personally, i listen to very little music that gets much airplay. perhaps the UK differs from the US in that respect - almost everything played on our national radio stations is poppy tripe.

most of the popular music i've heard today leaves me pretty flat. but i suppose allecia keys can go down as someone with widespread appeal who can play. i saw some interview with her where she was showcasing her classical chops, and she is without question talented.

do bands today even play their instruments?

"Widespread popularity?" I don't think so.

In pop? I can't think of any.

Maybe Incubus. But virtuoso is a strong word. I'd say they are good players, but virtuosos? Nah...

Prior to that, the only one that would fit the bill is the Dave Matthews Band.

I'd stick a virtuoso label on Carter for sure.

I'd say Rush. Maybe not as popular as some bands, but still has a huge following, and believe me... I saw them 5 times on their last 2 tours and they have never performed better.
Sting usually has a band full of virtuoso's (Miller, Sancious, Colaiuta, Hakim, Katche, etc, etc) and he is extremely popular.
DMB has Carter, but to me, the rest of the band is mediocre. I would not listen to them at all if it were not for Carter.

I'm still waiting for a viable suggestion.
Many of the bands mentioned so far don't sell outside the US. DMB have not even toured in Europe (except for Mathews himself, solo).
Steely Dan and Rush no longer qualify as widespread popular bands IMO. I wouldn't call the Radiohead guys 'virtuosi'..... talented? interesting? yes!
It all goes to reinforce my opinion that great music is often created by talented musicians who aren't shackled by technical excellence. Most virtuoso players (Satriani is a great example) are too hung up on showing off their technique to notice their material is poor.
The closest you can come to the popular virtuoso performer is the 'backing band'.
Guys like Sting, Bowie and Gabriel are not virtuoso instrumentalists themselves, but they are good and they've filled their bands with some of the best musicians around today.

No, in that respect the UK doesn't differ at all from the US.  Poppy tripe and classic rock.  I've pretty much concentrated on jazz and more obscure funk and rock to get my musical enjoyment.  Basically nothing from the radio, which is sort of misleading since I really never listen to the radio (except for WWOZ here in New Orleans).

Other than Buddy, only a few instrumentalists have attained popularity in recent years through virtuosity. I think Eddie Van Halen is probably at the forefront in this regard. Maybe Kenny G (don't throw rocks - I can't stand his music, but even the most badass, Kenny-hating sax players I know will admit that Kenny's technique is impeccable.) Guys like Jeff Beck have done well, but aren't exactly household names.

Vocalists get more opportunities to cash in on their chops, as the careers of Mariah, Streisand, Whitney, Luther, Christina Aguilera (who may act like a stripper, but she can SING), Jarreau, etc. demonstrate.

But it does seem that the scenario of the virtuoso drummer who's also a household name is pretty darn rare.

I've got to plug Santana here---one of the few mainstream bands that have been around for a long, long time, play instruments, write their own songs, and most importantly, implement awesome percussion accompaniments--Raul rocks>.  The fact that their music is a cultural fusion of latin, afro-cuban and rock elevates them further in their level of musicianship, creativity and originality. While the music may not be as technically complex as say, Al DiMeola <another virtuoso, but unfortunately not a household name>, they are still one of the bands around that, in my opinion, are great players and have achieved mainstream popularity.  <Of course, they achieved more popularity with the younger audience via the mainstream "Supernatural" album, which also shows their ability to be stylistacally versatile and smart. <8 grammys--hello!>

With Chambers, Perazzo and Rekow, they're the toughest rhythm section out there in mainstream music today.  

Long live the guitar solo! <an element the mainstream sometimes leaves out>
Long live the piano solo!
Long live latin rock!
Long live timbales and congas in mainstream music!

don't be talkin' bout my mama....

I know  .  It was a joke.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  Dave Matthews Band may not tour Europe (not a lot of US artists do to the level they do in the States), but this isn't an automatic disqualifier.  They are a band of very good musicians, who also have worldwide popularity.  You don't sell 30 million albums (49th all time in album sales) without having some success outside the US.

I also disagree with your assesment of "virtuostic players" like Satriani.  To classify their music as poor because they get caught up in their technique is a pretty narrow minded point of view.  While it may not be your cup of tea and doesn't subscribe to your particular experience within the music industry, it certainly isn't poorly written or played.  Is Joe Satriani or Yngwie Malmsteen going to sell 40 million albums? No, probably not, but that certainly doesn't discredit their music or their contribution to the industry.  

As for virtuostic type bands with popularity, I would have to say that Phish is a band that qualifies.  The players are much more skilled than most players on the scene, and that includes session playeres.  True, they only sell 500,000 or so copies of their studio releases, but this is a band that lives and dies for the live experience.  There aren't a lot of bands out there today playing to crowds of 70,000 without any type of real marketing, or mention in most trade magazines.  Those of you who were like me, turned off by the fan base of this group, please, do yourself a favor and listen to some of their live releases, ie "A Live One" or "Hampton Comes Alive".  The level of talent in this band is tremendous, and they are obviouslt popular, since they are in the Top Ten in Pollmaster every year they tour.
 

 

I've visited this thread fairly regularly to see if I can think of any additions. I've pretty much failed ... certainly in the category of "in the last 5 years."

The only four I could come up with, that the public (in my case represented by my wife) would recognise as "great musicians", are:

- Phil Collins
- Grover Washington
- George Benson
- Carlos Santana

Well, I still say DMB qualifies.  As for Phish, I think selling out arenas and constantly posting in the top 10 in concert gfrosses year in and year out is pretty widely known.  Factor in their final concert was simulcast to over 100 theaters nationwide and globally on XM Radio, attended by 70,000 people,  and covered by NPR, MSNBC, CNN and a host of other news outlets (which really adds no credibility in my eyes, but is a testament to how well known they are) I would say they are pretty widely known.  As KevinD stated, its all been done with limited airplay or traditional marketing techniques.  And I don't think anyone who really listens to the music can say that those guys are not great musicians.