pioneering. Some may regard pioneers of styles or musical movements as virtuosi without much attention to actual technical ability. Inventiveness, creativity, emotion, poetry and/or feeling are not defining traits of virtuosity, although they may be desireable.

This section appears to be editorializing, personal opinion, or original research. As such it is not neutral and not encyclopedic. Interpretation sections are notoriously prone to edit conflicts because someone else is likely to come along who has a different opinion and will attempt to "correct" the article to conform to their own views. Normally we try to solve edit disputes with verifiability, but since one cannot verify original research, it is simply left out of the encyclopedia. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what are you basis to say it´s original research? It was pretty much consensus on the talk page that this misconceptions are clear (that´s why List of Virtuosi Performers had to be created, and thankfully it´s already deleted). It seems much more an arbitration on your part, and a rather bold one, doesn´t it? This section clarify how the definition of virtuosity stands today, telling what it isn´t. This can be infered by reading Virtuosity Defined but not as easily. This section was meant to clarify the article, offering a more palatable interpretation of what was said in Virtuosity Defined. I think you should discuss it on the Talk page before removing, because perhaps a rephrasing would be much better than a complete deletion. I´ve never saw before an administrator acting like you on an article that seemed to have reached a very good consensus (after much debate) and became stable for a long time (perhaps negating your reasoning that this is original research or interpretation since it wasn´t prone to edit conflicts until you removed it) . Claiming it to be original research seems just to be an excuse to remove something that perhaps you do not agree with. I will not put it back because I do not want to start a revert war, but I really think you did diminish the value of the article with your edits. Any encyclopaedic article is a personal opinion after all. It just needs to balance ALL POVs and present them in a neutral manner. Are there any interpretation on virtuosity that you know of which is currently accepted as correct and not discussed in the article? Please add value to the article instead. Loudenvier 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a personal opinion on the "misconceptions" section since I think that any debate would largely be a subjective debate about word meanings. The point is that claims in Wikipedia must be verifiable and neutral. Consensus cannot override either of these policies; they are "absolute and non-negotiable" according to Jimbo. Neutrality means sticking to observable facts, and only reporting opinion in the format of "X said Y", never "Y is true". Verifiability means saying where you got the facts from. The removed section cannot conform to either of these policies, because it states the opinion of the author on a highly subjective and potentially contentious matter of aesthetic taste.

This is the same reason I always opposed the creation of a "List of virtuosi", in this article or another, because such lists inevitably become dumping grounds for every anon who happens by to add their favorite guitar players; and arguments inevitably break out about whether someone like, say, David Gilmour is really a virtuoso. Since whether he is a virtuoso is not a fact but an opinion, we have no standard, and the debate will go on as long as people are willing to continue wasting breath. This is part of why the above policies were instituted. In an open encyclopedia, we must strive for complete neutrality, both to produce the best encyclopedic content and to produce articles that everyone can agree on. I hope this explains things better. ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I still do not agree with you that the misconception section is debatable or an interpretation section. It´s rather a clarification section (as you can see, after it was removed, the talk about what is virtuosity started again). But I understand now your point, and agree with what you´re trying to enforce, I just think you could have had more faith in the wiki system and in other fellow wikipedians who had took their time to lift this article from a helpless POV and original research, subjective list of performers to a historical research of virtuosity. I still think it was too drastic an action the removal of the section. I will try to put back a "clarification section" that did not read like an interpretation one. Regards Loudenvier 14:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is related to "faith in the wiki system" and so on. These policies exist for a reason. I believe that apart from blatant vandals, everyone who edits does so with good intent; but it does not follow from this that all edits are good for the encyclopedia. Case in point. If you could add a clarification section that cites its sources and is neutral as well as independently verifiable, I think that would be great. Cheers ⟳ausa کui ^× 16:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I´ve finally got you! My sense of humour is getting darker with age :-) I was just kidding with your "faith in the wiki system" because I´ve read that you support "wiki deletion" and in the description of wiki deletion it was stated that "we should have more faith in the wiki system"... There is more historical information that still are absent from the article. Hopefully no clarification section will be needed after those facts are introduced in the article. By the way, I do support wiki deletion, but I do not support user boxes so I will not put one on my user page (yet!). Regards Loudenvier 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtuoso: It's not Subjective/Relative

"you can be a virtuoso in terms of your type of music i.e. you could say Gary Moore is virtuoso in terms of his blues playing"

that is the point of contention, which I wish to refute. For this I will yet again stress on the definition of virtuosity as having technical mastery (I forgo the word complete, because I think that is relative even at supersonic shred levels)

I understand people saying that one could be a virtuoso in his style of music, but I think what they mean is slightly different. For this I will choose two polar styles of music and guitarists for comparison, to elucidate my point.

