Hi all. I don't post much these days (life is getting in the way), but I still play, and I still want to get better. It's kind of funny, but over the years, harmonica has brought me to a variety of other things that I now want to pursue and get better at. Guitar, electronics and tinkering, making instruments, and, most recently, photography. I've really been getting into photography. It's my second love, perhaps equal to harmonica, and I feel strongly about wanting to be good at it - much as I do with harmonica. I came across this short recent article entitled "How to get better at photography". As with harmonica, as I've been learning and re-learning photography, I've been devouring all that the internet has to offer. It's been really great, just as it was when I was first learning the harp. But, as I read this article looking for more inspiration, quite a lot "clicked" in my brain about the learning process. Not just for photography, but for everything. Harmonica included.
If you read that article and replace "photography" with "harmonica," it still rings true. Really true for me. I do feel that I've been on a sort of "plateau" with my harp playing for a while now. Like I said, life has gotten in the way a bit, and I haven't been able to put in the time to progress. But I also haven't been organized - I haven't had a plan. I've been flailing, getting better in fits and starts - incrementally, but not holistically.
This little article his inspired be to be better focused on what I need to do to get better at photography, harmonica, and more. To come up with those words describing my look or my sound. To identify those shooters or those players. And to really know where I want to go, so I *can* focus on how to get there. Now, let's see how long I can keep that up! :)
Thoughtful article. Sometimes it's helpful at various stages to get rid of all your gear and start over. I was inspired to do this by my guitar teacher. One day, he walked into my lesson and said, "Well, I sold all my guitars". I thought be would be the last person to do something like that. He was still learning how to read guitar sheet music, so he was still developing.
I guess lots of people are trying to get better at things, and I'm all for learning, but 'becoming better' as the motive is potentially toxic. The article contains explicit references to trying to be better than other people, and it seems to be human nature to turn every activity into a competition. Also to self-organise into a pecking order, with those slightly 'above you' laying it on thick, and those 'below you' humbling and prostrating themselves.
The author ends with 'a cringeworthy photo from my past'. Thank goodness he or she is much better now, phew.
If you're a professional, you do need to be 'better' than your competitors, but as has been remarked often here and elsewhere, that's often less about being a virtuoso and more about turning up on time and getting a job done. Not many photographers make a living from art photos 'telling a story', but lots do for being technically competent and delivering the goods.
Most of us amateurs/hobbyists aren't going to better than lots of other people no matter how we try. So we may as well try to enjoy it instead. Making music is supposed to be a pleasurable activity.
Plateau: "an area of fairly level high ground". Seems like a good place to be.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 22, 2016 1:38 AM
@mindthegap: I get where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree with most of what you wrote. I don't agree that the article was suggesting that you are in a competition. Instead it suggests that _if_ you feel like you want to get better at what you are doing, then you _must_ identify what that actually means. And one of the best ways of doing that is to identify the work of a person or people that you see to be better than your own, and to figure out _why_ it is better. That is the key to successfull learning: having a goal, identifying why that goal is important, and then figuring out the steps needed to get there.
It is perfectly fine to be satisfied with where one is at. But, often times, remaining steady becomes stale and stagnant, and stagnant is unfulfilling. Most creative professionals and hobbiests will tell you that their one secret to ongoing fulliment is to never stop learning and trying to be better. I think a lot of people give up on their pursuits after achieving the first or second plateau. They are competent and "good" at what they do, but it ceases to be fulfilling. Even if they knew that it was possible to keep going, I think the path forward from a competent plateau is murky, and far less clear than the steps from beginner to competence. This is frustrating for many, and I think this article really articulates some concrete steps one can take from that plateau to keep on the journey. ----------
Isaac, I know the article was more about setting long term goals and improving, and I don't see anything wrong with those. Either the motive or how to go about it.
But the underlying assumption was about being better than the next person as some measure. Rather than just getting better. And even denigrating your own earlier work to achieve that. (See the comment at the end: what's so cringeworthy?)
Running in race, an actual competition, the advice is often exactly to keep overtaking the person in front. That's how you improve your placing and eventually win if you are able, which most people aren't. But this is music (or photography).
And what about when you get older, or ill, and your faculties start to weaken? Are you supposed to give up music because you're not improving?
