Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
A good player diddles away like a demon
Great players toot away with aplomb
The mediocre fiddle like gleemen
While competent tooting's the bomb
Bad players piddle pants when in E-min
Crap tooters use flutes for a bong
And some who think they're fantastic
can't even keep time on bodhran
The moral here, I hope you'll understand:
is that I can take poems to the session, but can't make them scan.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
There's nothing like a well crafted tune, or music that has "Blas" as they say in Irish. It's not speed, its not flashy playing, its more a feeling for the tune / music. Those players that are able to make even a simple tune sound like the best thing you ever heard. Usually they have the experience to do so.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Yes, ottery - I agree entirely. You can tell a good player, 'cos even if they're playing a tune that nobody's heard before, everyone'll be itching to play along anyway. It's also why I'm heartened 'cos even though I'm technically mediocre, there are still people that really enjoy playing with me, (and vice versa).
Of course this really means that the definition of "good" hinges on the kind of style you play (and like to play with), but that seems entirely appropriate.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Consistency has a lot to do with it. The players I admire the most and like to listen to are uniformly excellent, not just occasionally brilliant. And of course, as Silver mentioned, there's a good spirit or energy to the playing.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Grego: I disagree. Depends how you're measuring things. The first definition I found on the net said "of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent". "Middle" could be average, median or mode... and even if it's average, mediocre still means "low" at least partially.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
I disagree. Depends how you're measuring things. The first definition I found on the net said "of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent". "Middle" could be average, median or mode... and even if it's average, mediocre still means "low" at least partially.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
[sorry about the double posting - if i stay on a page here for more than 5 minutes or so, the website forgets about me and i have to log in again. i did that, my posting still wasn't there, so i put it in again (i always copy the text before posting just in case this happens) - and now my original post appears again. v. strange.]
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
I have the fortune to know a couple of sessions where very little value-judgement is applied to other peoples' abilities - after all, a mediocre player might bring in a tune or song that gives a lot of room for other people to contribute and fill-out. And, of course, let them keep coming and they might get up to "speed", not neccessarily literally, and be able to contribute more.
I think a good player is one who knows when to fall back and let someone else lead, rather than take over a session but not play anything anyone else can join in with.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
"A low degree of excellence", Rog - that'd be above average, but by just a little bit, right? Hmmm, maybe the average musician is less than mediocre....
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Naah grego... if excellence goes from zero to one, then, "no excellence" is the same as "no ability" (0), and "low degree of excellence" can still be really bad... (e.g. 0.2).
This is all bollocks anyway, as there aren't linear scales for this kind of thing. There's good (technically proficient), good (I like to listen to them), and good (other people like to listen to them) and many more categories besides. The notion of "average" in the usual linear way doesn't really make any sense.
But the original question still makes sense: we all have the capability to change how we play, by application of time and effort. I imagine to be like trying to push a very heavy object. If you're always pushing it in different directions, it'll never go anywhere - it's only if you have an idea of where to go, and keep on at it, that you'll get anywhere.
Surely that's really what the question's about: what to aim for?
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
A good (if not deep) understanding of your instrument - and a good (if not deep) understanding of the music you are playing, plus the confidence to project ot out to listener(s) - and sometimes, not always, a wish or ability to play different types of music.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Sometimes I feel like Sisyphus pushing my musical rock up the hill, and then seeing it tumble back down again to where I feel totally inept. But mostly I can see slow gradual improvement over the years, and there's something to take a little satisfaction from.
Doesen't "excellence" mean you "excel" or "exceed" beyond the average? Therefore I'd claim the scale starts at average, and any degree of excellence puts you above.
You're right, it is all b'x, and I'm just arguing for the sake of avoiding other even more boring things I'm supposed to be doing.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Joyce - Well, then how about 40 years? The really mature players have a special something that just leaves me awestruck at times. And I'm not talking about superstars, I mean some of the lesser-known immigrant guys I might encounter any given weekend on the south side of Chicago, some of whom have been making music for over 60 years. You can't bottle it or buy it. You have to earn it. Becoming "good" takes as long as it takes.
BTW Ben Koehler is one of my favorite pipers, too. He and David are making great instruments.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
40 years! I'll be an old hag by then........LOL
Yeah Benedict is a gorgeous player. It doesn't get better than that. I hope to see both Benedict and Hilari this Friday. I just adore them and feel lucky they live in Vermont!
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
To add to Rog and Jim Dorans' list of categories of 'good', there are: i. those musicians who are not much to listen to on their own but are great fun to play with; and ii. those who blow your mind in concert or on CD but whom you could never play along to.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Another kind of good musician - and a highly commendable one - is the kind who knows the limits of their technical and creative ability and, when 'playing' as opposed to 'practising', never attempts to exceed those limits, wherever they may lie.
This, I would say, is a model musician. But, in reality, we all have our good days and our bad days, and we can't predict when our triplets or rolls are going to be sloppy or when the variations are going to be rolling off our fingers like water.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
surely creative ability isn't limited? even if technical ability is? and i'm sure it always will be for every single musician as there will always be something else they can attempt on their instrument even if they're the best in the world. but surely creativity isn't limited?
