Greatness is deemed in legacy. What mark a person/musician leaves.
I think that there has to be a mark... a record a score. We cannot judge ourselves to be great by our own standards if our own standards have not been proven. Proof. Does that mean that every recorded performance is good? no... I think we all undersatand the context to be that one has to leave a great finished work or perpetual idea documented.
I have question several times on several occassion does the world (earth/man) produce conquerors anymore? Referenced to mean great mean/musicians... Musicians that aspire to be great, to leave a legacy of change, growth, discovery. I have encouraged the masses to push past where they are and be the best they are meant to be (.... be great).
This thread from Thomsas Pridgen seems to been addressing that question. We have touched onm this in various ways/threads in a very off-center kind of way referencing style/playing choices. This is taking a dead-on approach to a very serious question that we musicians/would-be musicians need to address. I hope that we can get 6 pages of real discussion out of this thread.
I personally am totally up lifted by the tpoic at hand.
It's all subjective, anyway. I don't care if it's you believing you're great .... or if it's a thousand men believing this to be the case. I mean, I'm not against leaving legacies, at all. Obviously! However - I don't think the purpose of music is to SIMPLY leave a legacy. Music is an artform ... a form of expression. I mean, it sounds like what we have here .. is a modern-day expectation for the musician. Leaving a legacy of recorded/written music for others to appreciate/study, after you're gone. However, music has existed through out all times - and because a man chooses not to conform to the expectations of his predocessors & contemporaries, doesn't mean that he's any less of a musician. I mean, if you have no recorded work, then obviously you can't leave a legacy of recorded material. However, musicians existed before their were studios, or even music theory.
It's an expression of the soul - and even if it's only therapeutic/uplifting/fulfilling to you, and/or a small circle of inviduals you share it with - it has served A purpose. I mean, you can't place a limit on music, or the musician .... for the simple fact that it can be expressed in ANYWAY an individual can concieve of expressing it. If he's not intrigued by the idea of leaving a lasting legacy, then that's an option that exists. If he chooses that path, then that's all well and good as well .... but, subjectivity and objectivity are two different animals. No matter how strongly we believe something to be so, that doesn't necessarily make it so.
If that be the case - how does one prove greatness? A thousand men can sing your praises from a thousand mountain tops - but it's all STILL a collective, subjective opinion.
Once again - I don't want anyone to read this, and use this as an excuse not to become educated and proficient in your craft. Music for me, is a very spiritual thing. This maybe a controversial statement .... but, my development as a musician is intertwined with my development spiritually. I do it for the love it. I use it as a means to develop self discipline. I use it as a means of meditation. I use it as a means of communicating with an audience. I use it to release frustration. I use it for every purpose that I see fit.
How?
'Cause as I've stated before, music can not be confined - it's purposes are as endless as man's ability of concieve of it's practical uses.
