Jack-Flash-Jr
OK... it's not quite a crisis but I've recently been wondering, not least because of the GF theme comp, but also because of the various online and magazine ways of rating pieces, players and playing. Some Guitar Techniques exercises rate intermediate to advanced but I find them pretty easy, others beginner to intermediate and I struggle...
In short: am I beginner, intermediate or advanced? Is it stage experience/theory/technique/years playing?
Jus' wondering ya know ???
singemonkey
It's certainly not time. I've been playing for a long time and I'd only rate myself as intermediate. And then there are some teenagers who spend 6 hours a day practising in a focused ways and they're far better guitar players than me after 2 years.
I think it comes down to the amount of focused practise you do. Noodling doesn't do much, but time spent working on your playing - trying to move it forward by transcribing songs, working things out from sheet music and getting them to sound good, learning theory or practising fingering - that stuff adds up. After probably a thousand hours of that, you're getting pretty hot. And when it's 5,000 plus, you're starting to head into Randy Rhodes territory.
Course it says nothing about how much people are going to like what you do. That also includes taste. But your technique is going to start to be undeniably impressive.
chris77
I agree with Singemonkey on this. I have been playing 10years + and technically my playing still sucks. Technical isnt always the same as better, but I know my limitations by now and theres no more dreams of stardom for me. But some of these youngsters...theres some serious talent out there! The criteria I reckon when you decide on what category you enter should be based on how your Recording sounds compared to the other entries, and not how good you reckon you are or arent. PeteM, Evo, Ajb and Arjun have really set the bar for the Advanced guys and although I wont get to their level without miraculous intervention, I should at least think that what I am doing is even remotely close to that before I willl graduate myself from being a Beginner entrant. Or until Alan decides otherwise - whichever comes first! ?
nicovlogg
Recently I started playing with some very, very good musicians, and nothing highlights your shortcomings quite like that. Technically, I thought I was pretty solid - but then one day the violinist can't get his amp on, and asks me to play his entire solo section melody. Now, I couldn't do that. Not by ear, remembering 2 minutes of music I'd never played. But he could do it with my parts.
Fortunately, my mechanical skill fixed his amp before he had to play - so I saved it anyway!
BMU
The rule of thumb one sees often is 10,000 hours of focused practice to become expert at anything. I'd say that sounds about right. Like singemonkey says, the key there is both 10,000 and FOCUSED. I know from first-hand experience you can rack up more than 10,000 hours of noodling over 20 years and still not be world class.
singemonkey
Yeah. I don't believe in talent - I was dubious even before reading the Gladwell book. What "talent" really is is loving something so much that you practise all the time, and hence get better than the people who practise less often. And even then you can get people who become so technically skilled, but are not liked by a wide audience. That comes down to taste. When taste and technique come together, you get the superstars.
Like, the guys in Dragonforce are obviously better guitar players than Hendrix, or Randy Rhodes, or Clapton. But more people like the latter three because of what they played, not just how well they did it.
Jimmy Page is a classic example in this case. He obviously tended away from rigorous practise at some stage, and his technique could be very sloppy. A lot of people that no-one will ever listen to have said, "I can play any Jimmy Page riff better than he can." Course, they never come up with anything half as good, so who cares?
The greatest guitar players are those for whom these things come together: Hendrix, Django Rheinhard, Jeff Beck, etc.. The ones who are brilliantly skilled, but don't have such a widespread appeal, will be followed by smaller numbers.
Seventhson
I can write my own music, and people enjoy what I come up with. But I am such a perfectionist, to me my stuff sounds incomplete ☹
aubs1
Interesting thread, quite awesome observations and comment.
Seventhson wrote: But I am such a perfectionist, to me my stuff sounds incomplete ☹
Then work at making it sound complete...... 8)
Seventhson
Well the rhythm is complete put it's the solo I am working on. I been working at it for a week.
Keira-WitherKay
mmm labels do not equate to anything else but badges of ego........ and useless......
maybe the only label that applies is the absolute beginner " that can't string a simple chord sequence together without pausing to look up a chord.....
after that stage ..everyone is on their own mission to achieve their own artistic vision........... and in reality and in the real world of pro musicians i know a few pro's who can't read music/ don't understand anything more than the basic chords/ have not studied composition / but play professionally and beautifully ....cos the music they performing only needs basic chords or a genral knowledge of pentatonics to make it sound awesome...............and these people make a living from being a musician........ yet might be seen as intermeadiate .....
while others i know are degree'd musicians with masterclass's by world famous artists to their credit ....and they still sound disjointed when they perform ........ and can't work successfully professionally ........... but they totally clued up and in terms of reference would be seen as advanced players ...