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
>surely creativity isn't limited?
Perhaps not. But we cannot escape the fact that musical variation, improvisation and composition come with greater ease to some of us than to others. Of course, there is some degree of 'technique' to this, which can be learned in the same way as well executed ornaments, good intonation and 'lift' can be learned.
The 'model' qualities I mentioned in my last post are based on the faults that I see in my own playing. What I meant by 'exceeding the limit of one's creative ability' is a tendency which I have, to start a variation, before realising that I do not know where it is going, and have neither the vision nor the musical quick-wittedness to draw it to its logical conclusion. So I find myself departing from the tune and having to miss a couple of notes and catch onto the tune half a bar or so later.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
It's not the creativity that's limited, it's the more obvious elements.
For example, if I was a flute player with asthma, I would be buggered/ limited.
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Yes David, I know exactly where you're coming from with the "variation into a corner" kinda thing. On the contrary to what Mike said, for me, musical creativity *is* the limiting factor. Technical limitations can usually be overcome with practice over time, whereas musical creativity seems to be something that comes and goes at its own whim. I'm not too bad at inventing new stuff, accompanying somebody in an interesting way, etc, but if the muse ain't there, the well quickly runs dry. That's why a late night, semi-intoxicated session might turn out to be great even if the fingers aren't moving with quite the fluidity they would normally...
whats the difference between a good / medocre player
whats the difference between a good / medocre player
whats the difference between players ... . .what makes people stand out?
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Justintime
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
is the answer...........confidence!
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by KS
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
About 4 pints! :P
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Apteryx
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Insight?
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Audacity. So I've been told.
Seriously, I think many 'good' players are often mediocre, and most of us mediocre players are certainly good enough, eh?
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Will CPT
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
accuracy and good pitch!
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by jenaceae
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
I have absolutely no idea.
And I don't care.
-Pádraig
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Pádraig
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
It's all relative.
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
A good player diddles away like a demon
Great players toot away with aplomb
The mediocre fiddle like gleemen
While competent tooting's the bomb
Bad players piddle pants when in E-min
Crap tooters use flutes for a bong
And some who think they're fantastic
can't even keep time on bodhran
The moral here, I hope you'll understand:
is that I can take poems to the session, but can't make them scan.
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Q
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
When you say E-min,do you mean E_dor?
# Posted on March 1st 2003 by dafydd
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Take heart in the fact that medocre players can play good sometimes. And vice-verca
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Hell, I may well do.
Fiddle dee piddle dee poo.
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Q
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
There's nothing like a well crafted tune, or music that has "Blas" as they say in Irish. It's not speed, its not flashy playing, its more a feeling for the tune / music. Those players that are able to make even a simple tune sound like the best thing you ever heard. Usually they have the experience to do so.
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Silver
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
What's a medocre, where can I get one, and how do you tune it?
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
I think it's a relative of the violent, usually tuned in a hot-tempered scale.
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by HighlandSun
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
A good player is one you always want to play with. A mediocre player is one that you can't be bothered to play with....
# Posted on March 28th 2004 by Ottery
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Yes, ottery - I agree entirely. You can tell a good player, 'cos even if they're playing a tune that nobody's heard before, everyone'll be itching to play along anyway. It's also why I'm heartened 'cos even though I'm technically mediocre, there are still people that really enjoy playing with me, (and vice versa).
Of course this really means that the definition of "good" hinges on the kind of style you play (and like to play with), but that seems entirely appropriate.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by rog
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Musicians are mediocre, on average.
(Except, maybe, in Lake Wobegon.)
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by grego
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Consistency has a lot to do with it. The players I admire the most and like to listen to are uniformly excellent, not just occasionally brilliant. And of course, as Silver mentioned, there's a good spirit or energy to the playing.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by carolsviolin
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Grego: I disagree. Depends how you're measuring things. The first definition I found on the net said "of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent". "Middle" could be average, median or mode... and even if it's average, mediocre still means "low" at least partially.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by rog
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
I disagree. Depends how you're measuring things. The first definition I found on the net said "of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent". "Middle" could be average, median or mode... and even if it's average, mediocre still means "low" at least partially.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by rog
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
[sorry about the double posting - if i stay on a page here for more than 5 minutes or so, the website forgets about me and i have to log in again. i did that, my posting still wasn't there, so i put it in again (i always copy the text before posting just in case this happens) - and now my original post appears again. v. strange.]
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by rog
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
IMO, about ten years' worth of intense, focused hard work practicing, playing, and listening.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by Hanley
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
I have the fortune to know a couple of sessions where very little value-judgement is applied to other peoples' abilities - after all, a mediocre player might bring in a tune or song that gives a lot of room for other people to contribute and fill-out. And, of course, let them keep coming and they might get up to "speed", not neccessarily literally, and be able to contribute more.
I think a good player is one who knows when to fall back and let someone else lead, rather than take over a session but not play anything anyone else can join in with.
