The Golden Rules of ensemble music

Tap wrote:

A wrong note played timidly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with authority is an interpretation.

Indeed, character is always a means to assert oneself, and I am realizing that those who know how to make themselves heard often have the best positions regardless of the actual content of their ideas.

Humility is probably the enemy of success

I partially agree. Character is certainly a means to assert oneself, but I believe one must assert their ideas when they are certain that the content has a certain depth; imposing content of dubious quality would lead nowhere and, in fact, would cast one in a bad light, provoking the usual sentiment: "Here's another one who doesn't understand a thing and wants to act like a know-it-all". In the end, being humble does not mean being an enemy of success; it means being intelligent. Humility is the only thing that manages to make you grow and learn from those who know more than you. Those who are not humble do not adopt an attitude of interest toward those who know more than them, but rather try to avoid them to avoid having to face them. Honestly, I have never understood what is wrong with recognizing one's own limits and listening to what others have to say. We could notice other points of view that we had never considered; it is a way to learn new things. Those who are not humble stay where they are... and often they are still at the beginning of the race.

All this does not mean that one should not express and assert their opinions to others; the point is that we should be wary of the classic smoke sellers, namely people who sell their "little" knowledge at a premium, passing it off as universal rules of life. Very often, true teachings come from those who give them to you for free, and it is up to your intelligence (in this specific case, also determined by a person's humility) to have the capacity to grasp these teachings, reflect on them, and over time make them your own. At least, this is what I think; perhaps I have said many trivial things.

Don't you think there could be the hypothesis in which two subjects both have content, but the more presumptuous one wins?

Ultimately art cannot be tied to these mechanisms and whoever finds themselves having to choose should perhaps look at something else, which is not always smoke... because in the case I have proposed, both have substance.

Dunno... I hope it's clear.

Crystal clear! But to return to what I have just written, I believe that my reasoning has been strengthened by your doubt and I thank you for the opportunity: those who have substance have already had the humility to listen to many other people and I am almost certain that in the event that both subjects possess weighty content, they will be happy to continue acting on this path, exchanging their opinions in harmony and paying attention to each other's words and vice versa, perhaps even while maintaining their own ideas at the end of it all but still counting on an enrichment given by an additional point of view: something one does not believe in but can still tell others to provide a different perspective, or something that can be used as a loophole upon which to formulate our own reasoning, even to refute another idea... Ultimately, this is exactly what distinguishes those who are intelligent from those who are not...