There's been a few mentions recently about competitiveness in musicians. I don't understand why it's generally felt that it can be good encouragement for youngsters or any beginner to compete. And yet it's frowned upon in a session situation.
Are you supposed to get to a position where you don't need to compete anymore? Where is that point? After you've won?
And then some see it the other way round. Where when you are learning, you go to a "slow" session and it's all lovely and polite and non ego. And you do this to avoid being in a "proper" session where you might have to compete. "I struggle to make myself heard", is a recent quote to illustrate this.
Michael, aren’t you talking about two (or more) kinds of competition here? In a formal ajudicated event, everybody knows and agrees to a clear definition of what’s happening. The contestants are voluntarily submitting to formal judgement on their skills. In a session, there’s no such agreement. If anything, there is a tacit agreement to cooperate. Of course, there are subtle (and not sot subtle) forms of competitiveness that will be present, but isn’t that really a different issue?
Michael, a nice provocative post to get the juices flowing on a Friday!
I think "compete/competitiveness" needs clarification here. When you're talking about youngsters and beginners "competing," I assume you mean taking part in a feis or fleadh. In that setting, there's a more or less universal understanding of roles and expectations. Musicians know they're going to be judged by designated authorities according to a certain set of criteria, and there will be a definitive result. To borrow American sports-speak, the individual competitor can't worry about what the other guy is doing; he/she can only focus on developing and refining his/her technique and ability to (hopefully) meet whatever the criteria for excellence is.
In a session situation, however, to me "competitiveness" takes on a different, and rather ambiguous meaning. It suggests that, instead of trying to gear yourself to meet a reasonably identifiable standard of performance, you are responding to the actions of someone else, thus creating an atmosphere of oneupmanship. The question is, to what end? If it's a competition, what's the criteria? How do you know who "wins"? Is there supposed to be some sort of acknowledgement?
The key is, I think, for it to be a _friendly_ competition, where the playing is done more with a wink and a smile than an intense stare, and that this is abundantly clear to all involved. I'm not saying that for politically correct, let's-not-offend-anyone-ever purposes: It simply makes for better music.
When I was in Ireland I noticed two things about the scene: competitiveness *and* encouragement. If you have both then it works, I presume.
I don't think as an individual you necessarily choose to be competitive. It's sufficient to know that your performance will be compared to others and looked at rather critically. This was one of the things that stopped me playing for over a decade. Now I've got more self-confidence.
It's certainly omnipresent. But people aren't always competing in the same event. In a session, one bright spark fluter might be competing against a bright spark fiddler sitting across the table, and they're having a great old time sparking off've each other. They're competing in the 300m, and later on will prolly take each other on in the 100m sprint.
Off to their left is a piper with years of experience under her belt; she's competing in the same team as the elderly backer next to her, in the "enjoying the music while making sure, musically, that the bright sparks don't get too carried away" relay event... they're not too bad at it, frankly.
Then a less skilled musician, perhaps a mandolin player off to the right, is competing in the "Most sociable and gracious" category, being nice to newcomers and making sure the drinks keep coming. He's not relegated to this role because he can't keep up with the others, he does it because he's GOOD at it, and he enjoys it.
The learners, off to the side, they're there too. Can't wait to compete properly, but for now they're happy to have run their own heats - the training they put into the few sets they've got down is paying off - they played a few of the sets all the way through without stopping!
And there's a grumpy fiddler who knows all the tunes; he's competing in the humility event, but not doing very well. The judges give points for passive benevolence, not false recollections about how there weren't no need for the 100m sprint back in his day. He would, however, have won the passive aggressive race if only he'd entered In the meantime, he's acting as a hurdle for the all others to leap over in the "total enjoyment" hurdling event.
At the end of the day, it's a fair meet, and we get to see some fantastic performances. None of the competitors have won all of the races they entered, but most have placed somewhere in at least one or two races, and everyone's happy, even the Hurdle, because he entered the shot put by mistake and won!
I think a sense of competition in a session situation can be a good thing as long as it is healthy and in good humour. It's important not to take it too seriously.
But I don't like official contests, they mean nothing really because the result only shows the taste of the few people who is the jury. And there are lots of good musicians who don't even bother going to competitions.
