Should I feel about switching instruments a lot?

You HAVE prior knowledge of string instruments, therefore, you don't count. Anyway, enough, this is going no where and I will ignore anything that does not have to do with the main topic.

i don't remember you saying that that didn't count before you jumped into an arguement about it.

i don't remember you saying that that didn't count before you jumped into an arguement about it.

It's over, drop it.

ok, consider it dropped I have no plans of getting into a major argument over someone else's idiocy

ok, consider it dropped I have no plans of getting into a major argument over someone else's idiocy

Do you know what drop it means? Shut up about it. STOP adding fuel to the fire because that's all you're doing by continuing to talk about it.

Ah, the sarcasm of Nico Canzano! (Did you know my internet spell check says I should change your last name to Tasmania?)

Anyway... of course it is good to learn as many instruments as possible. Especially if you are a composer... reason being, if you are going to orchestrate stuff, you have a lessened chance of making mistakes and you would be able to hear what you compose LIVE without Finale messing it up!

I am learning Guitar, Piano, Flute, Trombone, Cello, and Drums.

I say the same thing for video games in that I'd rather play a game with only five extremely deep and expanded features than one with five hundred hardly expanded and of very limited depth features. That goes for a lot of other things as well.

Young Prodigy, relax. There is no reason for you to get offended over,um, nothing.

You really are an idiot dude and that does nothing to prove that you actually know anything about my musical ability. Must I remind you that I'm in concert band and jazz band, play 3 instruments, can read both treble and bass clef, compose, and might be playing professionally for a band soon. Point is, a normal pianist with NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE or very little knowledge of string instruments would not be able to learn bass in 6 hours. You HAVE prior knowledge of string instruments, therefore, you don't count. Anyway, enough, this is going no where and I will ignore anything that does not have to do with the main topic.

I'm an idiot? Look at what you wrote, I'm not going to turn this into a flame war cause that's simply pointless. Read my signature, it'll give you a better understanding of why I don't compete with people like you. And seriously, calm down

Do you know what drop it means? Shut up about it. STOP adding fuel to the fire because that's all you're doing by continuing to talk about it.

well you did start it

getting back to the topic i agree that being very good at two or three instruments is a hell of a lot better than being mediocre at loads of them, and it's just pure ignorence to think that you can be a virtuoso at every instrument.

Ah, the sarcasm of Nico Canzano! (Did you know my internet spell check says I should change your last name to Tasmania?)

Anyway... of course it is good to learn as many instruments as possible. Especially if you are a composer... reason being, if you are going to orchestrate stuff, you have a lessened chance of making mistakes and you would be able to hear what you compose LIVE without Finale messing it up!

I am learning Guitar, Piano, Flute, Trombone, Cello, and Drums.

Wow, you're learning all those? In that case, I don't feel bad at all about switching instruments a lot.

getting back to the topic i agree that being very good at two or three instruments is a hell of a lot better than being mediocre at loads of them, and it's just pure ignorence to think that you can be a virtuoso at every instrument.

True, but if you practice for a long time on a lot of instruments, you could be a virtuoso on those instruments. But you're right, it would be impossible to become a virtuoso at every instrument, because there are hundreds of instruments and life simply isn't long enough to master all of them.

let's get a few thing clear here...

there are not "hundreds of instruments", when you break them down into families and understand that the similarities between them are often considerably stronger than the differences, this becomes an important factor.

For example, I played bassoon as a second instrument, but I was learning the Hindemith Bassoon sonata after only a few weeks of lessons. The fact that I had played recorder as a child helped me to understand a lot of the basic principles of fingering wind instruments, despite the minor differences each one has.

So after a year of bassoon, I decided to try the oboe (another double reed instrument) and I was, after a few hours, sight-reading duets with my father (a professional-calibre classical guitarist).

I had a single afternoon of percussion lessons in my first year of composition at university, and the following year I was playing timpani in a community orchestra performance of a Mendelsohn symphony.

I wouldn't go for an audition at the New York Phil. on any of those instruments, but I was quite capable of handling enough repertoire to get by quite comfortably.

There's no actual need for you to become a "virtuoso" an all instruments. As a matter of fact, it pretty much an impossibility.

I'd be extremely surprised to hear of someone who plays piano, flute, cello and horn, who is capable of performing Prokoviev's 2nd Piano Concerto, Ibert's Flute Concerto, Schostakowitch's 1st Cello Concerto, and Richard Strauss's Horn Concerto. Those are all "virtuoso" pieces, and I doubt anyone is capable of that feat. I'll remain open-minded, but still.

If your intent is to become a composer, then it's always a good thing to have a bit of a grasp of as many different instruments as possible. It's not a necessity. I know plenty of composers who are barely able to place their hands on the piano without falling off the bench :thumbsup: .