TimR Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 The only true judge is your audience. Unfortunately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 [quote name='funkypenguin' timestamp='1376473941' post='2174316'] I listen to bass players (and other musicians) that inspire me, and every time i realise i still have an awful lot to learn... [/quote] But that's the real question isn't it, how do you know WHAT you need to learn, and WHY you need to learn it? Unless you already know a LOT, it's almost impossible to know what you need to learn and why you need to learn it, and what your expetations are of that learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1376474640' post='2174330'] The only true judge is your audience. Unfortunately [/quote] I don't agree, audiences don't know sh*t. They only know what they like. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was met with a riot on its premier, so what the f*** did the audience know? Achieving happy levels of musical ability is a nebulous concept, the more you know the more you find there is to know, and hopefully WANT to know. It's about being true to yourself. Of course there are many musicians who are very happy with what they do, even if it's rudimentary. They are making music that makes them happy and that's really the only goal isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benthos Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 What I really want to know is should the levels be modified to include 'INTI' and if so, where should it sit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grangur Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) [quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1376434125' post='2174060'] You can't assess your 'level'. It's relative to your own perception of 'levels', and I bet 95% of musicians don't even know what they want to do, or are capable of, without progressing to the next 'level'. Which then propels you into a brief moment of understanding followed by a realisation that you can only relate your current 'level' to your previous 'level'. It's personal, and you need to understand what you want to be able to do, and that will probably keep evolving. Most people don't understand their own motives and potential so it's largely impossible to assess your 'level' in a useful way. Just assume you can always improve and get closer to your current aesthetic, but understand your aesthetic will evolve and change over time, and that you should possibly get a good tutor who understands you if you find you can't seem to achieve your current aesthetic. Does that make sense? [/quote] Yes, Nigel, I agree with the exception that the word "aesthetic" means "in relation to the visual sense" so I think most folk are missing your point. If you mean "vision/target" it makes perfect sense. No offence intended to anyone Edited August 14, 2013 by Grangur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I also don't agree about taking what the audience enjoys as any sort of reference, apart from being pleased about that. If I have a good, bad or great gig, then I'll know and my opinion will colour it more than anyone elses. I am not saying that you don't seek to please, but if you can do something 'well' it is also your duty to educate others or give them the benefit of your experience..that you have spent so long aquiring. A simple instance of that might be..that you mates are impressed with/like your band...so they ask you if there are any others that you can point them to.. They therefore trust your judgement in these matters. I find this quite a nice aside... when they come back and say thanks, they were great etc etc ..buy the CD's etc ..follow gigs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 [quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1376476783' post='2174364'] Yes, Nigel, I agree with the exception that the word "aesthetic" means "in relation to the visual sense" so I think most folk are missing your point. If you mean "vision/target" it makes perfect sense. No offence intended to anyone [/quote] Good point mate, thanks. I mean it aesthetic as per it's general definition .. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics[/url] [b]Aesthetics[/b] ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Simplification_of_ae_and_oe"]also spelled[/url] [b]æsthetics[/b]) is a branch of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy"]philosophy[/url] dealing with the nature of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art"]art[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty"]beauty[/url], and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_(sociology)"]taste[/url], with the creation and appreciation of beauty.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#cite_note-1"][1][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#cite_note-2"][2][/url][/sup] It is more scientifically defined as the study of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses"]sensory[/url] or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment"]judgments[/url] of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling"]sentiment[/url] and taste.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#cite_note-3"][3][/url][/sup] More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature"]nature[/url]."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#cite_note-4"][4][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#cite_note-5"][5][/url][/sup] More specific aesthetic theory, often with practical implications, relating to a particular branch of the arts is divided into areas of aesthetics such as art theory, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory"]literary theory[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_theory"]film theory[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory"]music theory[/url]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1376476783' post='2174364']...the word "aesthetic" means "in relation to the visual sense"...[/quote] [pedant] Have you a source for that statement, please..? I think I understand your objection, but upon checking various references (dictionnaries, mostly...) I would take the word to be applicable to any sensory experience, especially artforms, therefore including music, sentiments and emotions. Maybe I'm wrong..? ([i]It wouldn't be the first time, nor the last[/i]... ). No malice intended. [/pedant] Edited August 14, 2013 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1376478863' post='2174408'] [pedant] Have you a source for that statement, please..? I think I understand your objection, but upon checking various references (dictionnaries, mostly...) I would take the word to be applicable to any sensory experience, especially artforms, therefore including music, sentiments and emotions. Maybe I'm wrong..? ([i]It wouldn't be the first time, nor the last[/i]... ). No malice intended. [/pedant] [/quote] You are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.