It's possible that you're (in part, at least) responding to my post in "Slow Sessions" where I used the word competitive. I said that I have been to some sessions which are like a competitive SPORT. By which I meant that they were like sprint events in which the "winner" appears to be the person who gets to the end of a tune first. These are sessions I go to once, and never again. I know that some folk like this sort of session, but they're no use for lovers of traditional music. IMO.
Ah, my analogy has been entirely undone - competitiveness in the 100m sprint requires a participant to WANT to finish first, and that's no good. Let me tell you about my competitive figure-skating analogy instead...
I've commented in another post that I'm not a fan of the politics involved in competitions. I'm not a fan of politics in music in general. I think that the style of competition in playing in a session is a good thing because it really is competition to make good music and be better than you were last week. Competition where you go play for judges where who your teacher is more important than how you play is bad. Simple really.
Hang on a sec. Figure-skating is just one or two people at a time, so that's not a fair comparison either. Okay, listen up. Competitive synchopated swimming. Need I say more?
"I’m in constant competition with myself. I want to be better than I am." - I'm with fidkid on this one, bo**ocks to trying to be better than anyone else, just worry about your own playing!
Hey Q - what a brilliant idea.
Why did nobody ever think of it before - an Underwater Session?
OK, you'll laugh at this analogy, but look at morris dancing.
<Waits for laughter to subside>
When I'm out on a morris dance "tour" that includes several teams, I sometimes get asked whether the dancers are competing with each other, whether as individuals or teams.
The short answer is "No, not really" -- although there certainly are competitions for morris teams and dancers. But at these kinds of events there often is a desire, or even challenge, on the part of teams to impress one another, especially if they rarely have an opportunity to dance together. Teams are apt to perform a couple of showcase-type dances that have particularly impressive figures, or require a fair amount of agility, or just simply "look cool," to make an impression not only on the audience but on their fellow dancers.
This is done with overwhelmingly good sportsmanship and in the spirit of fun (although there may be a few dancers who perhaps take the "competition" a bit too much to heart). You're likely to hear not only encouragement and praise, but also some good-natured wisecracks and heckling: For instance, if someone gets off a really good caper, or leap, other dancers are liable to yell "Higher!"
Some specific morris dances call for pairs of dancers to periodically "challenge" each other, i.e., to dance a specific figure or step directly facing one another. The fun part comes when you have a couple -- usually, but not always, male -- who decide to turn it into a contest, pretending to snarl and grimace at one another or making a big deal of how high or how far they leap.
The fact is, though, as enjoyable as this larking about is, the dancers have to be careful not to do anything that would impede the overall progress of the dance. If someone improvises or shows off a bit too much such that everyone else is thrown off, the dance can descend into chaos.
So perhaps the same could be said for the idea of "competitiveness" in sessions. Sure, it can be fun to go the "anything you can do, I can do better" route, especially if most of the participants are well acquainted enough. But if the urge for oneupmanship becomes too much of an end in of itself, then you lose sight of the big picture.
I would have to say I think it is good.....to a certain extent though.
Without any competitiveness, the standard would not be nearly as high. It is perfectly alright to want to play as well or better than others. I think that as long as people do not get too hung up on the idea, it's healthy. To want to do better than another person within reason only means they will become a better musician!
Playing good music requires the antithesis of competition which to me is cooperation. That is not to say that good music cannot be made with some provocation, like the fiddler and the flute player example earlier in this thread. But I see this as clearly provocation certainly in the most positive way not competition. Creativity feeds off itself.
A Fleadh competitor the way I see it is competing against a set of standards and their interpretation, not necessarily against the other musicians.
My conclusion is that competition is not good for the playing of the music but may very well serve a purpose in the developing of musicians.
An underwater session...I'm okay with that, except do I have to wear a bathing suit? Could I wear one of those turn of the century bathing costumes instead? And about my fiddle...Em...Should I bring the plastic "beater" I have in the closet, made by Mattel? Then there's the question of speed...When playing underwater, I have a few issues with jigs and reels, and my ornamentation doesn't seem to go too well, either. Repertoire might need adjusting...Is there a re-e-eally slow version of Handel's Water Music with an Irish flair? Checking online...
Michael,
The ultimate wind-up! You pose a question, and then preclude us from giving the right answer, which is, of course, "it depends."
Some competitiveness can be healthy--as we strive to learn new tunes and techniques and keep up with the guy beside us, we become better musicians, and as we gain command of our instruments, we begin to be able to transcend the "work" of making music, and participate in the "joy" of making music.
