A well-reasoned response... and where I differ is really only by a slight difference in spirit… and even there, only by a degree.
If one could magically learn and yet remain unaffected it would not matter what we were taught (or teach ourselves). It would all just be resource for an otherwise free-agent musician. My experiences, and the stories of others, however, seem to say otherwise. At least to an extent I think, “we are what we eat” musically.
It is no doubt 'academic' to speak of such a nuance-d subject in this general way, but the essence of it is a practical matter as far as how much homage is paid to training, and how much is left to a more open exploration of sound.
In at least two of the cases you have noted (Miles and Picasso) they quite famously went through great effort to “unlearn” and defy the schools they came from (especially in the case of Picasso) and even more importantly to the subject, neither pursued their art by way of a formal education.
They were for the most part self-educated by choice. It would, in fact, not be entirely in error to say both learned by way of the “folk” approach of imitating forerunners and contemporaries. Miles did go to Julliard for a short time but he chose not to conform to it and instead worked-out Charley Parker riffs on his own.
Then with Picasso, as I remember the story, he won an art show very early on but quit the school and rejected the classical approach entirely before he really even got started.
I’m a big believer in education too, but I’m pretty sure everything… including the use of scales… has an element of advance and its share of drawbacks as well… for any talent level.
There was a charmed time of only half practiced and learned Jazz coming out of Africa in the 70’s and 80’s (and there have been countless other examples) where the kind of shaman-musician meets the modern world, that I just don’t think can be improved on with any amount of learning. In fact quite to the contrary.
I’m not saying that one should forgo learning the fundamentals. I’m just saying the learned approach isn’t the cure all. Nor is the unlearned approach all bad, and there is a generic cookie cutter downside to the use of scales, formulas, templates and, now of course, automation.
BB King never was the guy to me (I was more Hooker or Waters and such when it comes to the blues) but his line was: “I don’t know nothin’ bout no chords… I just play the guitar”. And that kind of gets at it a bit.
Even a more obvious example (probably over used) would be the Beatles. When they were totally outside of “the school” and playing almost entirely “Faux-Naïf”, their creativity was such that many still draw from them as a model, not only for pop but more serious works as well, and their earlier things are still listened to and admired by the likes of Isaac Pearlman and Edgar Meyer (a good example for your point of people being able to be in both camps… but an exception to the rule in many different respects).
Of course the well known retort to this example would be that they had George Martin’s more learned contribution… but hey… he also worked with “America” and well… and other than that… have you heard the stuff he produced before the Beatles? The point is: You can’t be the Beatles with a music education. Even the Beatles wouldn’t have been the Beatles if they’d had a music education. A music education will educate the Beatle-ish-ness right out of ya’.
Another, well sighted, example would be how there were all of those very well studied Orators putting people to sleep when Lincoln came out with the Gettysburg Address. It was simple, direct (scoffed at by the professionals) and yet it cut right through, and many would argue it changed the whole spirit of public speaking, as well as having a profound effect on the likes of Walt Whitman (another not-formally-educated artist of note).
Another example from pop culture (in a question): Would Bob Dylan have written better lyrics if he’d had a “Language Arts” degree? Or might he have been squelched in his imagination with all of the rules of diction and proper usage?
Then on another track, one misconception that has come out of the classical approach in general is the idea that you can learn your way to originality and creative moments. The truth is that classical music has always relied very heavily on folk music and other themes from outside of the school for inspiration.
Classical music was born out of folk music… and not the other way around.
It could be called the formalization of spontaneous events.
There is often something kind of magical about the right amount of learning… not too little, not too much.
I still tend to think that artists in general (and maybe especially musicians) are part Oracle/Shaman, Soothsayer, Muse… and too much thinking and learning tends to bring you out of the trance.
We cannot learn and think our way into great art anymore than we can think ourselves into falling in love.
You don’t actually make the baby… you have sex… and then magically… the baby is born.
Still... it's just a caveat... In the main I'd say, you're better off practicing scales.
