Lots of great musicians spend time on the ships. The fact I did a contract has no bearing on my quality as a musician.
The music I shared is of good quality and I don't worry about sour listeners.
Lots of great musicians spend time on the ships. The fact I did a contract has no bearing on my quality as a musician.
The music I shared is of good quality and I don't worry about sour listeners.
Greg, you are under the mistaken impression that difficulty = good. It doesn't. No one ever called up a radio station and asked them to play the most difficult song. People want to listen to music that sounds good, not a bunch of noise strung together. If I wanted to give myself a headache, I'd fire up one of your songs. They are good for nothing else.
Greg wrote:
Lots of great musicians spend time on the ships. The fact I did a contract has no bearing on my quality as a musician.
The music I shared is of good quality and I don't worry about sour listeners.
No they don't. Yes it does. No it isn't.
If playing background music for distracted drunks is such a great gig, why aren't you still doing it?
This thread seems to have been de-railed now into talking about music for some reason?
Anyway, just popped in to say my actual marathon PR (from 4 attempts), is 15 minutes slower than my 5k/10k time predicts based on the conversion charts. The conversion charts assume you run equally well over all distances and are fully trained for the marathon which is rarely the case due to the mileage and time required.
Given your times at shorter distances I'd expect a realistic goal for a first marathon for you to be actually something like 2:59, maybe 2:55 as an A goal, certainly not 2:4x unless you were doing very high mileage over a prolonged period of time. This still doesn't mean you could run a sub 3 hour marathon though, let alone 2:4x as you'd need to be doing the training first.
Either way, a sub 3 hour marathon is impressive to me, not necessarily super fast, but unless you are insanely talented, you've had to put some work in to get there. I'd even say anything from 3:30-3:00, though not impressive would make me think you had a vague idea about what you were doing as a runner or had some natural talent.
I'd say the cutoff should be a tiny bit higher. I personally believe 3:07 is the edge of high performance running
This post was removed.
It depends on the man's physical build. I am not sure how genetic limits for cardio, muscle fiber types, and all that are and how that should affect being impressed, or not. Generally speaking though, the smaller the person the less impressed I'd be. I would apply with a sliding scale for ages past 30 with body size and type still being the biggest factor.
I would not be impressed with a man under 150 pounds, with no obvious gait problems, running a 3-hour marathon. Slightly impressed if they were working full time and nearing 40.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.