Too much competition can pit us against each other, promote jealousy, encourage bickering and self-centeredness, and destroy the sense of community that is vital to a good session.
As I have said many times in discussions such as these where people take sides on which extreme is the best or worst, it is all about balance.
I really dislike competition, but I guess that comes from playing classical for so long. Chair tests and auditions are really stressful and make for tension among the musicians. That's one of the things I love so much about ITM- there's not as much competition, so the musicians are actually friends!
I don't see any point to the competitions. Seems more of a selling point once an "all ireland" winner starts to perform and record; sounds good on liner notes & websites.
I didn't get the impression that the slow session was an avoidance of the competitiveness of a regular session. But then I didn't realize that regular sessions were competitve either. Silly me! I thought a session was playing ensemble music.
Not really. Or have you never seen the behind the scenes of a large scale ensemble? There is a lot of competition. Chair and auditions are only two of them. Not really good, but when you have to work to earn your spot in a band/orchestra/ensemble/whatever then it makes you a better musician, which in turn, makes for better music. I know plenty of good ensemble, team players who thrive on this kind of competition.
So your saying that we shouldn't try to improve and allow a desire to play as well as or better than someone else motivate us into playing better ourselves? Because that would be the amateur or informal version of the competition experienced in professional music.
Look, this is starting to bug me. It's not a competition.
If you have a desire to play better than someone else, you belong in sport, not music. If you are a musician, you simply want to play music well. And in this music, in particular, it means wanting to play music with people, not against people.
If what motivates you is the desire to overtake someone else's ability, stay away from me
If you are a musician playing frequently and practicing at home, then you are a musician who wants to improve. Unless you're playing in a vacuum or are a mountaintop hermit without recordings available, you have exposure to other musicians with which to compare your skills, and those comparisons help to give you a yardstick (meterstick?!) with which to measure your progress. Being aware of the skill level of others and trying to meet or exceed it is natural and a good motivation. A desire for excellence is what moves us along. Trying to make other musicians look bad, or to want to humble them or best them for the sake of your pride, is always unappealing in a musician or any other performer.
Except for your motivation to meet or exceed the skill level of others. This misses a very important point.
Let me give you an example: I remember as a youngster thinking that when I can play Toss the Feathers like Kevin Burke, I'd be able to play the fiddle. Bollox. All I ended up doing was sounding like Kevin Burke. And it's such a common mistake. I've seen it in many many more people that just myself (and with Kevin Burke in particular).
You have to look for music in yourself, not look for it in either the impression or the impressing of others. Lets face it, that's what competitiveness is all about. Either the impression or the impressing of others
That or it's in the improvement of yourself or in others. I didn't say to play like them or to play the way they did. What I was saying is allowing their skill level and ability to motivate you into playing better. There is a competitive take on that. I really think though that it isn't that we are competing agaisnt them, they have reached their skill level. We are competing against ourselves and mediocrity. We are competing to improve our own playing, it is a competition against self that is motivated by hearing others playing well. It isn't a game of upmanship it is a game of getting better and being capable of adding something to the musical context and being the motivational point for someone else.
No, you're talking rubbish Michael, and I'm drunk so I can tell. Competitiveness is a celebration of excellence, and while very much out of favour, it wasn't through mutual adoration that the very best scientific and creative discoveries and breakthroughs were made. It was through one-upmanship. Shakespeare and Marlowe, Emerson and Longfellow, Mozart and Salieri, Schumann and his own wife, Bertram Russell and Wittgenstein, Tom and Jerry, Rabbie feckin' Burns, fer crying out loud. Aaalways trying to impress everyone. And he did; they did! Okay, maybe Salieri came in a distant second in his pairing, but my point is that nobody creates anything out of nothing - they don't work in a vacuum. If someone didn't think, hmmm... I reckon I could turn a few Kerry heads with these weird ass polkas I picked up on my travels, where would Donal Lunny have gotten the material to one-up with some weird rhythms to make people gape for years to come on their first hearing of his live album. The urge to do *better* is a manifestation of curiosity, excitement, dedication and passion. In some instances of competitiveness turning nasty, it has its dark side, yes, but so does overdone toast - and who here has ever thrown away the whole loaf just cos one slice is burned?
Now, put the pitchfork down and step away from the platonic ideal. It won't hurt you unless you prod it with a pointy stick.
