Quote:
Originally Posted by spock
how would you describe your relative level of playing ability
|
I'm better than I was yesterday, and not as good as I will be tomorrow.
At least that's when I'm feeling
optimistic...
One interesting aspect of this question (IMO) is that we might think that technical skill is probably a fairly easy aspect of musicianship to measure - even while I hope we'd all agree it's not the most important.
E.g., we could point to pieces of music we can play easily, and other pieces where we'd have difficulty.
That's kind of how the grading process works anyway. We'd probably all agree that someone who's passed grade 8 guitar is more accomplished, has greater technical facility, than someone who's failed grade 5. (I'm not saying it
matters either way. The person who failed grade 5 may be a much more enjoyable entertainer than the one who passed grade 8. But at least there's a kind of measure there.)
But difficulty is surmountable! I've often felt that a piece seems way beyond my skill level - out of reach. But then I work on it, and eventually find I can do it. Within a few days or weeks, what seemed out of reach is now within my grasp.
That's not a result of the slow gradual improvement that's natural the more we play and the older we get (until old age robs us of physical or mental agility). It's the result of working on
that piece. Other pieces that seemed equally difficult when I began that one, still seem just as difficult. IOW,
in general I don't feel I've improved. I feel the same level as I was. But I've worked on one tune, and conquered it.
So, we could probably rate ourselves - at present - in terms of being able to play piece (A), but not piece (B). E.g., we could allot ourselves a likely grade level, by looking at the pieces and assessing which ones seem do-able, and which look like "wtf?" But quite likely the pieces in the grade above what we think we can do are quite possible,
given a little work.