Doing one thing really well vs several things decently ...What's better ?

[m1469]

There seems to be a couple of thoughts floating around regarding an individual's development as a person.

One is that of well roundedness; being involved in multitudes of activities to .... explore multiple aspects of life and oneself ?  The other is that of doing one thing really well, versus several things decently... for the purpose of ?  It is this latter one that I am currenly most interested in for myself as well as for my students.

How does the latter change or effect an individual's quality of life ?

Even if a person does something really well, they are still a person if you know what I mean.  So, I am just curious how it truly benefits an individual more than doing several things decently.

Any thoughts ?


m1469

[stevie]

interesting you should bring this up...specialising is a relatively modern phenomenon...think about the past musicians, almost all composed, improvised and played.

now consider today, very few do more than one, and its all about competitiveness.

the standards have heightened for pianists and they have to work on huge prepertoires with huge techniques...

[Bob]

It's just a matter of choice.  Of what you want and what is possible.  You already know the results from either choice too.


(This has been asked before too.  )

[m1469]

It's just a matter of choice.  Of what you want and what is possible.  You already know the results from either choice too.


(This has been asked before too.  )

Some very good points you make here, Bob, some very good points indeed 

[stevie]

are you failing to realise my reply was much better than his?

[bernhard]

How about doing several things really well?

[m1469]

are you failing to realise my reply was much better than his?

Actually, all of this is quite interesting, helpful, and useful to me    :

interesting you should bring this up...specialising is a relatively modern phenomenon...think about the past musicians, almost all composed, improvised and played.

now consider today, very few do more than one, and its all about competitiveness.

the standards have heightened for pianists and they have to work on huge prepertoires with huge techniques...

I guess it's easy to forget about things we hear of the past musicians, as far as their more well-roundedness (within music) is concerned.  And, perhaps competitiveness has something to do with that, though it could not be all there is to it.  If it is human nature which is competitive .... "the strong will survive" ... as people recommend is true about life, then competitiveness was around back then too.

So, I think there is something slightly different that goes on.  Perhaps it's more about placing limits on oneself.

I suppose doing several things really well, as Bernhard suggests, will be/has been my goal.  Probably those musicians who did compose, improvise, and play could see them as all connected.  I can see the connection, it is just that often times as you suggest, stevie, in modern society one is encouraged to choose a single trade.  And those three things mentioned above are separated out as their own occupation. 

It's tempting to accept limitations and standards which are not necessarily our own.



m1469

[ted]

The original topic seemed to pertain to life in general, for which I have no difficulty choosing a relatively placid existence to a tumultuous one with soaring highs of ecstasy and deep lows of despair; and so I would choose for just about any subset of life, including music. However, that approach pertains only to me, and no doubt my music refects it. It's the old Wagner versus Milhaud issue.

In any aspect of life or knowledge I prefer balance and steady progress to wildly fluctuating extremes. Curiously enough, and a little paradoxically, a balanced approach leads to greater eclecticism and enjoyment of musical extremes, or at least it seems to with me.

Also, as Bernhard suggests, I don't think the choice is quite as well defined as the question implies. It is perfectly possible to choose paths leading to really good understanding of many things. It doesn't pay to think in terms of "either/or" when "both" is usually quite practical and mentally healthier.

[m1469]

The original topic seemed to pertain to life in general, for which I have no difficulty choosing a relatively placid existence to a tumultuous one with soaring highs of ecstasy and deep lows of despair; and so I would choose for just about any subset of life, including music. However, that approach pertains only to me, and no doubt my music refects it. It's the old Wagner versus Milhaud issue.

In any aspect of life or knowledge I prefer balance and steady progress to wildly fluctuating extremes. Curiously enough, and a little paradoxically, a balanced approach leads to greater eclecticism and enjoyment of musical extremes, or at least it seems to with me.

Also, as Bernhard suggests, I don't think the choice is quite as well defined as the question implies. It is perfectly possible to choose paths leading to really good understanding of many things. It doesn't pay to think in terms of "either/or" when "both" is usually quite practical and mentally healthier.

Yes, you are correct in that my original intent was more about life in general vs pertaining strictly to piano and music (which is why I placed it in the "anything but..."  board).  I am thinking in terms of "parenting," to a large degree.  I am not currently a parent in the common sense of the role, however, I consider the role of teaching in general to possess the need for parental thoughts regarding one's students.  At least this is the kind teaching I am involved in. 

Also, I am thinking in terms of general fulfillment for an individual as they live out their life. 

My curiousities regarding this subject have mostly to do with the following question :

"Which will allow one to learn the most about oneself and life ?"

My question is not directly realted to which way would allow one the most success in a certain field, as in "how can one become the best pianist they can," although I find this to have something to do with it.  I want to aid in them fulfilling their potential, or at least in working toward it.

I am considering these things for myself, and for my students of any age in a general way, which I am aiming to have be in the backbone of my teaching of music and piano.


Thank you for your comments, Ted 


m1469

[abell88]

Even if a person does something really well, they are still a person if you know what I mean.  So, I am just curious how it truly benefits an individual more than doing several things decently.

I am not sure about this...but perhaps it's a matter of learning some self-discipline. For me, I'm good at starting things and getting to a certain basic proficiency level, but not at pushing to a higher level.  Perhaps if I focused more on one thing...well, it's kind of a circular argument...if I focused more on one thing I'd be able to focus on things better. 

In terms of a career, I would probably be further ahead if I focused on one thing, but I don't know if I'd be a better person.  So, am I a dilettante, a jack-of-all-trades, or a renaissance person?