As A Musician, What Is Your Greatest Achivement

[Moseph]

edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

Maybe we could start a new thread? I'm interested in seeing where this discussion leads.

[xRisingForce]

Maybe we could start a new thread? I'm interested in seeing where this discussion leads.

The funniest part is that I was just about to delete all that, because it wasn't really relevant to the thread. I guess I can't really delete it now.

But that's a really good idea. Could we get a moderator to move it, or would it be too arrogant of an underling like me to PM a request to one of them?

[Less Ashamed Of Self]

-Being a decent contributor to PRC winning twice and coming close many times: covering as many genres as possible like fusion, polka, piano solo, orchestral, rock, rap, blues, techno, and my favourite of all: musical theatre.

-Arranging beware of the forest mushrooms for my guitar ensemble in high school. It never came together because I wrote too much in high ranges for the lead melody (14th-16th frets range on classical guitars) but they got the sheet music and we gave it a shot.

-Performing the, inarguably most innovative/highest quality... artistic... abstract... whatever the project was in guitar class.

We were supposed to find unique ways to make new sounds with the guitar. Mine included pens and chopsticks and lasted about 8 minutes but people stood and applauded at the end. Wish I had a video.

[xRisingForce]

this ain't true. there are a large number of famous performers who have done fantastic arrangements, adaptations, and original compositions that are well known. you saying this tells me that you're a well spoken but musically illiterate person...else you would have remembered liszt, paganini, bach, buxtehude, chopin, debussy...

I definitely know all of them, and I'm glad you know them too. They're really great composers. Kinda why I didn't include them in my argument against musicians that stick to exclusively performing (which include most of, if not all, members of most philharmonics for example). Paganini's a rather special case, because he was probably more known for his electrifying performances and showmanship than his amazing compositions (which are amazing beyond a doubt, but his ability to write polyphonic music is questionable and if he can't graduate beyond writing single-line violin pieces.. he sorta loses some of his grandness.) And I also recognize that all of these composers are performers, but I thought it was just kinda understood that a composer be able to perform his own works. The inverse isn't true, however, which was kinda my initial point.

if there's one thing i've learned in college, it's that practice is in no way simplistic and easy. while your statement above says 'you get good by practicing, duh' with a bunch of bling added on to make it look good, you should know that practicing is in no way an easy thing to do. it's possibly one of the most learning to practice was one of the most valuable things i learned at college, in all reality. just because you're technically good doesn't mean that you're truly a good musician.

You're preaching to the choir dawg, I couldn't give two shits less about how fast someone is. On top of just playing fast, I listen to how it's used (whether its for its own sake or whether it serves to make a good melody), and I listen for an "organicness", to see whether or not that speed was something innate or acquired artificially (i.e. drilling dumb speed exercises to a metronome for hours on end). That "organic" characteristic usually shows itself in the quality of an artist's composition anyways, and I'm pretty sure they're two sides of the same coin. You do get good by practicing, and it looks like you agree with me. We just differ in the ease of doing it. Ever hear, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect?" Well I definitely stand by that. The only thing you can build on a crooked foundation is an unstable building. But I think practice starts and ends with technique, and only serves to further technique. You don't learn how to better interpret a piece by practicing it, that's a result of either the teacher telling you that the Moonlight Sonatas are supposed to be played in quicker and quicker succession, or you realizing it on your own. Technique is all about expressing a phrase the most efficiently, kinda like how I wouldn't downpick an entire arpeggio if I had sweep picking at my disposal.. but I don't think I would be any better off in that regard (or any, really) if I had a teacher. You'd have to be pretty short of just retarded to try and downpick and Yngwie song or try and play Fantasie Impromptu with just four fingers. In the end, technique is just a means of efficiency.

The catch is, I've never practiced a day in my life, at least by conventional means. Practice entails repetition; I hate just the thought of wasting my time in front of some stupid exercise book. I just play a lot, or at least, I used to, and that was the easiest thing in the world. What you guys do, cooped up in small practice rooms playing songs you probably don't even want to play and having to perfect them over the course of several months, yeah, that's tons of work, grueling work that I'd hate to be doing. So, kudos, I guess. I kinda wish I'd played more when I had the chance, because for playing for four years I'm not really where I want to be. I'd agree with anyone that a lot of my licks are sloppy.

