-
Kind of in the same vein as the recent thread about successful musicians and their practicing.
I know that there are some professional musicians on this site and this might apply to them, but I am wondering more about the hobbyist musicians that have fairly demanding careers outside of music.
Do you ever wonder how good you would be if you spent as much time and had the support systems as someone that is famous that you dig? Do you think that you could be just as good as them, or better? Or do you feel that no matter the circumstances you would be just as good as you are now?
-
12-09-2016 02:36 AM
-
Nope, but I understand your mindset in asking this question.
I could play 24 hours a day/7 days a week and I'd never be great.
And I couldn't play Major League baseball either.
I couldn't even make the high school baseball team and I practiced my butt off.
I can't run fast either or jump high.
I've said it before. For 99% of us, half-assed to fair-to-middlin' is about all we can hope for.
Just enjoy the ride.Last edited by Drumbler; 12-09-2016 at 09:14 AM.
-
I can't say it's something I think much about.
-
My current hope is for jazz competency. I define it as being able to hear the other musicians, comp solidly, and play melody based solos and know a few dozen standards that I can relatively easily transpose.
-
Funny you should ask that. I've got the day off today (a use it or lose it holiday!) and I keep picking up the guitar and really getting deep into something. Just spent half an hour drilling into minor turnarounds on a minor blues (something I'm a bit weak on) and I came up with some really cool lines I've never thought of before. No doubt on Monday I will forget the lot! Makes you wonder how far you could get doing this stuff every day.
-
Actually have thought about this a fair amount. I was at a point about four years ago when I had the choice to go to music school and be immersed in jazz for four-ish years and really see what might be possible for myself as a professional performer. I felt I was already a good player and was interested in getting to that "elite" level.
I feel confident that I would be at a much higher level if I spent even just a few years
- practicing jazz hours every day
- regularly performing gigs with great players
- studying with a variety of great teachers
- taking courses in harmony, composition, etc
But I considered the investment:
- putting a steady job/career on hold
- the massive amount of debt for tuition
- if trying to make it in the gigging world, the financial inconsistency of that
- late nights, erratic schedule
- likely playing a lot of gigs that were boring or not the style I wanted to be playing in
And got discouraged or unenthused thinking about the possible rewards:
- having a skill set that only other people with that skill set can actually appreciate; excelling in music that the general population doesn't appreciate or understand
- being able to play music at a "high level" with others - sure is great, but is it worth all the $$$, loss in security, etc, considering that I already do/did play at a "high level?" we're just talking about a high-high-high level.
And it seemed selfish and almost narcissistic to me to invest so much in just being able to play guitar better.
Eventually it was just...I love music and I love improving as a player, but not as much as I want security and consistency for myself, to be doing something every day that makes sense and has a tangible reward and outcome, etc.
-
I try not to think about potential. It's a "whatif." Those keep you up at night.
I am exactly as good as I should be, considering the work (read: lack thereof) I've put in. Could I be better...probably. I could be worse too
-
I've worked pretty hard *for a hobbyist*, but I know that even if I had worked hours a day starting in my early 20s, I would never have gotten to any sort of decent level: I just dont have the ears/chops/sensitivity/creativity/time/personality that I hear in, say, your average sideman guitarist on your average obscure straight-ahead working jazz group. I'm pretty good at doggedly practicing some idea or other until I "get it", but no so good at *making good music*. Hence, no wonders about my potential. That's not why I play anyway: practice is a form of meditation/relaxing and playing with friends is a supremely enjoyable activity, in the same way that some people enjoy practicing hard for their weekly pick-up basketball games.
-
The other quirky thing in this mix is that sometimes players can sound better with less advancement...it's not common, but it does happen.
Hear me out, I mean, you can get more advanced with chops, harmony, rhythms etc, but sometimes somebody doesn't use new/great skills to musical advantage.
Like a lot of people, I'd rather hear somebody play simply and groove and listen well then play things that 'prove' they are at a 'high level' but aren't really communicating anything meaningful.
There definitely is such a thing as backwards-advancement
-
I think that comes into the "know" versus "know of" thing.
When a player "knows of" something, they'll use it intentionally, trying to make it work, trying to get to the "know" stage.
When you hear someone groove and fit and just plain work, they "know" what they're doing, even if they "know" five things instead of "knowing of" 50.
-
I like that distinction! But you have to admit, a lot of grey area and room for subjective interpretion of the distinction.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
I'd say enough gray that maybe there's no black. The more you know, the darker dark gray gets...
Damn, I'm philosophical this morning. Better drink some coffee.
-
How do you take it? Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
lol. Black
-
I think I have a new aspiration! Originally Posted by JakeAcci
-
Great thread !
If you believe in parallel universes and such, time is just an illusion programmed into our brains for whatever reason (to keep us from getting bored or keep things from happening all at once), you of now are one of the probabilities but there are almost endless number of other probabilities. So enjoy now for now, and see if you have any control over picking some of the better-looking probabilities "out there".
-
This would be the day I'm teaching about fractals in my Art classes.
-
"That Jordan kid will never amount to anything...." (Apocryphal comment of Michael's coach who put up the cut list with MJ's name on it in HS.)
"That Russell kid is pretty weak....tell you what...he can share a jersey with the 12th man on the squad."
