A measure of humility characterizes human greatness

[rufviol]

A certain rather unpopular(or maybe popular) recent post, extolling some of the virtues of 'real musicians' over non, got me thinking about what we as humans look up to. Over a period of hundreds of years, one common trait appears to be a measure of humility that characterizes human greatness artistic or otherwise.

This of course is a generalization, however, while in every profession one finds top performers, their appeal is more often than not boosted by an ostensible acceptance of their humble position in the grand scheme of things. An appreciation not only of their peers, but also of their counterparts in other professions, is clear as evidenced in many of the biggest names from Einstein to Perlman.

Your opinions...

[thealtoclef]

As Bach said, "let others tell you how great you are."

[Stephen Fine]

I dunno if this is actually the case. Think of the stars of our society. I feel like though we are a society that still appreciates modesty to a degree, we are more a society that looks up to the grandiose. Many of our greatest artists have phenomenal egos.

Take for example the famous joke about Heifetz holding up the violin after the woman told him who wonderful his violin sounded that evening, "Funny..." he said holding it to his ear, "I don't hear anything."

[MrLucky]

i agree that it is case of mixed bag.  first, we may have to

argue 7 days to concur on the definition of "great" or the

"greatest".  then we interpret if "modest" or "gracious" is

universally accepted.

there are also many cases of double standards.  when someone

"successful" is cute with words, as in the case with Heifeitz, many

think of it as charismatic and right to the point.  If the

same line came out of  someone without much of an aura, it is

rude and stupid.

still,  many people at the top of their games usually seem

more modest after a while because they have realized that the more

they know the more they do not know.

[outside]

I was reading Einstein quotes yesterday at a greasy spoon while having breakfast. One that I remember was, and this is not totally word for word, but rather the gist of it, Instead of trying to be a man of success, attempt to be a man of value."

[mcarufe]

Here is an ancient quote from the Book of Wisdom." Exault yourself and you will be humbled, humble yourself and you will be exaulted". Amazing how some things never change. Also think of some of the arrogant mega celebs of the world and how it universly disgusts most people. This is part of the pop culture, we see time and time again Celebs and the like pontificating and telling the rest of the world how it should be. I guess many of us had mega notariety could fall into the same trap, a true person with class would refrain. Contrast that with an athelete like Michael Jordan who was perhaps the best but had more humility than many of his "collegues" the result is he was almost universly loved and treasured.

Mike

[Marie Brown]

The Heifetz story gets funnier to me every year. He was a piece of work, for sure, and probably felt justified in being tired of the public. They adored him, knew nothing about him, and did dumb boring things trying to find out about him. Some smart kids grow old thinking they already know everything. Stultifying.

[MrLucky]

outside, greasy spoon and heavy reading for breakfast....be a

responsible parent will you?

[skiingfiddler]

For me the Heifetz story, "Funny, I don't hear anything," is exactly an example of tact and humility. He could have chosen to point out quite bluntly that it was he who made the fiddle great;" Madam, if this fiddle sounds great, it's because I make it sound great." He chose not to do that.

[Stephen Fine]

skiingfiddler... you're not getting the point of the joke.

The woman complimented the instrument and Heifetz took care to point out (rather sarcastically) that it was HE who was due the credit. The joke is told as an example of his ego. Heck, it might not even be true, but I don't think we can take it as an example of humility.

Here's another example (just because I think they're fun):

Toscanini once told the orchestra: "G-d tells me how the music should sound, but you stand in the way!"

[skiingfiddler]

Lymond,

Here's another example of gentle humor from a conductor (This really happened):

The conductor stops the orchestra to state:

"French horns, we know you play the most difficult instrument in the world, but do you have to keep reminding us?"

[Go0bur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Lymond

I dunno if this is actually the case. Think of the stars of our society. I feel like though we are a society that still appreciates modesty to a degree, we are more a society that looks up to the grandiose. Many of our greatest artists have phenomenal egos.

Take for example the famous joke about Heifetz holding up the violin after the woman told him who wonderful his violin sounded that evening, "Funny..." he said holding it to his ear, "I don't hear anything."

---

LOL. As egotistical as that joke maybe, it was super witty and clever.

[Andres Sender]

The phrase "a measure of humility" in a way makes this incontrovertible, as the only person who doesn't have SOME measure of humility is a wild-eyed egomaniac. There have been many great people who were not shy of recognizing their own value in some measure, too.

Personally, I don't like people who downplay themselves too much either. I think the right balance is not to go around publicizing your judgment of yourself at all, be it positive or negative.

Skiing Fiddler and Lymond--your difference is not in understanding the joke, but rather your ideas of what is right. To those for whom an artist's sound is clearly the result of how the artist plays, Heifetz was merely being tactful and dryly witty about a fact. To those who find any insistence of a just recognition of one's own value to be bad form, Heiftez' comment seems egocentric.

[Option1]

I must admit, I fail to see how any arrogance could be interpreted from the Heifetz joke. It reminds me of the photographers who are often given the back-handed compliment by someone seeing a fine image with "Wow! Great photo! Your expensive camera sure takes good photos." The usual response from photogs is "I've heard you're a great cook, you must have an expensive oven."