this entire paragraph is an enormous load of bullshit, fyi. it also proves that your definition of music doesn't extend beyond HOSHIT INSANE GEETAR SOLO because you don't understand that. is the jazz pianist at your school as good as Herbie Hancock because he can comp chords too? of course not, and it's not because of Herbie's insane knowledge of style and his crazy technique. it's because Herbie's got a pocket so deep that a four-year-old could play in it and sound hot. interpretation is one of the most difficult things to really, truly understand for non-musicians because of the depth behind it, just like in an incredibly complex piece of artwork or a beautiful sunset or anything like that. and the fact that you're saying that a performer's ability is determined solely by interpretation is just as wrong. stage presence, interpretation, research skills, and the ability to theorize and execute a musical idea are all important aspects of a performer's ability - while we often laud interpretation because of the fact that it gets the lion's share of the time in the news, those are all just as important.

Wow. Just wow. Look at yourself man, what do you know about me and how dare you make these presumptuous claims about how I view music. Yngwie, out of 260 artists in my music library, is the only guitar driven artist I have. I mean I could just stop there. Seriously.

Aside from that, let me clarify my definitions to you such that they're beyond a shadow of a doubt. Composer: one who composes. Performer: one who performs. LOL. Nowhere in there did I mean for you to take any implication of live performance. I guess I can understand the misconception, but I'm not going to call the performer a player, because that'd sound stupid. However, someone who merely plays and doesn't compose is what I originally meant by "performer." Music is an auditory art, so I'm talking from a purely auditory perspective. As for the Herbie Hancock remark, I completely agree, but I respect him for his ability to compose. I've never seen the dude live, I could care less what his stage presence is like. Tell me, why do you go to concerts? To see whoever's playing, right? Exactly- the appeal of concerts lies in the visual, not the auditory. Capturing the audience's attention makes you a good entertainer, not a good composer. My whole argument here is that people who just play others' works suck, so however well one's stage presence may be is somewhat irrelevant, because in the end he still hasn't composed a thing. The audio for live shows sucks more often than not anyway, because there're the acoustics of the venue to account for, as well as a shitton of reverb and soundwave bleeding. Not to mention the balance is always geared to favor the guitarist, but everything's so loud it just ends up sounding like someone puking.

About theorizing and executing musical ideas- tell me, do you do any original thinking, or do you just regurgitate what your teacher tells you? I'm pretty sure you just play your pieces for him or her and you get corrected and taught what's "right". It doesn't seem like there's any theorizing or anything musical about institutional education, whatever song you're playing, the hardest part's already been taken care of. And I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to argue that interpreting any of the legendary classical pieces would be harder than it was for them to compose the pieces. You've got composing taken care of, and your teacher to spoon feed you the interpretation. I really don't get what the hard part is.

Your comment on research skills caught my interest. Could you give me an example of what type of research you've done to perform a piece, and why?

interpretation is by no means trivialities, either - if someone went through to play a really great solo piece and hit every note, but it sounded lifeless and dead, is that a good performance? no! it's the interpretation that MAKES it art, not in spite of it.

Well duh. But don't think you deserve a pat on the back just because you're able to play a piece back with emotion. Any musician with sense of emotion should be able to do that. There are millions of people who've played Beethoven, but there's only been one Beethoven. Out of those millions, whom have had the creative capacity to actually, I dunno, CREATE, rather than emulate?

more bullshit. you're just writing words with no idea to what they mean. particularly since your first sentence screws with everything you just said. although i think your houdini metaphor raises an interesting question, you're forgetting something. houdini didn't do his act with the idea that people would do it over again. beethoven and wagner and bach and palestrina wrote music to be performed, over and over and over again - and the people we say are fantastic performers are the ones that can do that music EXACTLY as it was in the composer's head.

Stop being so dense. I can respect Horowitz and Perlman as amazing human beings, and as amazing performers. But being a performer doesn't carry nearly the connotation nor amount of respect I have for the composer. It doesn't matter if Beethoven wanted his pieces to be played by others, the fact that he wrote it still remains in stone. I mean I play Beethoven from time to time and I'm a shitty pianist, but I don't think he's greater than I just because I'm shitty. I think he's greater than me because he can compose with an air of greatness far more than what I could hope to even dream of. Pieces are meant to express yourself, and there's a definite ulterior goal to strive for: recognition and appreciation. Just like a chef cooks food that's meant to be eaten. But how could anyone respect the consumer on any level even remotely close to the source just because he's able to stomach what's put on his plate?

don't get me wrong, i agree with you here. society has lost a lot of depth of understanding in the art work in the past few hundred years. that said, i'm a modernist when it comes to artwork. that does not mean, however, that all art nowadays is worthless, or that the art that's been done in previous times is not any good either.

