# Difference in attitude towards playing music and playing golf.



## Jaws

I have always thought that amateur musicians were like amateur golfers, always trying to improve their game/playing. I now find that there are quite a lot of amateur musicians who are not trying to improve their playing. These people don't practise, and attend orchestra rehearsals in the same way as people go to the pub/ bar once a week on the same night for a drink. Their playing standard doesn't improve and is likely to decline in standard over time.

If you play in a group where some of these people were identified as members, would your orchestra ask them to leave? Does anyone know why these people continue to do an activity in which they clearly have very little interest?


----------



## AlainB

I'm not a member of an orchestra, so I won't answer that part.

However, having read this, I must say I'm annoyed by the fact that these type of people are around. The only viable reason I could think of as to why people would continue to practice this without interest, is because they're people who want to find an easy way out in life – doing "nothing". Well, they're wrong! Music is hard, hard work.

Kind of the same with those typical students who join an IT course (study) and expect to be playing games all the time, instead of working hard to finish all the subjects and projects.


----------



## LordBlackudder

the object of golf is to win but you can't win at music. so theres no reason to improve.

unless you want to enter a niche area like world piano awards.


----------



## Abracadabra

LordBlackudder said:


> the object of golf is to win but you can't win at music. so theres no reason to improve.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why does that sounds so REASONABLE!? :lol:


----------



## AlainB

LordBlackudder said:


> the object of golf is to win but you can't win at music. so theres no reason to improve.


To (try to) improve does not necessarily imply that you want to win.


----------



## Lunasong

I think some of it may have to do with the "attitude" of each particular orchestra. Some are more social and some are more formal. The formal ones would probably exert some peer pressure if someone in the section was lacking or slacking. The social ones wouldn't care, especially if the slacker was the one who brought the beer.


----------



## Sid James

Amateur and semi professional orchestras will of course not be at the level of the Berlin Philharmonic or whatever. However, they do work with professional (trained) conductors & soloists. I have come across these musicians and they practise as well as they could. DOn't forget they hold down day-jobs outside the orchestra, they have other commitments. They are just as critical of themselves, I'd think, as high end professionals.

I feel you have a bit of an anti-amateur axe to grind here. I have gone to these concerts and enjoyed them to whatever degree I could. Often, they play something that the flagship orchestras here don't touch. & I'm not talking something 'atonal' or 'exotic,' I'm saying something like Samuel Barber or Englebert Humperdinck. I mean its ridiculous how pro orchestras apparently have the best musicians, yet most of the times all they can play is things like Beethoven's 5th. No matter how good they play it, year in year out, it's boring. So sorry, I won't join the bandwagon rubbishing amateurs or semi-pros. They have a place in the music industry just like the pros.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Jaws said:


> I have always thought that amateur musicians were like amateur golfers, always trying to improve their game/playing. I now find that there are quite a lot of amateur musicians who are not trying to improve their playing. These people don't practise, and attend orchestra rehearsals in the same way as people go to the pub/ bar once a week on the same night for a drink. Their playing standard doesn't improve and is likely to decline in standard over time.
> 
> If you play in a group where some of these people were identified as members, would your orchestra ask them to leave? Does anyone know why these people continue to do an activity in which they clearly have very little interest?


I have no idea, and I didn't even know people do that?! Why bother to continue to play if you're not getting anywhere???


----------



## Abracadabra

MaestroViolinist said:


> Why bother to continue to play if you're not getting anywhere???


Please don't make me ask myself that question or I might quit altogether.


----------



## Jaws

Sid James said:


> Amateur and semi professional orchestras will of course not be at the level of the Berlin Philharmonic or whatever. However, they do work with professional (trained) conductors & soloists. I have come across these musicians and they practise as well as they could. DOn't forget they hold down day-jobs outside the orchestra, they have other commitments. They are just as critical of themselves, I'd think, as high end professionals.
> 
> I feel you have a bit of an anti-amateur axe to grind here. I have gone to these concerts and enjoyed them to whatever degree I could. Often, they play something that the flagship orchestras here don't touch. & I'm not talking something 'atonal' or 'exotic,' I'm saying something like Samuel Barber or Englebert Humperdinck. I mean its ridiculous how pro orchestras apparently have the best musicians, yet most of the times all they can play is things like Beethoven's 5th. No matter how good they play it, year in year out, it's boring. So sorry, I won't join the bandwagon rubbishing amateurs or semi-pros. They have a place in the music industry just like the pros.