so forget the labels........... just see being a musician as being an artist .......... and if you a performing artist .......... thats what you do......... if you can entertain an audience and achieve your sound and musical voice by basic methods or use advanced jazz technique or avante garde playings styles ......... WHO CARES.......... LONG AS YOU PRODUCE YOUR MUSICAL VISION AS YOU SEE IT .........
not everyone has to agree to like your art............ but you need to... it's all personal .. you develop your style and technique till you happy with it ............ it's your art so no one's else opinion matters ............ and neither does any prescribed levels..........
ok maybe this does not apply so much to 'cover musicians" who seem to thrive on competition and copying other artists....... but this way of thinking definitely applies when one is wanting to have an original 'sound/voice"
imagine what a loss if picasso quit painting cos he could not paint like rembrant who was seen as a master .......... or worse still imagine if picasso had practised and studied till he painted like rembrant ........and lost his originality.......... mmmmmmm food for thought
Jack-Flash-Jr
Keira WitherKay wrote:
mmm labels do not equate to anything else but badges of ego........ and useless......
maybe the only label that applies is the absolute beginner " that can't string a simple chord sequence together without pausing to look up a chord.....
after that stage ..everyone is on their own mission to achieve their own artistic vision........... and in reality and in the real world of pro musicians i know a few pro's who can't read music/ don't understand anything more than the basic chords/ have not studied composition / but play professionally and beautifully ....cos the music they performing only needs basic chords or a genral knowledge of pentatonics to make it sound awesome...............and these people make a living from being a musician........ yet might be seen as intermeadiate .....
while others i know are degree'd musicians with masterclass's by world famous artists to their credit ....and they still sound disjointed when they perform ........ and can't work successfully professionally ........... but they totally clued up and in terms of reference would be seen as advanced players ...
so forget the labels........... just see being a musician as being an artist .......... and if you a performing artist .......... thats what you do......... if you can entertain an audience and achieve your sound and musical voice by basic methods or use advanced jazz technique or avante garde playings styles ......... WHO CARES.......... LONG AS YOU PRODUCE YOUR MUSICAL VISION AS YOU SEE IT .........
not everyone has to agree to like your art............ but you need to... it's all personal .. you develop your style and technique till you happy with it ............ it's your art so no one's else opinion matters ............ and neither does any prescribed levels..........
ok maybe this does not apply so much to 'cover musicians" who seem to thrive on competition and copying other artists....... but this way of thinking definitely applies when one is wanting to have an original 'sound/voice"
imagine what a loss if picasso quit painting cos he could not paint like rembrant who was seen as a master .......... or worse still imagine if picasso had practised and studied till he painted like rembrant ........and lost his originality.......... mmmmmmm food for thought
I love your posts ?
singemonkey
Keira WitherKay wrote:
imagine what a loss if picasso quit painting cos he could not paint like rembrant who was seen as a master .......... or worse still imagine if picasso had practised and studied till he painted like rembrant ........and lost his originality.......... mmmmmmm food for thought
Of course, Picasso was a technical master when it came to painting - winning recognition at a very early age. He abandoned the traditional style only after he'd mastered it ?
MikeM
singemonkey wrote:Of course, Picasso was a technical master when it came to painting - winning recognition at a very early age. He abandoned the traditional style only after he'd mastered it ?
His famous Gertrude Stein portrait ? This was during his wacky period yes, however he was comissioned a painting and they expected it to be outlandishly cubist etc so he went in the other direction. I personally believe he was a bit out of practice at this time, but still produced a great piece.
BMU
singemonkey wrote:
Yeah. I don't believe in talent - I was dubious even before reading the Gladwell book. What "talent" really is is loving something so much that you practise all the time, and hence get better than the people who practise less often.
No I believe in talent. It's just that talent isn't enough. You need the talent and also the passion. It's the passion that makes you put in those 10,000 hard, brutal hours. But it's the talent that accelerates the value you get from those hours. After 10,000 hours anybody is going to be competent, but only some are going to be in the top 20...of whatever it is, however you want to define it.
Jack-Flash-Jr
BMU wrote:
singemonkey wrote:
Yeah. I don't believe in talent - I was dubious even before reading the Gladwell book. What "talent" really is is loving something so much that you practise all the time, and hence get better than the people who practise less often.
No I believe in talent. It's just that talent isn't enough. You need the talent and also the passion. It's the passion that makes you put in those 10,000 hard, brutal hours. But it's the talent that accelerates the value you get from those hours. After 10,000 hours anybody is going to be competent, but only some are going to be in the top 20...of whatever it is, however you want to define it.
Yep, that x-factor's also got to be there, in addition to talent and 10,000 hours. Hmm.
