According to Music in the Western civilization by Piero Weiss and Richard Taruskin:[2]
…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.
None of these properly define Virtuoso for my purpose or taste. I don’t care whether the public is dazzled. Many people are easily dazzled, so they doesn’t justify virtuoso. And every instrument has some relatively easy tricks that wow the crowd, without the player ever reaching a very high level of technical proficiency. So, the crowd dazzle is out.
Still, Virtuoso must be relative to something. So, better than the average player. By what metric? Some are subjective and some objective. So, here are my standards and markers for virtuosity. They are mine, alone. You can choose your own. Some are objective and some subjective. They also read like goals.
- Clean 16th notes at 150 bpm, as arpeggios, scale runs, licks and improvisation. (objective)
- Performance of the following at originator’s tempo. All include Minor Swing-Django, Limehouse Blues-Django, Coquette-Bireli, Bossa Dorado-Stochelo, Donna Lee – Charlie Parker, Montagne Ste. Genevieve – Yorqui Loefler. Johnny Smith- To Be Decided(More)(Objective)
- Artist command of Ballad Playing. (Subjective)
- Flow attained during playing. Relative ease. Some tension is often required. A dead fish won’t do anything but stink. So, a relaxed free flowing playing. (Subjective)
- A large vocabulary of tunes. (subjective) 100 tunes memorized. (objective.)
- Developed and original vocabulary during improvisation. (subjective.)
I have been playing guitar for 35 years. I have had periods of intense practice over the years. These periods last for a few months, then lighten, then intense again. This we’ll call one cycle. The cycle may last a year or two. Then practice greatly slacks off, or completely disappears. During these periods I may just be performing or writing songs. So, I am playing, but not consciously working on getting better at guitar playing. No focused, regimented practice. Many will point to the 10,000 hour rule. I have not done my 10,000 hours. My best guess is maybe close to 6,000 hours. I’m not sure how accurate the rule is, or better, how relevant. It will take what it takes. Some people may get there in 6,000 or less, some in 20,000 hours. Who knows? Why count? It won’t change anything. I guess the only benefit is that you know about how many hours a week you need to be playing, intelligently, to get to the stratosphere. And, if you haven’t put in that much time, don’t wonder why you’re not there. And, possibly, don’t get down on yourself and think you just “don’t have it.” You just haven’t done the work. And maybe that is the “it” really, the ability to put in the work. The desire, the obsession, the love, the neurosis, whatever it is that drives you to play all the freakin time.
Some people think I’m a Virtuoso already. By their standards, I guess I am. But, not by my standards or the metrics of the top performers in the world. My biggest challenge is really speed. I will need to learn to relax. Ah, subjects for further posts.
Anyway, I guess this is my declaration. My goal is Virtuoso by 50 years old. I’m 47 1/2 right now. That half might matter! Onward. Wish me luck.
Further Reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso