Re: [Harp-L] RE: no standards of harmonica accomplishment

[Music Cal <macaroni9999@xxxxxxxxx>]

So art needs standards? Yeh, if you goal is to kill the art.

Daniel


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Randy Redington <rwredington@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Dare I venture a comment?
> I understand the value of standards, it's a way to evaluate and measure
> progress. My harmonica music interests vary from the old Harmonicats
> style,  to Folk, Country, Bluegrass,  Gospel and the Blues. And the many
> sub genre's and crossovers within these.
> If you want to evaluate standards it has to be outside the realm of style
> or genre. Classical isn't any "Better"  than Country or Blues. It's just a
> different style.  It doesn't define ability.
> Probably the best standard I can hold myself aginst is myself. I look to
> those who are considered the Greats, and I let them provide direction and
> encouragement to grow, but I can't compare myself to them. Adam Gussow is
> one of the many guys I look up to. He says that we learn and barrow from
> each other,  but we develop our own style that is unique to ourselves. I
> may not have aspirations of becoming a Jason Ricci, but I am grateful that
> guys and gals like him are so willing to share and pass on their talent.
> And that guys like me can be challenged and encouraged by them.
> I recently signed up for a workshop and was asked what my ability level
> was. I honestly didn't know where to place myself.  I'm not a beginner,
> I'm definitely not advanced, but I'm not sure that I'm an intermediate
> either.
> I'm not convinced that hard standards are nessisary.  At least, not for me.
> But some degree of definition is helpful in finding a level to connect
> with. Bottom line is.... I have to be ok with who I am and where I am
> first.
> For me the goal can't be perfectionism, but rather. ..contentment and then
> progress.
>  On Jun 10, 2014 12:13 AM, "Chris Reynolds" <c_reynolds2571@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm with Mr. Bee on this one. I don't want to ruffle any feathers but why
> > do we need a standard of accomplishment? I started playing because my
> > Grandpa's played, and I can say with absolute certainty that they never
> > gave a single thought to their level of playing. They played for no other
> > reason than the enjoyment and a lot of people enjoyed listening to them.
> > Same reason a lot of people play whatever instrument they happen to play.
> > So I guess my question is why we need a standard rather than what that
> > standard should be. Does it only apply to certain situations? As someone
> > who's focused on the guitar for 30 years with some long breaks I can tell
> > you I'm no where near the level of those considered guitar greats. Does
> > that mean I shouldn't be allowed to perform? Same with harmonica, piano,
> > bass, etc etc, I'm not great at any of them, but I play for the
> enjoyment.
> > Do I have to meet a standard before I can enjoy them?
> >
> > Seems to me that having "standards" would do more to drive a wedge
> between
> > those who want to see the instrument promoted and those potential players
> > who will start and then maybe not reach those "standards" and give up. I
> > have to say I absolutely love listening to some of you guys play, but
> > whether or not I ever reach that level is of no importance to me.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
>