GP
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by Guernsey Pete
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
"A low degree of excellence", Rog - that'd be above average, but by just a little bit, right? Hmmm, maybe the average musician is less than mediocre....
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by grego
Anyway, I think I'm "indifferent."
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by grego
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
10 years? Is that all ; )
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by JMH
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Naah grego... if excellence goes from zero to one, then, "no excellence" is the same as "no ability" (0), and "low degree of excellence" can still be really bad... (e.g. 0.2).
This is all bollocks anyway, as there aren't linear scales for this kind of thing. There's good (technically proficient), good (I like to listen to them), and good (other people like to listen to them) and many more categories besides. The notion of "average" in the usual linear way doesn't really make any sense.
But the original question still makes sense: we all have the capability to change how we play, by application of time and effort. I imagine to be like trying to push a very heavy object. If you're always pushing it in different directions, it'll never go anywhere - it's only if you have an idea of where to go, and keep on at it, that you'll get anywhere.
Surely that's really what the question's about: what to aim for?
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by rog
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
A good (if not deep) understanding of your instrument - and a good (if not deep) understanding of the music you are playing, plus the confidence to project ot out to listener(s) - and sometimes, not always, a wish or ability to play different types of music.
Jim
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Sometimes I feel like Sisyphus pushing my musical rock up the hill, and then seeing it tumble back down again to where I feel totally inept. But mostly I can see slow gradual improvement over the years, and there's something to take a little satisfaction from.
Doesen't "excellence" mean you "excel" or "exceed" beyond the average? Therefore I'd claim the scale starts at average, and any degree of excellence puts you above.
You're right, it is all b'x, and I'm just arguing for the sake of avoiding other even more boring things I'm supposed to be doing.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by grego
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Sorry, Jim. My post above was in response to Rog. Your point is very well made, and is certainly not b'x.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by grego
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Joyce - Well, then how about 40 years? The really mature players have a special something that just leaves me awestruck at times. And I'm not talking about superstars, I mean some of the lesser-known immigrant guys I might encounter any given weekend on the south side of Chicago, some of whom have been making music for over 60 years. You can't bottle it or buy it. You have to earn it. Becoming "good" takes as long as it takes.
BTW Ben Koehler is one of my favorite pipers, too. He and David are making great instruments.
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by Hanley
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
40 years! I'll be an old hag by then........LOL
Yeah Benedict is a gorgeous player. It doesn't get better than that. I hope to see both Benedict and Hilari this Friday. I just adore them and feel lucky they live in Vermont!
Joyce
# Posted on March 29th 2004 by JMH
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
To add to Rog and Jim Dorans' list of categories of 'good', there are: i. those musicians who are not much to listen to on their own but are great fun to play with; and ii. those who blow your mind in concert or on CD but whom you could never play along to.
# Posted on March 30th 2004 by granama
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Another kind of good musician - and a highly commendable one - is the kind who knows the limits of their technical and creative ability and, when 'playing' as opposed to 'practising', never attempts to exceed those limits, wherever they may lie.
This, I would say, is a model musician. But, in reality, we all have our good days and our bad days, and we can't predict when our triplets or rolls are going to be sloppy or when the variations are going to be rolling off our fingers like water.
# Posted on March 30th 2004 by granama
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
"One's style is based on one's limitations".
Jim (March 2004)
# Posted on March 30th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
surely creative ability isn't limited? even if technical ability is? and i'm sure it always will be for every single musician as there will always be something else they can attempt on their instrument even if they're the best in the world. but surely creativity isn't limited?
# Posted on March 30th 2004 by Mike.Vass
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
>surely creativity isn't limited?
Perhaps not. But we cannot escape the fact that musical variation, improvisation and composition come with greater ease to some of us than to others. Of course, there is some degree of 'technique' to this, which can be learned in the same way as well executed ornaments, good intonation and 'lift' can be learned.
The 'model' qualities I mentioned in my last post are based on the faults that I see in my own playing. What I meant by 'exceeding the limit of one's creative ability' is a tendency which I have, to start a variation, before realising that I do not know where it is going, and have neither the vision nor the musical quick-wittedness to draw it to its logical conclusion. So I find myself departing from the tune and having to miss a couple of notes and catch onto the tune half a bar or so later.
# Posted on March 30th 2004 by granama
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
It's not the creativity that's limited, it's the more obvious elements.
For example, if I was a flute player with asthma, I would be buggered/ limited.
# Posted on March 30th 2004 by never-trust-a-violinist
Re: whats the difference between a good / medocre player
Yes David, I know exactly where you're coming from with the "variation into a corner" kinda thing. On the contrary to what Mike said, for me, musical creativity *is* the limiting factor. Technical limitations can usually be overcome with practice over time, whereas musical creativity seems to be something that comes and goes at its own whim. I'm not too bad at inventing new stuff, accompanying somebody in an interesting way, etc, but if the muse ain't there, the well quickly runs dry. That's why a late night, semi-intoxicated session might turn out to be great even if the fingers aren't moving with quite the fluidity they would normally...
# Posted on March 31st 2004 by rog