The problem we have here in London is that there don't seem to be enough social orchestras for the social players to play in. The people who do practise get frustrated by having the social players in their groups because of course the social players never learn their parts and if there are bits they can't play it never gets any better. If all the social players played in orchestras specially set up for them, they probably wouldn't do concerts at all because they would never ever get to learn the music they were playing. The more formal orchestras that do want to play in concerts are having their standards much reduced by having the social players in them. The two types of players are all mixed up in the same groups this causes terrible frustration for some players who take their hobby seriously. The social players don't care, they are basically passengers just being carried along for the ride, all the work is being done by the other members.

Would a good solution be to have more orchestras that have members who only want to play once a week in an orchestra?

I would think that it is the same with most hobbies, that people who take them seriously want to spend time with other people who are also serious about them, and they are not really interested in spending time with people who want to just have a bit of a dabble in something.


----------



## Jaws

MaestroViolinist said:


> I have no idea, and I didn't even know people do that?! Why bother to continue to play if you're not getting anywhere???


There are a lot of people like this. Just imagine sharing a desk in an orchestra with someone who never does any practise, doesn't practise the notes they can't play and then plays in all the concerts and still plays the bits wrong that they can't play, because they haven't practised them. These people drive the people who do practise mad, because they make something that could sound very good, bad because they play wrong notes, out of tune, no dynamics etc, and they don't get better, after a while they actually start to get worse.

It is really annoying, but where I live in London there aren't any orchestras that have been set up for these people who are not interested in getting better to play in, so they join the ones that people who do want to get better play in. Lots of very good people don't play in amateur orchestras because they can't choose who joins. The committee does that. Sometimes there are people on the committees that don't do any practise..... The players who don't play in orchestras play chamber music because they can choose who they play with.


----------



## Jaws

Sid James said:


> Amateur and semi professional orchestras will of course not be at the level of the Berlin Philharmonic or whatever. However, they do work with professional (trained) conductors & soloists. I have come across these musicians and they practise as well as they could. DOn't forget they hold down day-jobs outside the orchestra, they have other commitments. They are just as critical of themselves, I'd think, as high end professionals.
> 
> I feel you have a bit of an anti-amateur axe to grind here. I have gone to these concerts and enjoyed them to whatever degree I could. Often, they play something that the flagship orchestras here don't touch. & I'm not talking something 'atonal' or 'exotic,' I'm saying something like Samuel Barber or Englebert Humperdinck. I mean its ridiculous how pro orchestras apparently have the best musicians, yet most of the times all they can play is things like Beethoven's 5th. No matter how good they play it, year in year out, it's boring. So sorry, I won't join the bandwagon rubbishing amateurs or semi-pros. They have a place in the music industry just like the pros.


I am assuming that a semi professional musician is as good at music as a semi professional dentist is at dentistry or a semi professional brain surgeon is as good at doing your next brain operation?


----------



## Krummhorn

MaestroViolinist said:


> . . . Why bother to continue to play if you're not getting anywhere???


Does one really have to 'get somewhere' in order to continue playing? If one is happy with what they have accomplished in their lifetime and wants to play at their current mastery or level, why should they quit?

After 50 plus years as a professional church organist/recitalist, I am quite happy to continue in that field as I truly enjoy what I do for a living ... music comes from the soul and heart for me, not from a clipboard with set in stone goals or a checklist that say I have to quit if I don't happen to advance to the next level.

I am not likely to advance 'anywhere' to any next level, nor do I really want to. As long as the fingers and toes keep hitting all the right notes I am quite content with my competency level today and will continue to play as long as I love what I do.

Not to say I am not learning along the way ... the day I stop learning is the day I fall over dead ... but my learning is not likely to gain any further fame or get my 'anywhere' other than where I'm currently at.

Kh


----------



## kv466

No orchestra member here,...but a member of several bands and projects and a session recording musician. I don't sit there and practice by myself just about,...EVER. Just today I learned a couple of songs but that didn't take more than a few minutes. I don't care what approach a musician takes as far as their technique or whatever...all I ever want out of a musician that is playing with me is for them to give it 100% every time and to love the music we are playing together; if not, there is no sense in doing it. 

Of course, even though I don't like to practice there are musicians who can greatly benefit from good practice time; then, there are others that are simply born with it and don't have to do much more than learn the notes. I'm happy to be on the side I am.