" I don't understand why it's generally felt that it can be good encouragement for youngsters or any beginner to compete. And yet it's frowned uponin a session situation".
Adjudicated Competition is a very useful pedagogical tool....
It provides motivation to practice for kids that need immediate goals. It's really only applicable to technique and training and is useless after the first 3-5 years. One should be a solid musician by then and working on interpretaion, style, or whatyoumaycallit.
At least that's what the proponents tell me. Don't believe in 'em myelf.
But I do know that competitiveness had everything to do with ruining classical violin for me when I was young, and I avoid it like the plague now. But then again, I am an utterly unambitious fiddler. My sole ambition is to have a drink and play a tune in pleasant company. I don't even care to belong to a band.
"When you're talking about youngsters and beginners "competing," I assume you mean taking part in a feis or fleadh. In that setting, there's a more or less universal understanding of roles and expectations. Musicians know they're going to be judged by designated authorities according to a certain set of criteria, and there will be a definitive result."
And that's bad.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've just come back from an evening with Julia Fischer. Nice girl. I think her accent is adorable.I have to go burn all of my fiddles now.
“What I was saying is allowing their skill level and ability to motivate you into playing better.”
This to me is provocation not competition. Competing would be when your motivation was to best your example and be adjudicated as doing so.
Musicfan also wrote:
“We are competing to improve our own playing…”
My take is that we are working on improving not competing with ourselves or any other for that matter.
Q wrote (inebriation aside):
“it wasn't through mutual adoration that the very best scientific and creative discoveries and breakthroughs were made.”
Yes, indeed this statement describes the benefits of competition. However it is specifically through “mutual adoration” that the very best music is produced. Again I think one needs to recognize that creative provocation is not competition. Striving to make the music, if you will, “better” by stimulating the creative energies of the others you are playing with is not competing with them.
In one person competitions there is one person that is a “winner”. To me playing the music with others in a non-competitive way (reads cooperative way) allows for all to win. I’ve seen it at some of the sessions I’ve been. Two great melody players would spend their time demonstrating their technical prowess and for sure there was some exciting playing. So much so that I even got chills listening but frankly I was never transported to those great places I venture to in my mind when “the music” is great. Yet there have been times when I’ve been in session with others that would be described, even by ourselves, as at best average players, whereby there has been none of the technical showmanship and the music has been brilliant. I rely on the measure of the times during the session I mentally leave and go off to a quiet hill, rolling meadow, inspiring shore line, and the like to make this determination. I also rely on my looking up and seeing that the other players, and quite often the folks listening, are also returning from somewhere else when the tune ends. This to me is brilliant music. My first example to me denotes brilliant playing. I think there is a difference between the two.
So in conclusion (oh, I feel as though I should be standing behind a lectern whilst raising my right arm and giving my extended index finger one emphatic shake) I say that competition may lead to brilliant playing it does not lead to brilliant music.
Competitiveness? good or bad?
Competitiveness? good or bad?
There's been a few mentions recently about competitiveness in musicians. I don't understand why it's generally felt that it can be good encouragement for youngsters or any beginner to compete. And yet it's frowned upon in a session situation.
Are you supposed to get to a position where you don't need to compete anymore? Where is that point? After you've won?
And then some see it the other way round. Where when you are learning, you go to a "slow" session and it's all lovely and polite and non ego. And you do this to avoid being in a "proper" session where you might have to compete. "I struggle to make myself heard", is a recent quote to illustrate this.
Come on now, let's be consistent.
Competitiveness? good or bad?
And I won't accept good sometimes, bad sometimes
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by ...
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Competitiveness is definitely bad. It leads to ugly musicmaking by the group.
Pecking order, and the struggle to keep one's place or rise in the hierarchy by playing demonstrably better - now that has its positives.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by grego
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Michael, aren’t you talking about two (or more) kinds of competition here? In a formal ajudicated event, everybody knows and agrees to a clear definition of what’s happening. The contestants are voluntarily submitting to formal judgement on their skills. In a session, there’s no such agreement. If anything, there is a tacit agreement to cooperate. Of course, there are subtle (and not sot subtle) forms of competitiveness that will be present, but isn’t that really a different issue?
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Bob himself
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Michael, a nice provocative post to get the juices flowing on a Friday!