As for plateaus, my point isn't that you are supposed to be content to stay there. But it takes work to get onto one so I think it's only fair to be allowed to take some satisfaction from reaching a plateau.
In a nutshell, music could be about enjoying playing music, and/or about the learning/achieving cycle. I like them both myself but I think there's too much automatic emphasis on #2. That's for my liking, if that's what lights your candle no problem from here! :)
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 22, 2016 8:41 AM
But yes, thinking about it we do disagree. I've learnt a couple of instruments (bass guitar and baroque recorder) to a certain basic level to be able to play in particular groups at the time, and I've got no interest in taking them any further. At the same time, I can totally see why someone else would want to become the best they can be on those.
BTW I forget to say, good to hear from you again, and thanks for posting! Good luck with the photography and of course Happy Christmas!
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 22, 2016 8:52 AM
I suppose the misunderstanding comes in the phrase 'if one wants to get better.' It's the 'if' that is the important part. The author of the article is not saying (and neither would I say) that one must always strive to get better. I think we would both argue, however, that getting better is a reasonable goal, and one that is very important to many people. Getting better is a goal in and of itself that is separate from the enjoyment of the thing you are doing (photography, music, etc.), but which is often related to the level of enjoyment at certain times in the pursuit of that thing. Yes, I agree that jamming out and taking photos of sunsets is enjoyable and very well can remain enjoyable indefinitely. But for me, and I believe for many others, it gets boring after a while. I want more than 12 bar jam outs and nice photos of sunsets over the water. These are still fun, in their own way, but they are not satisfying. And so I want to get better, to do better things, to make my artistic pursuits more fulfilling and more sustaining.
I think that there is nothing wrong with looking back at where one started and thinking "man, that sucks." I have old recordings from back in 2007 when I was learning harp, trying to follow Adam's early videos. They are awful. Much as that over-edited photo of the berries isn't a great picture. To produce art is to be open to such critique. It's ok to produce sub-par work, and it's ok - healthy, even - to look back on it after improvement and see/hear exactly what you got better at. As long as you can learn from it, it's good. Now don't get me wrong: being overly self-critical is not a virtue. There are aspects to praise in one's early work just as there are aspects to criticize. But the key is to look with a critical eye. What elements of your 'style' existed back then, even if just in infancy? What aspects were you missing? How did you obtain them in the intervening time? What is the apparent trajectory of your art, looking in retrospect? All of these questions are part of growth, and to me, growth is what keeps artistic pursuits interesting over the long term. Not everyone will agree with that, but it resonates with me, and I am sure it resonates with many others...
And BTW, thanks for the sentiments! I lurk around here, checking in a couple times a week. Haven't had much free time for posting, but now that the semester is over, I guess I'm 'blowing off some steam,' lol! Happy christmas to you too! ----------
BTW, here's a video from another photography inspiration of mine -- Ted Forbes of 'The Art of Photography' -- that also speaks to this topic.
One other thing I would like to point out is that I'm really enjoying the cross-pollination between these two seemingly different artistic pursuits: harmonica and photography. I find that the lessons I learn in one translate a lot to the other. That's one of the points I wanted to make with this thread - that it is not only possible to go after more than one form of art, but that getting better at one form of art can also help you get better at another... ----------
I'm not arguing against get better, of course not. Just saying that it's not the be all and end all.
Is it always more fun to play with better musicians? Yes in general, but there can be downsides. Playing with a guitarist who is confident, competent and comfortable in their skin is lovely, but one who is 'striving hard to better' either in competition with others or with themselves can sometimes be a pain for those around them. Bringing the mood down for everyone else. And I'm speaking particularly about amateurs/hobbyists not the elite.
I am arguing a more subtle thing than a simplistic either/or between staying as a Plateau 1 beginner or striving to be the best in the world. That there is a level of competence that allows you to make good music, and enjoy it, and other people may enjoy it too. Surely we are sophisticated enough to get that, at the same time, something we play isn't 'great' (I mean actually great) but is actually 'good'? If not, that's a shame because that's going to be the reality for 99.99% of people. Even those who are very determined.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 23, 2016 12:53 AM
A concrete example. I watched a documentary about UB40. Talking about their first album 'Signing Off' they said it was weak in retrospect because at that point they couldn't play their instruments properly.