Yngwie is a virtuoso (and really don't argue against that). Now if he were to play the blues, would that make him the greatest blues player by default of his being a virtuoso? Of course not, people like BB King or John Lee Hooker would still pwn him in terms of what it means to really play "the blues". However that doesn't make the latter guitarists virtuosos. Consider thus this statement: "the greatest blues player in the world, need not be a virtuoso, or anything close to one"

The philosophy of my argument is to point out that being a cornerstone, pioneer or one of the best exponents of a particular musical genre doesn't necessarily make the musician concerned, a virtuoso by default.

And besides my relating the term "virtuoso" with technical mastery, I would also make another qualification. A virtuoso should be able to, if he chose to, virtually play in any style of music, exhibiting the same technical mastery. A perfect example is Steve Vai who dabbles in some of the most arcane forms of music (Bulgarian wedding music?!) and yet exhibits his mastery of the instrument through it. To extend that example, I'm sure that Frank Gambale if he chose to, could play a Jason Becker piece, and Joe Satriani, could play an Allan Holdsworth piece.

These people are all virtuosos. period. the whole phrase "in their own right" I feel is a gross error to qualify the term virtuoso, 'cos I feel it completely negates the meaning of "virtuoso".

Thus I think I have a very valid proof here which makes the word "virtuoso" objective in meaning rather than a subjective or relative one.

Indeed, the greatest guitarist in the world could have been Jimi Hendrix, but the best guitarist in the world would first and foremost have to be a virtuoso, which Hendrix certainly was not.

User User:Axegrinder#9 supposedly mistakenly put the above comments on the article page instead of it´s talk page, so I took the liberty to add it to the proper place so we all could discuss this matter further (if applicable). Loudenvier 14:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As you could infer by reading the article it does indeed agree with all you have said, so there´s no need to change it further. The term virtuoso changed meaning from it´s original inception to what it is today. The article still needs a litle more on the evolution and change of the term, but it does a good job explaining what the term virtuoso means today without much space for erronous interpretations. Loudenvier 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: virtuosity is certainly achievable, though I doubt complete technical mastery over the instrument ever is... I mean I s'pose I could conjecture that Rustey Cooley is probably a virtuoso among virtuosos, but then again it is possible someone could take technique to a greater level - what that would be like, is pretty impossible to conceive seeing some of the stuff that guys like Cooley, Ron Thal are doing, but I think above a certain point though - it starts becoming solely means to an end, and loses musicality.

this loss of musicality is debatable: Lizst regarded virtuosity as a fundamental part of musicianship, others despise it as a minor aspect of it (minimalist for example). Virtuosity was only applied to composers, but later changed to mean technical excellence. The term evolved with time (an ordinary linguistic evolution). The article tries to "catch" these old meanings and also shed light to the current meaning (which is technical in matter). Loudenvier 15:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It has to be noted that a virtuoso is also a musician, and shouldn't get too caught up in the technicalities so as to lose focus of musical value. The thing is, genres like neoclassical rock/metal, progressive metal and jazz fusion lend themselves more towards virtuosity than some other genres, because often, a standpoint of that genre is dazzling technical ability.

~ Axegrinder #9

Axegrinder, please use four tildes (~) to sign your talk page contributions - this saves you the trouble of manually signing it and also provides more information. Rarr 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You´re assuming that Axegrinder is a signed user. I think he isn´t signed yet! He´ll find that it´s much easier to work with wikipedia when you sign in, so hopefully he will sign soon and will be able to use the for tildes to "sign" his messages (sign, sign, sign, such cacophony...:-) . Loudenvier 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonce term

The text says "commonly used nonce-term" this is a contradiction, since nonce-terms are terms that have only ever been used once (see Nonce word). I therefore conclude that "nonce" must be wrong. Zargulon 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor which introduced the "nonce" had meant to hint that the term is not used in this acception any longer, but it is not what nonce is meant to mean :-). Your edit is correct, I should have not put nonce back! Loudenvier 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen?

Why is Eddie Van Halen not on there? In the article about him hes even referred to as a Virtuoso yet someone removed him from this list. Alex Lifeson is on here and he definitly does not belong in a list of virtuoso guitar players yet Van Halen is not.

Eddie Van Halen... didn't he define vituosity on the guitar?

