Posted by Rick Denney on November 06, 2003 at 16:28:04:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: simple answers posted by Rod Mathews on November 06, 2003 at 15:33:50:
I suspect that has to do with where it went after you started it. But I can't figure out the post, either--too subtle for me.
The thesis you started with in this sub-thread is charitable, and assumes that those who reach the late stages of an audition are true masters of the instrument. I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
Though charitable from the standpoint of outside observers, it is dangerous for those who are part of the process to assume. As I said in another post, those who didn't win find themselves in one of three categories: Those who aren't good enough and know it, those who aren't good enough and don't know it, and those who had a bad day. Your point is that the definition of "good enough" includes a fair dose of subjective taste, and maybe not much influence at all of ability, at least among the finalists. Joe's point was that until one has ruthlessly and honestly sought out every possible technical and musical weakness, they cannot afford to assume that it was just a matter of taste. He also warns against tuba players applying tuba-player standards to their playing or the playing they admire, but rather to include the standards used by world-class musicians of other instruments. These principles seem like good ones for all of us to heed, even hobbyists like me.
Rick "who sees the value in applying good principles even when they bite deep" Denney