Originally Posted by: PlatonicShred
If you research the history on the term virtuoso and what it means, you'll see that, in the modern sense of the word, a virtuoso is someone who's ability inspires 'awe' in those who watch them perform.

Forgive me if I'm completely missing the point here (which is likely :o), but if a virtuoso is defined as somebody who inspires awe in their audience, then virtuosity by definition has less to do with technical prowess and more to do with pure, subjective difference in taste.

For example, David Gilmour practically NEVER plays fast or technically convoluted passages, but he inspires utmost awe in countless thousands of Floyd fans - can he not, then, be considered a virtuoso? I for one think so. However, many others may not be awed by his playing - accordingly, they do not consider him a virtuoso, which is perfectly valid, because the point I'm trying to make is that the perception of virtuosity is purely subjective. If John Petrucci, or Joe Satriani, or Zakk Wylde, or Gary Moore, or Wes Montgomery, or Neil Young, or even Billie Joe Armstrong - if any of those people inspire awe in you with their musicianship, then you have every right to consider them a virtuoso. Others may not agree with you, but if you see them as virtuosic, you are 100% entitled to your opinion - which, I think, is the point that both PlatonicShred and Mr. Creta have been trying to make all along. (Similarly, you don't have to agree with the above definition of a "virtuoso" - but I think we'd all rather avoid an even more protracted debate on semantics)

Whew! Long post, considering I may be completely missing the point... :D