There's no reason to list him anymore, since any virtuosi list would be POV and original research, the only list tha ever existed got deleted by administrator. Van Halen virtuosity is also controversial. Also Al di Meola and many others came first so he couldn't probably have defined Virtuosity for the electric guitar (guitar is a broader term, and it's virtuosity is not defined by someone from the 20th century) Loudenvier 13:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocating Paganini image and Chopin example

If this was an entry in a written encyclopedia the editor would probably choose an image to represent a virtuoso, to add value to the article. Paganini is considered the first violin virtuoso ever, so his image is probably the one most suited for this article. It isn't POV because Paganini pioneering virtuosity on the violin is well researched by scholars (see the Paganini article). Removing the picture seems to be a over-reaction over NPOV policies in my opinion. I don't think it's wise to diminish the value of the article without further discussion, so I've opened this for discussion on the talk page and reverted the image removal. The removal of the Chopin example is also something debatable, since it was used to cite someone who is considered a virtuoso that knew how to mix technique and feeling, and, without such example the whose passage reads like editioralization. The wording was also borrowed from the Chopin article where it wasn't considered POV at all, so why it was removed here? I do not like edits that seems to diminish the value of articles without adding anything. Regards Loudenvier 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a great deal of effort bringing this article to the current standard it now displays. I've also spent a lot of time searching for an image that could be NPOV and represent uncontroversialy the virtuoso. I think Paganini is the only one that fits. I've also opted to cite Chopin in place of Lizt because while Chopin wasn't criticized by the use of technique over feeling, Lizt was sometimes critized for too much emphazis on techinique. So Chopin was the uncontroversial choice, but it was removed under the NPOV flag without further explanation. Loudenvier 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the talkpage of the Paganini article. It was determined that the sources claiming Paganini was the first violin virtuoso were in error. ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't read it yet simply because its such common knowledge that he was a pioneer of sorts in terms of violin playing. Ask any violin classical player and they will say to you that the techniques of violin are somewhat divided as before and after paganini. Perhaps a good source about it wasn't found yet. But this endless search for sources sometimes is questionable: they were asking for source about Chopin's death by tuberculosis!!! Someone contended that! That could be the case about Paganini. Loudenvier 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge is not a verifiable source because this would permit all manner of urban legend. Please see the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. ⟳ausa کui ^× 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Enhance?

I would like to see a list of virtuoso pianists linked from within this page. There are over 100 well known virtuoso pianists of the last century and if we count the last 3 centuries (since the birth of the piano) then we would have even more.

I was thinking about categories for other virtuoso musicians too, pianists would be most important but violinists, cellists, etc. they would all be a great addition to the virtuoso page.

Maybe too, some links on becoming a virtuoso, since this has become a huge interest to classical musicians of our time. Also as more and more musically talented individuals are finding out about their musical abilities, I think it would be a great help to them if there was a place for them to research the meaning of 'virtuoso' and find out where they could receive the training that will lead them to perfection. One could include the articles on Hanon techniques, famous music schools (Franz Liszt Academy), etc.

I'd be quite happy to start this article with the guarantee that it doesn't get deleted... -- JulianParge 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It will eventually get deleted. The big problem with list articles is that you have to find an objective standard by which entries are listed. How do you tell that someone is a virtuoso? Jimi Hendrix is considered a virtuoso of the electric guitar by the majority, but experts on guitar technique disagree (myself included) because he was extremely creative and an innovator, but he hadn't the technique to be considered a virtuoso of that instrument, he wasn't technically proficient as a Joe Satriani or Steve Vai. You see? This is POV. A list is hopelessly POV. And this could also be considered original research. You may start the article if you wish, after all, this is wikipedia. But unless you impose an objective standard and play hard to make sure it is followed "your" article will be deleted eventually. Regards. Loudenvier 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I fully understand where you're coming from, I agree too. There are certain pianists to whom I'd personally disagree of being virtuosos, but it really depends on their training and technique, my point of view won't really make a difference there. I don't think there's a lot of point in making a huge section on this subject if it's going to get deleted, but I will start it up in the New Year and we can see if it does any good. It certainly can't do any harm. :) -- JulianParge 14:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article once had a very long list of virtuoso performers, as well as the article List of virtuoso performers. Both are now deleted. As Loudenvier explained, a list is a bad idea because it is impossible to reconcile differences of opinion. It would be fundamentally incompatible with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But it came to my mind that JulianParge could list only pianists that are reliably and externally sourced as virtuoso. If you could not find a external source stating tha Dimitris Sgouros is a virtuoso he wouldn't be on the list, even tough no one could deny he isn't a virtuoso... Great care would be necessary to keep this high standard for eligibility. In fact, all entries would have to have a citation besides it supporting it's inclusion (or more than one for that matter). It's hard work... Regards and happy new year to you all.... Loudenvier 16:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you'd have an article like List of performers cited as virtuosos by at least one music critic? I don't mean to be snarky, but I can't imagine how this would be worth the amount of work required. Nobody is going to come here looking for that. These lists exist only so that people can help spread notoriety for their favorite musicians. If someone is cited as a virtuoso, that should be stated in his or her biographical article, not a centralized list. ⟳ausa کui ^× 23:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You make a very good point, I won't do it for now. If things change and the article is eventually made by someone else I will add to it. -- JulianParge 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pultvirtuoso

