Members nuclear arsenal Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 i think i'm pretty good as a result of experience, but i have no way of knowing how much other people have played their guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike_E_McGee Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 It's not the number of years you've played, it's how many hours you've crammed into those years. I've put an awful lot of hours in on the intrument. Year after year, I put a LOT of hours in. I'd say I play more than a lot of professionals. It helps that I'm chronically single. Still, I don't play as well as pro musicians. I am in fact well behind them. My talent is not in being a natural player. It doesn't just "click" with me. If you sat a talented guitarist down for an hour, and me down for the same, he'd get more out of his hour. My talent is that I love nothing more than sitting down to 3-4 hours of playing. That's brought me to a level where I consider myself a darn good porch picker. Not a pro, not by any stretch, but I get great enjoyment out of my musical endevours. Enough to justify the crazy money I've spent on "Hyper-Professional-Super-BlowYourPeckerOff-Wunder-Guits" (read: Nationals) that I play. I voted below average, but I prefer to focus on how fun it is to learn the instrument, not how my playing stacks up to others. Rate my musical skills, and I am (as objectively as I can be) well below average. I don't feel like any kind of failure though. I'm just glad as hell that as soon as I get out of work, I can wrap myself around my tricone, and pick the workin' day away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members totamus Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 I am inconsistent. There are times that I finish a piece and smile to myself and think "That's why you've put so many years of your life into this". There are others that I feel like a talent challenged hack who should be shot for subjecting such exquisite instruments to a life of mediocrity. Kindling comes to mind. So the answer is as elusive as my particular brand of skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rjoxyz Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Not at all sure what "average" would be for someone who played as long and sporadically as I have. Conversely, whatever the definition, I am most certainly below it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Michael Martin Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Better at what? Guitar?Singing?Music?Some people can pull off a song or two pretty well that doesn't require much in the way of guitar playing skills. Just bang out a few chords that anyone could learn with a modicum of practice.But most people aren't wowed by somebody just playing instrumental guitar. even if he or she is "above average". So who is better?Where's the poison? It is my time. Well, Vlog did say "as a guitarist". I assume this means mastery of the instrument, and for me "mastery" would suggest versatility and technical skill. Very true, as you suggest, that effectiveness as a performer is an entirely different consideration. The most-loved acts at open mikes are not necessarily the best guitarists; they're the people who connect best with the audience. That's a whole 'nother ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhancox Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 I thought of an analogy after reading the comments since last night. Guitar playing is a lot like track & field.There are a number of talented athletes that participate in track and field. However, they can't do it all, save for the decathlete. Sprinters don't run miles. Shot putters don't run the 100m.I consider myself a pretty good rhythm player. I grew into playing with a partner who could play some good lead so rhythm was what I did. And being a "sing and play" person, rhythm is all there is.I think I can be an entertaining player as well. I love to play for people and the songs I have learned are ones that would entertain. I've never learned sappy ballads or traditional folk.So, am I below average for all the things I don't know or am I at or above average because of the things I do know? If this is a self-perception poll, then I consider myself above average.Others may differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stormin1155 Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 I've been playing off and on for 35 years, and there are kids that have been playing for 2 years that can run circles around my playing. So I'm basically contented to be a hack. That's OK, isn't it? I mean, not all football fans can play football well, and not all motorheads are great racecar drivers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hudman Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 I am inconsistent. There are times that I finish a piece and smile to myself and think "That's why you've put so many years of your life into this". There are others that I feel like a talent challenged hack who should be shot for subjecting such exquisite instruments to a life of mediocrity. Kindling comes to mind. So the answer is as elusive as my particular brand of skill. You described me. I will take it a step further: What in the hell is average? How do you measure it? Stuff like this cracks me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RogueGnome Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 What in the hell is average? How do you measure it? Stuff like this cracks me up. average is defined as 3.14 but it carries out to all twenty-six letters of the alphabet, and in at least 13 known languages plus a few unknown. You can quote me on this. Check your Periodic table under "heavy metals" or factcheck.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gthom Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 I said below average - I've been playing for a long time (with several long hiatuses), but I know people who have been playing as long as me or less who are much much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members roughtrade Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Below.The only thing I can do above average is I can read music. Not well, of course, but above average for a guitar player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarVlog Posted September 8, 2009 Author Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Okay everyone, thanks for participating in the poll. In a nutshell, what the unscientific results of this poll shows is that the poll participants (as a group) are unlikely to ever embarrass themselves on a guitar-equivalent of American Idol. There was a recent psychological study that I had read on self-delusion. One factor was how one views oneself in relation to what they perceive as "average". In certain endeavors that do not require too much competency (driving, singing, "am I more ethical"), there is a tendency for individuals to be biased into thinking that they are better than their notion of "average". You can rest assured that many of you assess your abilities in more modest terms (though you might play well beyond