[Harp-L] virtuoso

[Robb Bingham <robbingham@xxxxxxxxx>]

Guess what guys? You don't get to define ~virtuosity~
any way you want. It already has a definition and it
doesn't matter if your particular hero passes muster
or not. FWIW, some folks don't even WANT to be
considered a virtuoso. It almost ruined Al Dimeola's
career when folks considered him a mere speedy
~technician~. Mozart would've been insulted to be
called a virtuoso, as he was very much more than that
and would have considered it similar, say, to Rodin
being called a ~handworker~.

The word means, both, to have total
mastery/understanding of an instrument [as in
~state-of-the-art mastery~] and being exceptionally,
technically skilled at playing it. Offhand I can only
think of Bonfiglio or Del Junco as V's [but I'm no
judge]. The word [virtuosity] though is not synonymous
with ~good~. Lots of very hot players are not V's. ]-
- -that doesn't in anyway discount the innovative and
amazing talents [that many V's couldn't touch] of
scores on the list [Hunter, Michalek, and too many to
mention] who wouldn't fall into that category. 

Bottomline: Words mean something. ~Tone~ means
something. ~Music~ means something. ~Marriage~ means
some- - -

Opps.

Sorry if the vagaries and ambiguities cause agitation
but the freaking word is not up for a new definition.
Both Walters, Mr. Wonder and both Sonnyboys don't even
come close to being virtuosos. That means most of us
on this list, obviously, are not virtuosos. Adler was.
I don't know but I'd think Steve Baker is.

If you don't know every note/hole you're playing, and
it's relationship in the scale- PLUS be AMAZINGLY
~good~, you aren't in the running. But, again, for the
most part, the word exists to describe a kind of
performer ~state-of-the-art~. And, even if you
disagree with the wording- the REAL definition is
still out there.
Robb


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com