But for me, and others, that is the The Album, with a raft of touching songs, played at a level of competence and rawness that is right. I like their later stuff less and less as it becomes more polished and produced. Subjective, but it's a real thing.
Is 'Boys Keep Swinging' a better record because they all swapped instruments to give it a rougher sound? Yes. Is an grade-5 pianist trying to play Rach-4 any good? No. Is an intermediate harp player hacking out the riff to Hoochie Coochie man any good, with folks smiling in recognition and getting up to dance? Yes.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 23, 2016 1:30 AM
I think that article is ok. I don't get an imperative from it, just a general description of a process of analysis one could use to find inspiration in the work of others.
If you're happy with your work and not bored, all is sweet. There is definitely a place for mediocrity. If you are feeling you'd like to produce more inspiring work, if you feel a need to step it up, then looking to thecwork you find inspiring and identifying elements in that work you appreciate seems a reasonable thing to do. Currently I'm really appreciating Billy Branch and trying to get a grip on what it is he does that I appreciate. And this naturally leads me to examine Carey Bell's work. I appreciate the article because it's helped me understand what I'm doing and maybe I'll be more methodical about it. I hadn't really thought about the process before; it was just something I was doing because I'd noticed I was digging Billy Branch's accompaniment style
You're right of course, it's a perfectly mild-mannered, well meaning article with some ideas about how to improve, and yes lots of people do want to improve.
It just pressed the wrong buttons with me, with the assumption that 'being better' automatically means being better than the next man. Yes in race, but in art?
Also this idea that you're going to get to exhaust the internet - so that's intermediate level or something - then it's on to emulating the masters. Translate that to learning the piano: you get to Grade 5 (or whatever you could get to by watching youtube vids) then the next step towards mastery is studying Prokofiev's recordings. A good thing to do probably, is that going to lead to mastery? I think people have to do a lot more than that.
I agree with the article when it says that the Internet has made it much easier to get started with a subject. But I think that the next step is more significant than it makes out.
That's why I say a healthier motive would be to enjoy it, either doing the thing itself or the journey, or both. Rather than striving for 'mastery' - and the article is very clear, you are supposed to be striving for mastery. It does concede you might not live long enough, but I would suggest that for most people that's not actually the limiting factor!
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 25, 2016 11:45 PM
Listen and copy those you know are better than you
Practice
Never give up
Practice
Play with better musicians than yourself
Practice
Never stop learning
Practice
Don’t let plateaus stop you, grind them down
Practice
Remember that you are doing this for no one else other than yourself
Did I mention practice.
Check out the online tutorials by those that know what they're doing.
I know my playing has improved no end over the last couple of years and have nothing but thanks and admiration for all those that have made on line tutorials. Especially Adam and Jason.
You can read all you want but in the end it comes down to playing and practice in my book.
I think the point about 'better than others' is a natural result of striving for some yardstick to measure one's progress. Peer pressure is one of our strongest drivers (along with learning).
Unfortunately competitive music is a by product of this.
The grade system (never done any) seems like an objective yardstick. Very useful I imagine.
In recruitment it is important to measure each candidate against the person spec, not each other to overcome this and other problems.
The selection of an artist to emulate would also seem to provide a stable target. Recordings can increase the objectivity.
Picking an artist and their recordings to try to learn from and emulate seems a normal, useful idea. I certainly do that. Doing it with the idea of becoming better than them - seems like a tall order. And the article does explicitly refer to that.
Mtg, maybe you have misread the article. I can't find an explicit reference such as that to which you refer. This may explain why I found your response to it perplexing
Making music is a mind body spirit sport...or exercise...or...?
"Indian mystic and philosopher Patanjali supposedly created modern yoga by transmitting his doctrine and disciplines to seven sages. In the mid-1950s, those teachings came down through the centuries to another sage, Sonny Rollins, who, like his good friend John Coltrane, incorporated his experiments with Eastern spirituality into his jazz improvisations. In Rollins’ case, yoga has given him, as he recounts in the short video above, “spiritual understanding” and “direction.” Setting out for India in 1967 to find “upliftment,” Rollins checked himself into an Ashram, with nothing but a bag and his horn, “and it worked out well,” he says. Rollins and his jazz “compatriots” like Coltrane “were trying to find a way to express life through our improvisations,” he tells NPR. “The music has got to mean something,” he says, “Jazz improvisation is supposed to be the highest form of communication, and getting that to the people is our job as musicians.”