I think "compete/competitiveness" needs clarification here. When you're talking about youngsters and beginners "competing," I assume you mean taking part in a feis or fleadh. In that setting, there's a more or less universal understanding of roles and expectations. Musicians know they're going to be judged by designated authorities according to a certain set of criteria, and there will be a definitive result. To borrow American sports-speak, the individual competitor can't worry about what the other guy is doing; he/she can only focus on developing and refining his/her technique and ability to (hopefully) meet whatever the criteria for excellence is.
In a session situation, however, to me "competitiveness" takes on a different, and rather ambiguous meaning. It suggests that, instead of trying to gear yourself to meet a reasonably identifiable standard of performance, you are responding to the actions of someone else, thus creating an atmosphere of oneupmanship. The question is, to what end? If it's a competition, what's the criteria? How do you know who "wins"? Is there supposed to be some sort of acknowledgement?
The key is, I think, for it to be a _friendly_ competition, where the playing is done more with a wink and a smile than an intense stare, and that this is abundantly clear to all involved. I'm not saying that for politically correct, let's-not-offend-anyone-ever purposes: It simply makes for better music.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by sts
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
When I was in Ireland I noticed two things about the scene: competitiveness *and* encouragement. If you have both then it works, I presume.
I don't think as an individual you necessarily choose to be competitive. It's sufficient to know that your performance will be compared to others and looked at rather critically. This was one of the things that stopped me playing for over a decade. Now I've got more self-confidence.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by kuec
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I'll go with good.
In the meantime, he's acting as a hurdle for the all others to leap over in the "total enjoyment" hurdling event.
It's certainly omnipresent. But people aren't always competing in the same event. In a session, one bright spark fluter might be competing against a bright spark fiddler sitting across the table, and they're having a great old time sparking off've each other. They're competing in the 300m, and later on will prolly take each other on in the 100m sprint.
Off to their left is a piper with years of experience under her belt; she's competing in the same team as the elderly backer next to her, in the "enjoying the music while making sure, musically, that the bright sparks don't get too carried away" relay event... they're not too bad at it, frankly.
Then a less skilled musician, perhaps a mandolin player off to the right, is competing in the "Most sociable and gracious" category, being nice to newcomers and making sure the drinks keep coming. He's not relegated to this role because he can't keep up with the others, he does it because he's GOOD at it, and he enjoys it.
The learners, off to the side, they're there too. Can't wait to compete properly, but for now they're happy to have run their own heats - the training they put into the few sets they've got down is paying off - they played a few of the sets all the way through without stopping!
And there's a grumpy fiddler who knows all the tunes; he's competing in the humility event, but not doing very well. The judges give points for passive benevolence, not false recollections about how there weren't no need for the 100m sprint back in his day. He would, however, have won the passive aggressive race if only he'd entered
At the end of the day, it's a fair meet, and we get to see some fantastic performances. None of the competitors have won all of the races they entered, but most have placed somewhere in at least one or two races, and everyone's happy, even the Hurdle, because he entered the shot put by mistake and won!
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Q
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I’m in constant competition with myself. I want to be better than I am.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by fidkid
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Brilliant, Matt!
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Conán McDonnell
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I think a sense of competition in a session situation can be a good thing as long as it is healthy and in good humour. It's important not to take it too seriously.
But I don't like official contests, they mean nothing really because the result only shows the taste of the few people who is the jury. And there are lots of good musicians who don't even bother going to competitions.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Beheader
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
It's possible that you're (in part, at least) responding to my post in "Slow Sessions" where I used the word competitive. I said that I have been to some sessions which are like a competitive SPORT. By which I meant that they were like sprint events in which the "winner" appears to be the person who gets to the end of a tune first. These are sessions I go to once, and never again. I know that some folk like this sort of session, but they're no use for lovers of traditional music. IMO.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by nigelg
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I could write the best response in this thread, but in the interest of cooperation, I'll decline.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by GaryAMartin
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Ah, my analogy has been entirely undone - competitiveness in the 100m sprint requires a participant to WANT to finish first, and that's no good. Let me tell you about my competitive figure-skating analogy instead...
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Q
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I've commented in another post that I'm not a fan of the politics involved in competitions. I'm not a fan of politics in music in general. I think that the style of competition in playing in a session is a good thing because it really is competition to make good music and be better than you were last week. Competition where you go play for judges where who your teacher is more important than how you play is bad. Simple really.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by musicfan
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Hang on a sec. Figure-skating is just one or two people at a time, so that's not a fair comparison either. Okay, listen up. Competitive synchopated swimming. Need I say more?