(Apocryphal comment of Bill Russell's HS coach where I don't think he started until he was a HS junior.)
Scouting report sent back to Red Auerbach, Boston Celtics coach after Russell was scouted during college.
"Can't hit the broad side of the barn when he shoots. But he's only the greatest basketball player I've ever seen....Whatever it takes to get him and sign him, do it!"
-
Thanks for all the replies.
A couple things that stayed with me over the years from some interactions I had with a professor of mine when I was in college: I had an Ivy League professor at one point even though I didn't attend an Ivy League school. She said that the best students that she was teaching at my school were comparable to the best students that she went to school with on every level. The difference was that there weren't as many compared to the not so great students. She also said that a lot of the better students that she had been exposed to in both places were probably capable of doing anything well, not just what they were currently studying.
I guess my point is that for some of us there may be a wall in terms of our musical abilities. However, what are the limiting factors that present that wall? Is it time and resources, or is it innate ability? I know that there have been other threads about the limitations of talent, or gaining perfect pitch and I really don't want those to impact this discussion. I am just wondering if anyone feels blocked by time and resources to the point that they feel that if they weren't they would be as great as others that have those luxuries. It might be hard to know for sure, but some people have responded and said that they wouldn't. I can respect that honesty. I think that I would be better for sure. I am just curious where my ceiling would be though.
-
i know there's been a little snark here, but I think this is a cool discussion and good points to bring up. Originally Posted by lammie200
There are SO many factors besides talent. I feel strongly that the following things DO make huge huge differences:
1. Who the teacher and teachers are
2. How practice time - whether it's 30 minutes or 10 hours - is structured and who is doing that structuring (ex, does your "pro" teacher say "learn this tune, man" or does he supply you with detailed instructions on how to efficiently use your time?)
3. Of course, how much practice is available
4. Who you play with. Think of not playing with anybody vs. playing with very basic/beginner improvisers vs being pushed (appropriately) by great players
5. Musicians you are surrounded with even if you're not playing together - just being in the company of people who are playing at a high level and have been doing so for a long time, they usually can share insights based on their experiences about what the "big picture" is what what truly matters vs what don't.
6. Attitude and approach to problem solving
I do believe that if you take any Joe Jazzy Shmo and have him working with great teachers, structuring practice time efficiently, having a lot of time to practice, getting him access to great players, personal feedback and interaction with great players...he's going to get/be a lot better.
-
I wanted to add, let's imagine this scenario - say you take any Joe Jazzy Shmo and have him play a gig with whoever, duo, trio, solo, doesn't matter.
Then have 20 of the greatest and most popular jazz musicians critique his performance, taking detailed notes on what they would do differently, what they felt was lacking, what the strengths were.
He gets to have lengthy conversations with each of those musicians about all the concepts, they give their recommendation of what to practice to improve in those areas.
He also discusses the issues with educators and folks who are good at intelligently designing a practice program to make efficient use of his time.
Then he wins the lottery and can spend all day practicing and listening to records, doesn't have to work, gets to hire people to cook all his meals and do his laundry. He also can hire some great musicians to regularly play gigs or even just jam sessions, continue giving him feedback.
He makes detailed long term plans about what to practice, intelligently divides up his time between mechanical work, problem solving, and just playing/improvising/exploring.
You get the idea...I know 'natural talent' is a real thing, I just struggle to imagine that any average or even sub-par musician in the above scenario will not make gigantic, tangible, noticeable leaps in ability and musicality.
OBviously the above is total la-la land but there are factors that make these things more or less accessible to each of us - how much time available based on our job and lifestyle, which teachers and musicians we have access to, etc.
-
I think most people would improve significantly with this type of environment and regimen. And musicians like Julian Lage actually enjoyed this type of privilege starting from childhood. And he is a gift to society. Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Somehow, the thread about high level players completely abandoning playing guitar is relevant to this thread too. Shows me how important personal motives are in addition to environmental (financial) support and some level of talent. And the personal motives can respond to the financial challenges.
-
Hah, yes, in the same sense that the "rich get richer" those that are great often get to continue to get even better - by having better opportunities, and interestingly the more paid work they get the more they can be focused on the music they want to work on rather than side gigs or day jobs...then hanging out with other amazing players, learning from them, etc. I'm sure somebody has written some thesis on a class system of musicians, the lower, middle, upper class...can be tough to move up in classes. Pretty easy to move down, hah.
-
I find this stuff kind of comforting honestly because I think musicians can get very hung up on how good they are, wrapped in ego, really identifying as their "level" and it's nice to remember that so much of this "level" has to do with environmental variables.
-
As a kid, I was fascinated with chess. I lost the fascination immediately when I learned how much memorization (of classic plays) becoming a great chess player involved. I had a similar (but not identical) feeling when I learned that some solos recorded in the studio have been played/modified/dubbed 300 times before the final version or how some great players compose their solos ahead of the time and rinse and repeat as needed. For some reason, this knowledge did not make me lose my fascination with jazz guitar. I guess that's because chess is pretty much all about winning against an opponent (with clear military symbolism), whereas music is to be enjoyed not "won", it is not done against anyone but many times "with" someone. For similar reasons, "cutting" type performances generates some guilt along with some enjoyment (maybe curiosity is more like it).
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos