Posted by Rick Denney on October 23, 2001 at 12:13:30:
In Reply to: Re: OK, I did it - update posted by SaxoFritz on October 23, 2001 at 11:55:02:
Okay, I'll bite on this, even though I probably should not. We accept what is said here as axiomatic, but I don't think I can agree with it.
Nobody was talking about getting gigs here. The discussion was around what seemed to help our playing and what didn't.
The "nobody's audition was cut short because they played a ______" argument fails in the presence of a bit of reductio ad absurdum. At what point does the instrument matter? Where do we draw the line? Sure, we could win a gig with a hosephone if we could make it sound good enough, but the simple fact is that we can't make it sound good enough.
I agree that we ought to sound our best no matter what we play, and I also agree that we often look for equipment solutions to musician problems. But the equipment does matter.
It's easy to say that Jacobs sounded good on whatever he played, but the only time he won an audition without excellent equipment was when he went into Curtis. He was 15 at the time, and the listeners were wise enough to listen to the musician and not the instrument. Of course, they were looking for a student with potential, and they weren't hiring him for a gig.
I don't play pro gigs anymore, and I never did to any great extent. But I set standards for myself that I can only occasionally meet. I'm as serious about my results, within my budget (for both time and finances) as any orchestra pro. I want the equipment that allows me to focus my very limited abilities on musical objectives, and not be absorbed by extraneous issues, such as overcoming the weaknesses of the equipment. Good equipment makes me the best player I can be within my abilities and commitment. The tricky bit is knowing which equipment really is better, and whether its qualities will be useful to me. That's why Joe conducted his test.
Rick "who believes that good tools help do the job better" Denney