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Q
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
"I’m in constant competition with myself. I want to be better than I am." - I'm with fidkid on this one, bo**ocks to trying to be better than anyone else, just worry about your own playing!
Hey Q - what a brilliant idea.
Why did nobody ever think of it before - an Underwater Session?
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Ptarmigan
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
OK, you'll laugh at this analogy, but look at morris dancing.
<Waits for laughter to subside>
When I'm out on a morris dance "tour" that includes several teams, I sometimes get asked whether the dancers are competing with each other, whether as individuals or teams.
The short answer is "No, not really" -- although there certainly are competitions for morris teams and dancers. But at these kinds of events there often is a desire, or even challenge, on the part of teams to impress one another, especially if they rarely have an opportunity to dance together. Teams are apt to perform a couple of showcase-type dances that have particularly impressive figures, or require a fair amount of agility, or just simply "look cool," to make an impression not only on the audience but on their fellow dancers.
This is done with overwhelmingly good sportsmanship and in the spirit of fun (although there may be a few dancers who perhaps take the "competition" a bit too much to heart). You're likely to hear not only encouragement and praise, but also some good-natured wisecracks and heckling: For instance, if someone gets off a really good caper, or leap, other dancers are liable to yell "Higher!"
Some specific morris dances call for pairs of dancers to periodically "challenge" each other, i.e., to dance a specific figure or step directly facing one another. The fun part comes when you have a couple -- usually, but not always, male -- who decide to turn it into a contest, pretending to snarl and grimace at one another or making a big deal of how high or how far they leap.
The fact is, though, as enjoyable as this larking about is, the dancers have to be careful not to do anything that would impede the overall progress of the dance. If someone improvises or shows off a bit too much such that everyone else is thrown off, the dance can descend into chaos.
So perhaps the same could be said for the idea of "competitiveness" in sessions. Sure, it can be fun to go the "anything you can do, I can do better" route, especially if most of the participants are well acquainted enough. But if the urge for oneupmanship becomes too much of an end in of itself, then you lose sight of the big picture.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by sts
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Competitiveness is for losers...
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Cammy
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I would have to say I think it is good.....to a certain extent though.
Without any competitiveness, the standard would not be nearly as high. It is perfectly alright to want to play as well or better than others. I think that as long as people do not get too hung up on the idea, it's healthy. To want to do better than another person within reason only means they will become a better musician!
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Rosh
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Playing good music requires the antithesis of competition which to me is cooperation. That is not to say that good music cannot be made with some provocation, like the fiddler and the flute player example earlier in this thread. But I see this as clearly provocation certainly in the most positive way not competition. Creativity feeds off itself.
A Fleadh competitor the way I see it is competing against a set of standards and their interpretation, not necessarily against the other musicians.
My conclusion is that competition is not good for the playing of the music but may very well serve a purpose in the developing of musicians.
Peace,
Ed
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by ejsant
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
An underwater session...I'm okay with that, except do I have to wear a bathing suit? Could I wear one of those turn of the century bathing costumes instead? And about my fiddle...Em...Should I bring the plastic "beater" I have in the closet, made by Mattel? Then there's the question of speed...When playing underwater, I have a few issues with jigs and reels, and my ornamentation doesn't seem to go too well, either. Repertoire might need adjusting...Is there a re-e-eally slow version of Handel's Water Music with an Irish flair? Checking online...
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by thier1754
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Michael,
The ultimate wind-up! You pose a question, and then preclude us from giving the right answer, which is, of course, "it depends."
Some competitiveness can be healthy--as we strive to learn new tunes and techniques and keep up with the guy beside us, we become better musicians, and as we gain command of our instruments, we begin to be able to transcend the "work" of making music, and participate in the "joy" of making music.
Too much competition can pit us against each other, promote jealousy, encourage bickering and self-centeredness, and destroy the sense of community that is vital to a good session.
As I have said many times in discussions such as these where people take sides on which extreme is the best or worst, it is all about balance.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by AlBrown
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I really dislike competition, but I guess that comes from playing classical for so long. Chair tests and auditions are really stressful and make for tension among the musicians. That's one of the things I love so much about ITM- there's not as much competition, so the musicians are actually friends!