Superbee, I do concede that I've read a bit to deeply into what's intended as an harmless bit of encouragement for fledging photographers :) You can see it hit a raw nerve. I can't be the only one who's been on the rough end of some other striving amateur's angst?
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 29, 2016 3:25 AM
The author is saying that identifying someone who is producing work you consider better than yours is a way to start pinning down aspects of photography you appreciate; being able to give a name to those things in order to better conceptualise them. And to learn about those photographers thoughts regarding their creative process, not with a view of becoming better than them, but to understand the way they think and how that feeds into the images they produce in order to better understand and develop ones own process. Nowhere in the article does it explicitly or even implicitly state the motivation is competitive, aiming to become better than someone else. Recognising someone as producing better work than you is simply acknowledgement that person could teach you something, similiar to finding a harmonica instructor on the basis that you admire the way they play and want to understand what to do, what to practice, how they think, in order to move your own playing in that direction. There is no implication of competition, simply self-improvement to derive greater satisfaction with ones own work. That's how I read it.
I do think that's a reasonable interpretation SuperBee, and I'm pushing a point about this particular well-meaning article. But here's a phrase that doesn't look quite so pure in thought:
"Hey, maybe you’re really f****** gifted and there’s hardly anyone whose work you cannot break down into simple concepts in your own mind in moments. But...I bet there’s someone that’s a little better than you, a little more aware of the medium."
To me that's about the process of photography, and knowing where you are in the league. Not about enjoying your photographs. You know, looking at them at getting an emotional response from them.
And I don't seem much specifically about deriving greater satisfaction with one's own work. If it said that, like that, I'd like it better. Isn't it instead saying that the satisfaction is about being a better photographer, a master?
My point is that, in reality, I've found that people often don't follow the pure imperative you laid out there, and let it turn into a competition. It's built into the system: music and photo competitions are common.
I'd be happy to give up discussing this particular article in order to move onto the bigger issues. To do that I'll concede that your interpretation of the article is probably what the author intended.
So, a question: When you learn a new thing, say a lick or new song, do you get the enjoyment from having acquired the thing? Or from the musical pleasure of playing it?
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 29, 2016 5:27 AM
"So, a question: When you learn a new thing, say a lick or new song, do you get the enjoyment from having acquired the thing? Or from the musical pleasure of playing it?"
I suppose it depends on why I learned it ?Was it to add to my store of musical knowledge for future use or because playing it gives me pleasure as a finished work
Hi all - I've been without phone or laptop for the last week or so, which has been absolutely blissful. I spent a lot of time playing music and taking photographs, so I am very happy to see that this little thread has continued! I have read the comments with interest, and I can indeed see where the competitive aspects of the advices above may strike afoul of many folks philosophy's of art. But, I do think it's pragmatic to think of art as at least partially competitive, however one wants to measure that. They don't hang just anyone's images in the Louvre, and not everyone's albums sell. Yes, there is joy in creating for creation's sake, but I think that that is rare, and, for me, anyway, eventually a little less fulfilling than sharing with others. Once you open your work to other people, however, it inevitable is now being compared by them to other work, whether you or they want that or not.
Improving feels good, and is a separate good feeling from the feeling of creating. I personally find that I need to have both of those experiences to want to keep going on in my artistic endeavors. I don't think we have to literally identify people to "be better than" in order to improve, but I do think we need to look at other's work to find the benchmarks. Then, we set a goal to "become better" than that benchmark. It's important to note that we may never achieve that goal, but the process of consciously and mindfully trying to get there will help us to improve. I see it more as a psychological "trick" to get us to do that hard work (the practice!) by hanging a carrot from a stick. That carrot may forever be out of reach, but we will indeed make that stick shorter!
And yes, this all started as a way to bring in the crossover between different pursuits. I think it's important to be mindful of such crossover, because it makes all of the art we pursue more meaningful. ----------