Definitely. Art is timeless. Judging a piece's quality by it's spot in time's just as narrow-minded as prejudging a piece based on its genre.

do i understand the point you're attempting to get at? not really - as a performer it doesn't make much sense to depreciate your role. you saying that anyone can do what you do on guitar (which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already) by just repeating endlessly. but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms - and until you understand that (which, it's not a concept that an infant can understand, trust me on that), you really aren't as good as you think you are. in general, no one is, but you definitely aren't.

edit - argument and counterargument: done. let's restrain further posting to the PM box to prevent this thread from getting off-topic.

I never said that anyone could do what I did on a guitar, but I'm not denying it. Technically speaking, it's not really impressive at all, but technique in general's lost it's flair to me anyway. If you could read a little better, you might've even caught this!

8O8O

99% of the time I'm second guessing myself. I'm almost never happy with where I am musically.

8-O8-O

(which wasn't really all THAT impressive, honestly, learn more than one thing to do with a flat VI chord already)

You're probably referring to the jazz video, right? You've seen one of my videos, and you make this retardedly ignorant assumption about my guitar playing. Christ, and I thought I was narrow-minded at times.

but you don't have soul when you do that, the spirit of the music is gone when you drill endlessly like that. there's more to a performance than notes and rhythms

I'm guessing you hate Yngwie J. Malmsteen? I think I could've done a better job on note choice at the end solo, but for the most part I didn't play a note that I didn't want to or think wouldn't fit. I mean I'm not a purist of any genre, so I guess I should apologize to all jazz musicians for using distortion and a whammy bar. I know there's more than notes and rhythms, and you're probably going to say, "The WAY you play the note." I've heard that about a thousand times, and then some. I kind of hate how teachers have to be so cryptic, but I can't really blame them since that's probably how they were taught anyway. What goes in goes out, there's no magical quality to it. The WAY one hits a note is the same thing as breaking it down into timing, clarity/articulation, and dynamics. There's nothing else to it really.

P.S.: Also, don't rag on me for my style man. I know you're not out of ammunition so don't stoop to that level- you don't need it. I'm not going to apologize for not dressing like a token videogame fan. At the end of the night, does my choice to wear a ring or a watch affect you in any small degree of significance?

[John Revoredo]

Mmmm.. taking part on this xRisingForcex VS Prophet of Mephisto argument, I have to stand on RisingForce's side.

Performers are truly overrated. The fact that you see the music coming throught them, sometimes makes people think they made that music, when they actually did not. The amount of musical elements you can control in a piece as a performer are LIMITED, VERY LIMITED, and normally you have to stick strictly to the damn paper, playing exactly all the notes written on it.

The strict, musical-school-taught performers are extremely overrated. They just do what is in the paper. If they do an arrangement of the piece, cool, is their life... but when they play the piece the way it is, they're just playing what someone else thought once. Let's get a cool methaphor.

A composer is someone who creates a cool, catchy phrase.

For example:

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. " - Albert Einstein.

If I now repeat the phrase, I will become an interpreter of it (and not it's composer). Since my voice sucks I will be a bad interpreter of it. But, give the phrase to someone with a cool voice and a cool image... imagine Bruce Willis saying

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. "

Okay,.. sounds cooler because of the voice, but the message is STILL THE SAME . Bruce Willis NEVER discovered that E = M*C^2 , he just said the damn phrase

To be a music-college performer, you need technique and MECHANICAL TRAINING... Just moving the fingers... over and over.. practice the movement,.. get speed. It's really a lot of work, but it's not the intelligent training Prophet of Mephisto says.

I've spent 8 years learning piano in a music college, and got highest marks, but i stopped because i was bored and i was sick of playing someone else's pieces.

Jazz performers are different. A jazz piece is an excuse for interpretation, creating a whole world from 5 or 6 pentagrams. A jazz partiture is, in some way an attemp to create an "organised improvisation". Jazz musicians are on the border of composition, so... they're not really overrated. They almost create from very few notes that are written on the pentagrams.

To be a jazz performer, you need INTELLIGENT training... specially like playing with bands and such.

I realised that a couple of months ago, when i started learning jazz. Still , I havent got a band, but im trying to figure out some stuff to practice.