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Fiddlekit
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Music and athletics don't mix.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Phantom Button
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I don't see any point to the competitions. Seems more of a selling point once an "all ireland" winner starts to perform and record; sounds good on liner notes & websites.
I didn't get the impression that the slow session was an avoidance of the competitiveness of a regular session. But then I didn't realize that regular sessions were competitve either. Silly me! I thought a session was playing ensemble music.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Agnes Nutter
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Competition doesn't have to be about speed.
It should be just about who is more pleasant to listen to.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Beheader
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Hey Michael, competition, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. Get over yourself.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Judge Judy
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
The thread title would have been better as "Competent? good or bad?"
All competitve - bad session. All competent - good session, or even better!
Jim
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by Worldfiddler
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Well, only a few of you get it. It's ensemble music and competition is it's antithesis.
But at least there was one line that made me split my sides:
"Morris dancers competing to simply look cool" - tee he
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by ...
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Not really. Or have you never seen the behind the scenes of a large scale ensemble? There is a lot of competition. Chair and auditions are only two of them. Not really good, but when you have to work to earn your spot in a band/orchestra/ensemble/whatever then it makes you a better musician, which in turn, makes for better music. I know plenty of good ensemble, team players who thrive on this kind of competition.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by musicfan
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
OK, I'll rephrase. It's amateur ensemble music.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by ...
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
So your saying that we shouldn't try to improve and allow a desire to play as well as or better than someone else motivate us into playing better ourselves? Because that would be the amateur or informal version of the competition experienced in professional music.
# Posted on October 28th 2005 by musicfan
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Look, this is starting to bug me. It's not a competition.
If you have a desire to play better than someone else, you belong in sport, not music. If you are a musician, you simply want to play music well. And in this music, in particular, it means wanting to play music with people, not against people.
If what motivates you is the desire to overtake someone else's ability, stay away from me
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by ...
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
If you are a musician playing frequently and practicing at home, then you are a musician who wants to improve. Unless you're playing in a vacuum or are a mountaintop hermit without recordings available, you have exposure to other musicians with which to compare your skills, and those comparisons help to give you a yardstick (meterstick?!) with which to measure your progress. Being aware of the skill level of others and trying to meet or exceed it is natural and a good motivation. A desire for excellence is what moves us along. Trying to make other musicians look bad, or to want to humble them or best them for the sake of your pride, is always unappealing in a musician or any other performer.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by thier1754
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Their, you are almost there.
Except for your motivation to meet or exceed the skill level of others. This misses a very important point.
Let me give you an example: I remember as a youngster thinking that when I can play Toss the Feathers like Kevin Burke, I'd be able to play the fiddle. Bollox. All I ended up doing was sounding like Kevin Burke. And it's such a common mistake. I've seen it in many many more people that just myself (and with Kevin Burke in particular).
You have to look for music in yourself, not look for it in either the impression or the impressing of others. Lets face it, that's what competitiveness is all about. Either the impression or the impressing of others
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by ...
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
That or it's in the improvement of yourself or in others. I didn't say to play like them or to play the way they did. What I was saying is allowing their skill level and ability to motivate you into playing better. There is a competitive take on that. I really think though that it isn't that we are competing agaisnt them, they have reached their skill level. We are competing against ourselves and mediocrity. We are competing to improve our own playing, it is a competition against self that is motivated by hearing others playing well. It isn't a game of upmanship it is a game of getting better and being capable of adding something to the musical context and being the motivational point for someone else.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by musicfan
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
No, you're talking rubbish Michael, and I'm drunk so I can tell. Competitiveness is a celebration of excellence, and while very much out of favour, it wasn't through mutual adoration that the very best scientific and creative discoveries and breakthroughs were made. It was through one-upmanship. Shakespeare and Marlowe, Emerson and Longfellow, Mozart and Salieri, Schumann and his own wife, Bertram Russell and Wittgenstein, Tom and Jerry, Rabbie feckin' Burns, fer crying out loud. Aaalways trying to impress everyone. And he did; they did! Okay, maybe Salieri came in a distant second in his pairing, but my point is that nobody creates anything out of nothing - they don't work in a vacuum. If someone didn't think, hmmm... I reckon I could turn a few Kerry heads with these weird ass polkas I picked up on my travels, where would Donal Lunny have gotten the material to one-up with some weird rhythms to make people gape for years to come on their first hearing of his live album. The urge to do *better* is a manifestation of curiosity, excitement, dedication and passion. In some instances of competitiveness turning nasty, it has its dark side, yes, but so does overdone toast - and who here has ever thrown away the whole loaf just cos one slice is burned?