----------



## Jaws

Krummhorn said:


> Does one really have to 'get somewhere' in order to continue playing? If one is happy with what they have accomplished in their lifetime and wants to play at their current mastery or level, why should they quit?
> 
> After 50 plus years as a professional church organist/recitalist, I am quite happy to continue in that field as I truly enjoy what I do for a living ... music comes from the soul and heart for me, not from a clipboard with set in stone goals or a checklist that say I have to quit if I don't happen to advance to the next level.
> 
> I am not likely to advance 'anywhere' to any next level, nor do I really want to. As long as the fingers and toes keep hitting all the right notes I am quite content with my competency level today and will continue to play as long as I love what I do.
> 
> Not to say I am not learning along the way ... the day I stop learning is the day I fall over dead ... but my learning is not likely to gain any further fame or get my 'anywhere' other than where I'm currently at.
> 
> Kh


It doesn't apply to the people who have "got somewhere" and are people who hit all the right notes in everything they play.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Krummhorn said:


> Does one really have to 'get somewhere' in order to continue playing? If one is happy with what they have accomplished in their lifetime and wants to play at their current mastery or level, why should they quit?
> 
> After 50 plus years as a professional church organist/recitalist, I am quite happy to continue in that field as I truly enjoy what I do for a living ... music comes from the soul and heart for me, not from a clipboard with set in stone goals or a checklist that say I have to quit if I don't happen to advance to the next level.
> 
> I am not likely to advance 'anywhere' to any next level, nor do I really want to. As long as the fingers and toes keep hitting all the right notes I am quite content with my competency level today and will continue to play as long as I love what I do.
> 
> Not to say I am not learning along the way ... the day I stop learning is the day I fall over dead ... but my learning is not likely to gain any further fame or get my 'anywhere' other than where I'm currently at.
> 
> Kh


Your kind of case is not what I meant, you have got somewhere, and you are happy to be there. That is alright. But these other people aren't even good at what they are doing!


----------



## Krummhorn

Jaws said:


> It doesn't apply to the people who have "got somewhere" and are people who hit all the right notes in everything they play.





MaestroViolinist said:


> Your kind of case is not what I meant, you have got somewhere, and you are happy to be there. That is alright. But these other people aren't even good at what they are doing!


Fair enough and I appreciated the replies .


----------



## Sid James

Jaws said:


> The problem we have here in London is that there don't seem to be enough social orchestras for the social players to play in. The people who do practise get frustrated by having the social players in their groups because of course the social players never learn their parts and if there are bits they can't play it never gets any better ... The social players don't care, they are basically passengers just being carried along for the ride, all the work is being done by the other members ...


Well then I think it ultimately falls to the conductor of the orchestra, or the principals of each section involved, to ensure that some standard is met. I can see what you're getting at. Of course, the reality on the ground (I'm guessing) would be that its often hard to replace a player, esp. for an unpaid/voluntary amateur or semi-professional group.

Well it is a vocation, and one expects to take it seriously, but some don't. Of course, its also a hobby, so its more complex than professional orchestras. A lot of them here have yearly auditions for the players. You don't just get your seat for life. You've got to do an audition every year to keep it (very stressful). You've got to pass the test (even in youth orchestras it's done here, I think Simon Rattle was the first to bring this system in the UK).

So there's a gap in the reality you are talking about and what musicians on the whole strive for, eg. to give their best performance given what resources they have.



Jaws said:


> It doesn't apply to the people who have "got somewhere" and are people who hit all the right notes in everything they play.


Not necessarily. Musicians aren't robots. In classical, there are some recordings that got the top accolades, yet they where done live, so obviously would have at least some wrong notes struck/played. But its the intangible spirit of the performance that marks it out, say, as better than one where all the right notes are played, but with the precision of a robot, not a human hand.

However, I do get the gist of what you say, one does not want all wrong notes in a performance (to go to the other extreme from my robot example). So its kind of about balance, I think.


----------



## Jaws

*Golf*

Someone once said to me, well of course all the worst players are on the committee because if they weren't someone would have asked them to leave...... The committee choose and pay the conductor. The conductor being interested in his payment won't argue with the committee, or as is often the case tell someone that they need to practise..... The committee and the conductor choose the programmes for the concerts and how many concerts. So unlike golf where there are sometimes matches with players from other clubs, there is nothing that tells amateur orchestra members where they stand in terms of overall playing standard, and as most amateur orchestra members never go to hear other amateur orchestras, where they stand in relation to other amateur orchestras.

I am not very interested in golf, but sometimes watching a golf match is more interesting than listening to an amateur orchestra concert where a good half of the orchestra are passengers who are quite happy to play badly.


----------