But... WTF?... I think you guys should create a thread in the forum and keep discussing this there.

[prophetik music]

being a composer myself, i can tell you that while composition is hard - really hard - performing is more so because as a composer, you have an eraser.

as for research, as a vocalist i never perform a piece before i learn what it's about, and what the composer was into when he wrote it. as a saxophonist, it's the same way. i recently did a piece called Tableaux de Provence on my senior recital. had i not researched it, i wouldn't have known that it was a tribute of sorts to Maurice's time in Provence, France, or that the name (in a slightly obscure dialect of french) means Pictures of Provence, or that each movement was inspired by a unique experience that she had there. THAT makes for a much different performance. just being able to play a piece isn't enough - you've gotta be able to go back and say, 'this is why i did this, and this'.

and by the way, most performers don't have teachers to tell them what to do where on a piece. i haven't had a teacher actually tell me what to do somewhere on a piece in months and months and months. i do my own research, my own listening, and my own studying of the piece.

that's all i'm going to say regarding this argument. if anyone wants to start a thread, that's fine - just link me there. but i'm not going to continue to post.

[Devyn]

I don't hate the extreme, over-the-top musicianship approach. If you want to play a 3-minute high-speed solo, then go ahead. I actually like to hear Steve Vai, Van Halen, and Dragonforce when the mood strikes me. The thing is, it seems that most of the people who are into that are musicians themselves. That's fine with me. The problem is when the same people start pulling out the musicianship ruler and gaging the musical penises of other musicians. That's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous when musicians from different genres knock each other. I play in a hard rock band (although it's of the catchy hook-based kind), and I've played with hardcore and death metal musicians who've just ripped us apart for no apparent reason other than that are songs have choruses and words that may appeal to the popular crowd (gasp!). I've also run into a lot of scene kids who knock on metal and hard rock because it's "corny" and "cliched".

It's the haters I hate. Okay, I will say that I get sick of the mediocre rock out there, such as the bands that sound like Nickelback, Staind, etc.

My personal approach, as a guitarist and songwriter, is to make catchy songs that "sound good" but still convey meaning and originality. Also, being the only guitarist in my outfit, I like to support the song as well as the other musicians, not overpower it with tons of solos and trickery. I try to bridge the gap between what I enjoy and what others enjoy while employing my own style.

This is my approach, and I don't expect other musicians to go by it. Some people play to make themselves feel good, some do it to push the boundaries of musicianship, some to it for the sake of going against the status quo, etc. Whatever works.

The important thing is that we get along and don't knock each other for our different approaches. Musicians need to respect each other instead of act like 5-year-olds.

[The Insane Rocker]

As a musician...well, I got a 1 on my vocal solo when I was in high school my senior year...I brought down the house with an acoustic version of Staind's Epiphany for a pops concert...and I'm moving to Canada soon to join a rock band. Yeah, I'd say I'm doing pretty well.

My best personal achievement is hitting an F#. I can actually go a little higher than that now, I think, but doing my best James LaBrie impersonation is still a lot of fun for me. YouTube Dream Theater's Learning To Live F# to see what I'm talking about.

[bobsideways]

And now, back to the thread.....

I've been in music for a lot of my life, but the greatest achievement came with a small local choir in my area. A few years ago they were invited to go sing in Carnegie, which was awesome, but I wasn't able to go with them (money and all). The coolest thing, though, is due to that they were invited to go to Austria the next year to sing in Mozart's 250th birthday celebration.

I couldn't pass that one up. The trip was awesome. I have to say, for a musician who isn't very far along and who lives smack in the middle of the US, to be able to sing through Salzburg and the hub of all music, Vienna, it was sweet. I'm hoping to go back someday. I wanna do it again!

[Nicholestien]

*most music made without playing an instrument.

[bucky o'hare]

getting to join one of my favorite bands was a personal highlight, and performing on their final album.

having an article in spin magazine

I've done some traveling with bands but have yet to play outside the country or tour for longer than two and a half weeks, and those are both things I'd like to do sometime.

[mr.wholesome]

I made a song about my Cat. Jack.

It suits him well. makes me smile.

[Monobrow]

When I Actually Finish A Song

[Gorgonian14]

First chair trombone at all-state in high school my senior year and taking a decimated high school band program over as director and 5 years later making straight first division ratings at district concert contest for the first time in the school's entire history.

I'm quite proud of both.

[SkyMarshall Arts]

Actually finishing a song you know is your own, and having people respond positive to it.