your self-assessed abilities). That's not to say that those who answered that they were "ABOVE" average are incorrect; they may very well be correctly assessing their abilities. I was just looking for "bias" in the group sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Galabar Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 music theory: below average rhythm guitar: below average improvisation: way below average reading music: above average technique/tone production: above average playing repertoire pieces: above average consistency in practice: above average Of course, I'm probably below average on all of those, but for now, I've convinced myself that I don't totally suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RogueGnome Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Galabar-Interesting that you could be below average at music theory yet above average reading music. That seems a bit inconsistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Galabar Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Galabar-Interesting that you could be below average at music theory yet above average reading music. That seems a bit inconsistant. Well, I'm able to sit down and read through a piece pretty well -- be able to play it. However, to recognize what chord an arpeggio represents, or why they are coming in the order they are; to understand what the various chords for a key are and why, etc., etc., I'm pretty weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RogueGnome Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 Well, I'm able to sit down and read through a piece pretty well -- be able to play it. However, to recognize what chord an arpeggio represents, or why they are coming in the order they are; to understand what the various chords for a key are and why, etc., etc., I'm pretty weak. I think that if you can read standard musical notation well, then you have to rank at least average in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Galabar Posted September 8, 2009 Members Share Posted September 8, 2009 I think that if you can read standard musical notation well, then you have to rank at least average in theory. Good point. If 95% (I'm making this number up) of guitarists don't read standard notation, then I guess I should put myself ahead in that area. p.s. I chose "ABOVE average" for the poll because I feel that I've put lots of consistent practice in and have been able to noticeably improve in the areas I've been working on over the last 1 1/2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeepEnd Posted September 9, 2009 Members Share Posted September 9, 2009 For the most part, I suck, IMHO. I've been playing (with a notable gap of several years) for 35+ years and I still can't finger pick. I can barely read music. I can't play lead at all. Beyond that, I don't like the sound of my singing voice. But the other day the music director from church, who is quite talented (she plays organ, piano and flute, all well, and has a lovely voice), called me a "triple threat" because I play guitar well, sing well, and write original songs. It's been said that we're all our worst critics and I probably am as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boxorox Posted September 9, 2009 Members Share Posted September 9, 2009 Something occurs to me after readin posts #42 & 43. How are poll results skewed by the respondants age/years of experiance? Younger folks are mastering a lot of basics, learning material with no sense of technical limitations etc, and may have a greater sense of making progress overall and in comparison to their contemporaries. Being an older guy myself, I will learn things that interest me and that I know are technically attainable in/re my own tastes and a style established through many years. I'm aware of my technical limitations, as well as a deteriation of some physical dexterity, hence no great feeling of advancement in ability. That said, no I'm not dead in the water. I work on new pieces, licks, chord patterns. If I ever felt there was nothing more to learn, I'd quit. So maybe perspectives differ depending on where you are on the journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jamesp Posted September 9, 2009 Members Share Posted September 9, 2009 I voted below avg. I'm hopeful that anyone who's played as long as I have is better than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Galabar Posted September 9, 2009 Members Share Posted September 9, 2009 Something occurs to me after readin posts #42 & 43. How are poll results skewed by the respondants age/years of experiance? Younger folks are mastering a lot of basics, learning material with no sense of technical limitations etc, and may have a greater sense of making progress overall and in comparison to their contemporaries. Being an older guy myself, I will learn things that interest me and that I know are technically attainable in/re my own tastes and a style established through many years. I'm aware of my technical limitations, as well as a deteriation of some physical dexterity, hence no great feeling of advancement in ability. That said, no I'm not dead in the water. I work on new pieces, licks, chord patterns. If I ever felt there was nothing more to learn, I'd quit. So maybe perspectives differ depending on where you are on the journey. Good point. Learning the guitar might also be compared to a logarithmic function where the basics come more easily and the very advanced comes very slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boxorox Posted September 10, 2009 Members Share Posted September 10, 2009 Good point, and I recognize the logorythmic learning curve. I'd add more, but I don't want to get into a discussion where the answers are more complicated than the question. (Eeek! Bridge Pins!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Howie22 Posted September 10, 2009 Members Share Posted September 10, 2009 I selected "below the average." I defined average as someone playing for over ten years who plays guitar at least semi-professionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gthom Posted September 10, 2009 Members Share Posted September 10, 2009 I selected "below the average." I defined average as someone playing for over ten years who plays guitar at least semi-professionally. If that's the case, then I'm way way way below average. Although I did play semi-professionally as a teenager (do high school parties count?), in which case I was probably above-average at age 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nuke_diver Posted September 10, 2009 Members Share Posted September 10, 2009 I have to say below average though years don't necessary translate to experience. I got my first guitar in the early 80's but I didn't really get serious until a few years ago when I started taking lessons. Now I'm still not that good but I'm getting better but it's because I'm putting in the time now not just the years. Sadly it's kind of late in life to really become above average I think since I will not be able to have the dedication of youth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.