I agree with every bit of that. Except the idea you can't be the Beatles with an education. It's a fine point, but still, you could easily be a "different" Beatles. The point isn't the education as much as the ability to take what you know (whether a little or a lot) and find some new means of expression no one has tried. Ultimately, it's how alert you are at a time when your particular smarts are the final piece of a puzzle. In this business, we're all just pulling the handle until we hit, or our pile of quarters is gone.
Everything you say is intersting, people. But the myth of uneducated artist must be re-dimensioned, avoiding overextimation.
May you expect a deep and sophisticated Poem, by two babies missing alone on a desert island before learning how to talk (if they survive of course )?
They will never create a complete language, no more than a basic vocal-gesture communication. They will be perhaps sensible and expressive, but no litterature will be developed by unexperienced and uneducated men.
Centuries of cultural layering are not useless in art. We all are the result of that, and the study will make your soul rich and complex. A rich and complex soul is not enough to make art. But if you will be an artist, your rich and complex soul will produce rich and complex masterpieces (pop music frequently is'nt...)
A spontaneous sweet nice ballad, or an energetic Rock make me feel good and are a simple and rewarding listening experience.
But I'm happy that a Symphony or a Fugue exist, with the deep intellectual and emotional stimulation. No self-made spontaneous popstar can do it without long study. (neither Beatles or Dylan... )
It's a matter of personal taste, and it's my one.
The nice thing is that nobody is forced to agree, and music go on alone, in the kaleidoscopic variety of styles, one for eachone!
Actually I’m 90+ percent in agreement with both you and Bruce. In fact, the lack of at least a rudimentary understanding of Reasoning that I have recently seen in students with far too targeted of an education (in other regards than music) only makes me more convinced that education is not only necessary, but at least some form of a classical education (with at least some understanding of the ancient Greeks) is greatly needed. If not formally, then as self improvement.
The argument that I proffer here is well intended, and at the very least stirs inquiry, but it also creates a bit of a false choice.
1. The obvious flaw in the question and the logic is… first, and most basic (albeit common) is to set a question in an “all or nothing” frame. As if there were no numbers between 1 and 1000. As if there was a real life existence of all good or all bad. So then, we are left to decide between two nonexistent ideals.
It is of course a construct of logic that simplifies the question in order to make it less unwieldy, but it automatically sets up a false choice. There simply is no real ‘ideal’ state at either end. So the truth will always be a far less dramatic shade in the middle.
The end result is that both possible positions are mistaken… or at the least, less true than a combination of the two.
There is no such thing as “no” education. It is a matter of which method is used at which time… and to what end?
And in music, there is no such thing as the absence of patterns, instead, the question is: What patterns should we learn… when? And then to make it more global and philosophical: To what extent should music be an intellectual/learned pursuit, as apposed to a less cognitive, experiential/intuitive pursuit. What is a more preferable balance? What method produces the most agreeable, sustainable and valuable music?
Granted, as well, it is not up to one person to determine this for others, but we all share our leanings and formulate our own approach according to shared ideas.
The goal of course is to be the best possible composer/musician.
2. We only have the examples we have, to tell us what has been successful and not successful. What music do we like… and how did they go about composing it?
I suppose I might suffice my idea of music by simply saying: My idealized vision of music is not entirely a continuation of the classical approach, nor is it to leave all that behind. Instead the ideal for me would be to find the best possible combination of both worlds somewhere in the middle. That leads to something new.
Given unlimited time and resources perhaps we could just do it all. But one it seems comes at the expense of the other and I find it is necessary to be selective as far as: How much effort toward what when?
Having said that I too have a deep appreciation of early and baroque music and I greatly admire your education in it.
What you say Jibrish is right, IMO, not only about music, but about life indeed.
And I may add, that probably, disregarding our academic or our pedestrian discussions, it happens.
No black and no white, just a wonderfull set of grey tunes, all in the middle, with a free mixture of "how much black and how much white".
(...no better methaphoric sample: in the Jazz or Latin music it is also true from an etnic-cultural point of view! )
P.S. when somebody ask me what's my favorite music, my answer is not "ancient or baroque", even if I frequently select ancient or baroque music buying a record or listening radio. (but I like playing pop on my piano...)
Reply With Quote
Re: Scales.
)? 
)
Re: Scales.
Bookmarks