Pejorative connotations started in this epoch exemplified by new German expressions such as "Virtuosenmachwerk" (piece of routine display) and "Pultvirtuoso" (orchestral player of virtuoso temperament).

I'm German, and we use "Pultvirtuose" (in German not "PultvirtuosO") not for an orchestral musician, but for a conductor (like Stokowski, Karajan etc.). It isn't pejorative at all. Could anybody whose English is better than mine change it?--84.191.57.150 (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

tegar imanda

tegar imanda lahir di Semarang

blog : skyholes.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildanfathan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did the list containing examples go

? I proved it worth even if it was controversal.

You people are morons, most of you at least. A virtuoso isn't your favorite guitarist, and it isn't the most influential guitarist.

A virtuoso can do things that most other musicians simply *cannot* do. Every single basic skill relating to their instrument has been mastered to a peerless degree. You could take them and put them in a jam session with the 'all-time' greats and have them hold their own.

What does this mean?

Vibrato--beyond perfect. Speed/clarity---beyond perfect. Expression--inspiring. Improvisation--jaw-dropping.

Jimi Hendrix---nope. Clapton---nope. Van Halen? A very, very, very tentative maybe. Vai? Knocking on the virtuoso door, but not quite there. Malmsteen? Yes.

Despite whatever qualms you have about his music, the guy is an instrumental virtuoso---his vibrato, speed, expression and improv are developed to levels beyond most other musicians. The other musicians mentioned simply are not virtuosos. It's not about who you like, it's about who's command of the instrument far exceeds other musicians.

Stop putting people up here who just aren't that great in terms of actual technical ability. We get it, you like them, but they aren't virtuosi.

Hmmmm, but it is also true to say that those who have 'total' command of their instruments sadly do not necessarily make good music. I find the likes of Malmsteen and Vai unlistenable. Just alot of posturing, ego tripping and totally unmusical - and instantly forgettable. Now, Jeff Beck, on the other hand.....157.203.43.192 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are disqualified

from assessing musical virtuosity if you start a discussion with the phrase "You people are morons".

131.211.237.116 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

jacqueline du pre instead of yo yo ma?

DanDan0101 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced claim about 17th century gunpowder/ballistics professionals

This claim was first added by an anonymous editor in March 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtuoso&type=revision&diff=42574104&oldid=42444730 A "citation needed" tag was added some years later but was then removed without any citations being added. It remains lacking any supporting references and I can't find anything in Google Books or Scholar for what should be a pretty prominent historical movement if it existed. So I'm removing this claim.

Zhanli2012 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues with image and caption

As with the list section that I just removed, this image and its associated caption make no reference to any sources to support the musicians presented as being virtuosi. Also, most, if not all, of the performers presented operate within the frameworks of Western and European-derived music. The image and caption need to be reworked if not removed entirely. 134.173.248.4 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

List section has no neutrality

As evidenced by earlier discussion on this talk page and earlier, the section "Notable virtuosi" has its only basis in the personal opinions of Wikipedian editors. This is not a situation that can be resolved simply with editor consensus—that still isn't verifiable, and becomes entirely a matter of personal research and editor's own opinions. If this section were reinforced with references and re-worked as a "List of notable musicians often considered virtuosi" with citations to *multiple* note-worthy such lists, it could be bearable. Based on my research, however, such lists are obscure (if at all existent). As it stands, without references and entirely based upon individual opinion, I would argue it be deleted. 134.173.248.4 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Instead of any discussion on this issue, another artist was added to the list without any reference to any research. I'm going to go ahead and delete the section, and simply resolve the issue. 134.173.248.4 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to also go ahead and mark the article as a stub. Right now, it's in need of *healthy* expansion, as the vast bulk of the article was the list. 134.173.248.4 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 7 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lpears.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Classic and Romantic Music History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trentonparis2004, DillCarp96 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Landryoneal (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)