The wisdom of being average

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyanJaguar
  • Start date Start date
C

CyanJaguar

New member
This is something I have been tryign to post for a while now but I am still not getting the right words to say it. Maybe somebody who understands what I am trying to say can chime in

The summary is: 90% of men polled thought they were above average when asked about their intelligence compared to other men. Obviously, 90% of men cannot be of above average intelligence for men.

When one seeks outstanding results, they get into a lot of trouble because it costs more than they have and it is never achieved.
 
Actually, it is in reference to recording. I see a lot of statements like " what is the best X in Y range. etc
 
CyanJaguar said:
Actually, it is in reference to recording. I see a lot of statements like " what is the best X in Y range. etc


Well that's an easy one. It's obviously Z. I know that because I'm one of those 90% guys. :D
 
chessrock said:
Well that's an easy one. It's obviously Z. I know that because I'm one of those 90% guys. :D

LOL chess. Good one.

Another thing I am trying to say is that many cover up their inadequacies with more expensive gear. Obviously, there is substandard gear (like a casio keyboard) but getting into the minutiae is like chasing after the wind( " I have gigasampler but It does not sound real") The truth is that a good concert pianist can make a cheap casio sound ten times more expensive and a bad pianist can make an expensive concert grand sound like a toy.

But, does that mean that every keyboardist should strive to be a concert pianist? No, because that is like chasing after the wind -that is wanting to be above average.

The problem as I see it is that many of us are actually BELOW average and should focus on working to become average/standard instead of trying to outdo our neighbor.

Anyway, the confusion goes on in my head. Someone please articulate what I am trying to say.
 
I think what you're saying is that in order to truly become proficient at something ... i.e. music or recording, you need to understand your limitations.

Understand and recognize your strenths and work with them; and be honest with yourself about your weaknesses ... work to get those to point where they're "less weak" perhaps. Or collaborate with others who are strong where you're weak.

I'll use my favorite band of all time as an example. Pink Floyd: Roger Waters was a great lyricist, but by all accounts a below-average musician. David Gilmour was a great musician but a below-average lyricist. Both were only average producers.

By understanding their weaknesses, they were able to make great albums together. Once Roger started believing he didn't need the band to be successful ... and Dave started believing he could do it without Roger, they went their own ways, and neither was as good.

Another example: Musicians who think they can also be their own engineers. And promoters ... and do their own CD cover design :D ... and be their own roadies, etc. Or the guy who comes in to record who has a great voice, but he can't play an instrument to save his life ... yet he refuses to bring in any session guys to help him out, even though he has like 100 friends who are all musicians. :D

Is that what you were getting at?
 
I guess I'm average. Well, I think I am anyway.....wait, is 13" average? Who knows?

:D :D :D :D :D
 
here's my take:

in music and art (but maybe not prog rock), there is no "below-average" or "above-average." there is only affecting and unaffecting. i'll qualify this by saying that skill and experience are important to the side of musicianship that is a craft and not an art. however, overemphasis of this "craft" side and underemphasis on the artistic side results in a lot of BAD music. ultimately music is art.

don't strive to be the best because there is no best, strive to be original and effective as an artist.
 
CyanJaguar said:
LOL chess. Good one.

Another thing I am trying to say is that many cover up their inadequacies with more expensive gear.


I wish I could afford to cover up my inadequacies with gear! :p
 
But why did you single out "prog"?

I hope you weren't dissing the best music genre out there?!?
 
"musical genre".... HA!

no, that's not true. there is a time and a place for prog. personally, i like the campy hilarity of it!!!!
 
gtrman_66 said:
I guess I'm average. Well, I think I am anyway.....wait, is 13" average? Who knows?

:D :D :D :D :D

Well, all I really have to compare with are myself and the porno guys. So, yeah, I'd say 13" is about average.
:D :D :D
 
Middleman said:
I wish I could afford to cover up my inadequacies with gear! :p
I have no inadiquacies, but I still need all this gear. I'm confused now.
 
I belief how "smart" someone is depends for a great deal upon the situation and the person. What might be smart for me, might not be smart for you. Trying to make 1 solid fact "smart" will never work, because there are too many factors in every part of life that are of a big influance on the succes of something, that do not seem have much to do with the subject in the first place.

Like your XY statement. There no good answer for that. Because what sounds best to the guys that thought all those techniques up might not sound that great to me. Perhaps even simply because I'm not ready admit that that technique does work better, for whatever reason.

I belief a person is trully smart when he or she can find out for themselves, what is important and "right" to them, completely regardless of so-called "facts".
 
chessrock said:
I think what you're saying is that in order to truly become proficient at something ... i.e. music or recording, you need to understand your limitations.
QUOTE]

That is an interesting take on it. I guess we need to understand that there are limitations that no amount of gear will fix. PLUS, achieving the best sound is useless anyway. I believe it is more important to get a good sound and leave it at that than to keep trying to get the next best thing.
 
mcolling said:
here's my take:

in music and art (but maybe not prog rock), there is no "below-average" or "above-average." there is only affecting and unaffecting. i'll qualify this by saying that skill and experience are important to the side of musicianship that is a craft and not an art. however, overemphasis of this "craft" side and underemphasis on the artistic side results in a lot of BAD music. ultimately music is art.

don't strive to be the best because there is no best, strive to be original and effective as an artist.