Now, put the pitchfork down and step away from the platonic ideal. It won't hurt you unless you prod it with a pointy stick.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by Q
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
" I don't understand why it's generally felt that it can be good encouragement for youngsters or any beginner to compete. And yet it's frowned uponin a session situation".
Adjudicated Competition is a very useful pedagogical tool....
It provides motivation to practice for kids that need immediate goals. It's really only applicable to technique and training and is useless after the first 3-5 years. One should be a solid musician by then and working on interpretaion, style, or whatyoumaycallit.
At least that's what the proponents tell me. Don't believe in 'em myelf.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
I see your point Q: Lennon & McCarney, Stills and Young, Bruce, Clapton, & Baker. All that tension ripped all of those bands apart.
Anyway, you didn't have to tell us yr drunk, it's perfectly obvious.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by Owell Mabee
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Ouch, tough crowd.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by Q
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
"...It's a competition against self that's motivated by hearing others play well..." That's it in a nutshell.
Say no more, say no more!
...Wink wink, nudge nudge, knowwhatImean, knowwhatImean...?
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by thier1754
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Neither, really, in a general sense.
But I do know that competitiveness had everything to do with ruining classical violin for me when I was young, and I avoid it like the plague now. But then again, I am an utterly unambitious fiddler. My sole ambition is to have a drink and play a tune in pleasant company. I don't even care to belong to a band.
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by cathrynb
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
"When you're talking about youngsters and beginners "competing," I assume you mean taking part in a feis or fleadh. In that setting, there's a more or less universal understanding of roles and expectations. Musicians know they're going to be judged by designated authorities according to a certain set of criteria, and there will be a definitive result."
And that's bad.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've just come back from an evening with Julia Fischer. Nice girl. I think her accent is adorable.I have to go burn all of my fiddles now.
Trust me. I can't compete.
KFG
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by KFG
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Musicfan wrote:
“What I was saying is allowing their skill level and ability to motivate you into playing better.”
This to me is provocation not competition. Competing would be when your motivation was to best your example and be adjudicated as doing so.
Musicfan also wrote:
“We are competing to improve our own playing…”
My take is that we are working on improving not competing with ourselves or any other for that matter.
Q wrote (inebriation aside):
“it wasn't through mutual adoration that the very best scientific and creative discoveries and breakthroughs were made.”
Yes, indeed this statement describes the benefits of competition. However it is specifically through “mutual adoration” that the very best music is produced. Again I think one needs to recognize that creative provocation is not competition. Striving to make the music, if you will, “better” by stimulating the creative energies of the others you are playing with is not competing with them.
In one person competitions there is one person that is a “winner”. To me playing the music with others in a non-competitive way (reads cooperative way) allows for all to win. I’ve seen it at some of the sessions I’ve been. Two great melody players would spend their time demonstrating their technical prowess and for sure there was some exciting playing. So much so that I even got chills listening but frankly I was never transported to those great places I venture to in my mind when “the music” is great. Yet there have been times when I’ve been in session with others that would be described, even by ourselves, as at best average players, whereby there has been none of the technical showmanship and the music has been brilliant. I rely on the measure of the times during the session I mentally leave and go off to a quiet hill, rolling meadow, inspiring shore line, and the like to make this determination. I also rely on my looking up and seeing that the other players, and quite often the folks listening, are also returning from somewhere else when the tune ends. This to me is brilliant music. My first example to me denotes brilliant playing. I think there is a difference between the two.
So in conclusion (oh, I feel as though I should be standing behind a lectern whilst raising my right arm and giving my extended index finger one emphatic shake) I say that competition may lead to brilliant playing it does not lead to brilliant music.
Peace,
Ed
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by ejsant
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Creative provocation! Now that really works for me - a motto to live by - thank you Ed
PS, I'm sober now. Not for long, though ... The Herschell Arms awaits! (Conan - if you're not already there, prepare for provocation)
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by Q
Re: Competitiveness? good or bad?
Hey Q, the pressure's all mine!
“PS, I'm sober now. Not for long, though ...”
I say sobriety is for those who can’t handle inebriation! Raise a glass to temperance for it means there is more for the rest of us!
Peace,
Ed
# Posted on October 29th 2005 by ejsant