Unfortunately, in this day and age I often think talent and humility have been completely replaced by celebrity and marketing. How else does one explain the success of people like Paris Hilton or the Simpson sisters (apart from some physical assets). I find it a rather disturbing symptom of what society has become where media management now triumphs so completely over truth.

Neil

[bean_fidhleir]

I always wonder whether people who get affronted when someone ignorantly attributes their skill to their fiddle or camera or whatever really feel secure in themselves. Why should it bother me when some onlooker thinks that it's my chisel pen that does the lovely lettering? It's only a mistake, and more to the point it's their mistake and rather a silly one too. It doesn't harm me in any way. Why get upset?

[Option1]

I've rarely seen anyone upset with the attribution that it's the equipment rather than the photographer, musician, cook, etc. The response I noted is simply a mildly witty and slightly sarcastic way of pointing out the truth. Not sure why you would assume I would be upset by such a comment as I'm always thrilled if I get any compliments at all - no matter how back-handed.

Now the second para in my post is a different matter entirely. What could best be characterized as "the Fox News approach to facts" is something that upsets me greatly.

Neil

[Andres Sender]

Bean, is your assumption that people are affronted in these situations based on a sense that without such an emotional motivation, no one would dare to assert their own value since it is such 'bad form'?

[bean_fidhleir]

Oh, were you the photographer in the anecdote? I didn't know that.

Speaking only for myself, of course, I find that when I'm feeling sarcastic, it's because I'm upset about the situation.

[bean_fidhleir]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Andres Sender

Bean, is your assumption that people are affronted in these situations based on a sense that without such an emotional motivation, no one would dare to assert their own value since it is such 'bad form'?

---

I'm not sure I understand your question, Andres. Could you possibly paraphrase it?

[Andres Sender]

Bean--truthfully I am hard-pressed to imagine how to do so just now, but in any case I think I have a better grasp of what you're saying so perhaps it's just as well.

[bean_fidhleir]

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Andres Sender

Bean--truthfully I am hard-pressed to imagine how to do so just now, but in any case I think I have a better grasp of what you're saying so perhaps it's just as well.

[chronos]

To any player who plays a Strad and believes that Heifetz' reply makes a valid point, I am willing to trade my "Andrew Schroetter" violin for that player's Stradivarius. I strongly suspect such a proposal would be rejected immediately. Certain violins can and do sound better than your average fiddle. I'm sure the person who told Heifetz that his violin sounded beautiful did not mean to imply that the violin played itself. Heifetz was just being pedantic.

[Andres Sender]

That such a player would rather keep their Strad is a red herring. Strads are renowned for making it easier for a player to get the sound they want, but different players will get different sounds out of them. Also it is often mentioned with regard to testing of groups of instruments by great players that as they get to know each instrument they tend to produce their own characteristic sound out of them. Obviously all instruments have a signature tonal pallette, and some will make it more or less easy for a player to get what he wants.

I'm sure Heifetz was aware that the person in question didn't think the violin played itself, and at his level he had every right to claim credit for the quality of sound he got from that instrument. I rather doubt an average player could have duplicated his results on that violin.

Bean--My motives are quite frightening, I would beg you not to look into them too closely lest they give you nightmares!

[chronos]

Heifetz "had every right to claim credit for the quality of sound he got from that instrument"?

I think it takes a pretty big ego for somebody like Heifetz to be injured by a comment that in no way denies his talent. To claim that a player's violin sounds great in no way implies that the player has nothing to do with that sound.

The fact that a good player can make a good violin sound great does not change the fact that the violin itself sounds great in the hands of that player. I don't care how good a player you are, you ain't going to make my Andrew Schroetter VSO sound at all like a Strad. Indeed, according to what I've read on The Pegbox, there are people who can tell a Strad apart from other instruments in blind listening tests.

It's not about denying Heifetz' talent. A bad player will make any violin sound bad, Strad, Del Gesu or otherwise. A good player, however, will get more benefit out of a good violin than out of one that is comparatively inferior.

[bean_fidhleir]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Andres Sender

at his level he had every right to claim credit for the quality of sound he got from that instrument.

---

aha! I think I now understand your original question, Andres. I wasn't suggesting that 'a decent humility' should forbid response, but rather that treating a silly --essentially mindless-- comment as a threat that needed to be countered indicates a surprising internal fragility.

Someone with better balance would have seen the comment for what it was --momentary cognitive slippage that would be deeply embarrassing in retrospect-- taken pity on her, and let her off with a smiled agreement that yes, that fiddle is a wonderful instrument and a joy to play.

Her comment wasn't a threat to his reputation or livelihood, so he had no real-world need to 'claim credit' in that way.

(There's an anecdote about a big corporate customer protesting a bill submitted by Steinmetz. It was for something like $10K, and the corporation's agent said that was ridiculous since all he'd done was adjust a single control and it had taken him five minutes at the most. Steinmetz agreed, took back the bill, scribbled on it, and handed it back. Now it read 'Adjusting the control: $5; Knowing what control to adjust: $9,995)