I can say AMEN to that
 
I am thoroughly inadequate and have inadequate gear. The only thing I'm REALLY good at (playing piano) is masked by my desire to become a better guitarist, drummer and engineer. Maybe I'm being foolish but I have a little bit of belief that I can be good at them too - and if it turns out that I can't, I'll go back to my first love. (Which is the piano, just to clarify, and not some 8 year-old girlfriend)
 
DigitalSmigital said:
I hope you weren't dissing the best music genre out there?!?

Ugh . . . I used to be the most stuckup progsnob proghead out there. But what am I listening to now? Seal, Cirque du Soleil, Chroma Key, Morcheeba, Dido, Sade, Bela Fleck, and whatever jazz I can get my hands on. Rush is still amazing though, because they never let the craft overcome the art. However, ever since Jordan Rudess joined Dream Theater, DT hasn't produced a decently listenable piece of work. And of course all prog bands are Dream Theater wannabes, and so come off sounding like a clone of crappy music. Kevin Moore was really the only thing that restrained Portnoy and Petrucci's wankery, and DT has barely been worth a damn since he left. So that's my prog rant. No flames please, just my honest opinion.

As far as being "average," I know and accept that right now I'm not anywhere near as good a bass player as Jaco, Wooten, Clarke, or my teacher, Overthrow. And I know I'm not going to be able to touch their abilities for a long time, if I even do. But I keep pressing forward, keep learning, keep working on making myself better. I think Berklee College of Music will help a lot in that come next fall. But for me, not giving up in the face of amazing talent is just a matter of telling myself that I am still a good player who has a lot to learn and a lot ahead of me.

There's also the matter of personality. Every musician has a different air about them, a different sound, a different approach. People can often put too much importance on "Can you tap this melody at this BPM?" or "Can you play these scales in this time signature at this speed?" To me, that doesn't matter even a little bit. It's all about your relationship with your instrument, how you express yourself through it. Technique is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's all about how you feel the music. And how you feel it can make or break you. I know technically proficient guitarists who sound terrible because they just don't understand how to feel music.
 
agree 100%

Progger said:
Ugh . . . I used to be the most stuckup progsnob proghead out there. But what am I listening to now? Seal, Cirque du Soleil, Chroma Key, Morcheeba, Dido, Sade, Bela Fleck, and whatever jazz I can get my hands on. Rush is still amazing though, because they never let the craft overcome the art. However, ever since Jordan Rudess joined Dream Theater, DT hasn't produced a decently listenable piece of work. And of course all prog bands are Dream Theater wannabes, and so come off sounding like a clone of crappy music. Kevin Moore was really the only thing that restrained Portnoy and Petrucci's wankery, and DT has barely been worth a damn since he left. So that's my prog rant. No flames please, just my honest opinion.

As far as being "average," I know and accept that right now I'm not anywhere near as good a bass player as Jaco, Wooten, Clarke, or my teacher, Overthrow. And I know I'm not going to be able to touch their abilities for a long time, if I even do. But I keep pressing forward, keep learning, keep working on making myself better. I think Berklee College of Music will help a lot in that come next fall. But for me, not giving up in the face of amazing talent is just a matter of telling myself that I am still a good player who has a lot to learn and a lot ahead of me.

There's also the matter of personality. Every musician has a different air about them, a different sound, a different approach. People can often put too much importance on "Can you tap this melody at this BPM?" or "Can you play these scales in this time signature at this speed?" To me, that doesn't matter even a little bit. It's all about your relationship with your instrument, how you express yourself through it. Technique is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's all about how you feel the music. And how you feel it can make or break you. I know technically proficient guitarists who sound terrible because they just don't understand how to feel music.

that is an interesting post. when you say that sometimes people put too much emphasis on speed, etc., it is a new perspective for me, because the music i play is more influenced by the punk aesthetic (don't think good charlotte, please). the musicians i am around do not stress that. i generally write off overly technical music as wanky, uninspired shite, but you are completely right as 90% of all music from all genres is uninspired shite.

i just think that soul is the most important component of music. but if you can mix soul with technical ability- and not overplay!- then that is best of all. the problem is that nearly all prog rockers overplay and that is tiresome. but maybe that is the definition of the genre, i don't know.

cheers!

ps. i like rush too, except for their production. i have a live album that i like because peart actually sounds like he's playing a real drum kit.
 
CyanJaguar said:
Obviously, 90% of men cannot be of above average intelligence for men.
Actually, this is quite possible - assuming the one(s) below average are really below.

Example:
Nine men with the following IQ's: 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99; and one with an IQ of 25. If you average their IQ's, you will find the average to be 88. Hence 90% of them are above average.

Now, if you had said 90% of them can not be above the median IQ - that would be impossible.

Lesson over, class. :D
 
Back
Top