• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Berlin Wall Between Academics and Art

Status
Not open for further replies.
#41
After looking over this whole debate, all I see is one giant mincing of words.

Of course a player has to learn their instrument to be able to play it at all, much less play it "artfully," - that's not really a question. Whether that falls under your definition of "academic" - there's the personal thing.

Personally, I don't look at Jimi or some bluesman learning on their own as particularly academic, even though by the strictest definition of the word, since they're "learning" the instrument, it is an "academic" process. It's a matter of your definitions, and how you apply them to real situations. It's like considering the letter of the Constitution versus interpretation of it. I err on the side of interpretation, since that can keep things relevant. Of course, it can also mean misinterpretation, but I don't think that in this case believing in art sometimes preceding academics is necessarily a misinterpretation, just a personal one.

I'm of the belief that art exists independent of its expression as can be perceived by others - that is to say that it exists within the mind of the artist first. In that way, I think that art can precede academics (since who's to say that infants don't have artistic thoughts?), but that it doesn't necessarily. I have a real problem believing that one ALWAYS precedes the other. It's not something I believe can be inherently true.

But hey, this is TALKbass, so we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing I suppose. Those are my thoughts, such as they are. Enjoy the rest of the conversation. :)
 
#44
believe it or not, jeff made a point i really can't argue ;)

it was over in the thread i started. he said if one believes in the performance, he feels it will sound artistic anyway if you're got a good handle on the facts. that's really tough to come up with a counter argument, i must admit.
 
#45
cire113 said:
Is it true the greatest jazz musicians of the 40s and 50s. Some never studied or even knew how to read....
Just played and used their ears?
Click to expand...

Its human nature i think that if you have fully trained anybody at anything, it only takes one who is untrained and good at the task to set a president that others belive will work for them.

In music i have people trying to justify an idea or a point because someone else done it that way.
In bass playing you could name a thousand great players who read music and have benefited from study and they will name one or two that did not or cannot...and go with the one or two scenario... because it seems easier......well that's human nature.:)
 
#46
Fergie Fulton said:
...to set a president that others belive will work for them.
Click to expand...

I thought that was what presidential elections were about.

However, if you want to have academia precede art, you'd better set a precedent...

Actually, I see plenty of examples in this thread alone of how a failure to grasp and/or execute academic principles in written language blurs the message, even if the artistic intent is ever so brilliant...
 
#48
JeffBerlin said:
I have to repeat this and ask you guys what you think. Because I think that the whole debate is now solved regarding the separation of academics and art because of my comments. I really feel that I solved the grey area in this subject. But, you guys have the final word. Tel me if I am missing anything!





In fact, everyone over here on Talkbass who espresses their feelings as creatively as they can via the written word are actually using skills that they academically learned as kids in school! Academics DID come first and every letter written and posted on Talkbass shows this!


There it is! The more profound that one expresses their passion in a subject, via the written word (art) the more that they are demonstrating the skills in a language that once was unfamiliar to them until they learned how to read and write in school (academics). This seems irrefutable to me! The proof that we were looking for is in each expressive letter written on these pages. Academics DID come first!
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Interesting premise, that academics, the facts, came before the application, the doing.

The point that academics explains something, would the something not have to be in place that is to be explained...ie the music?

Maybe later on academics was used to expand the idea, but not start it?:)
 
#49
longfinger said:
Thanks,

To help me understand more of where you're coming from, can you explain your definitions of the following?

-art school
-trade school

-education
-training

thanks!
I gotta go out, I'll check on this tomorrow tea time. ;)
Click to expand...

In art school one has to learn the academics first. So does one in trade school. The titles indicate outcome, not starting points.

In education and training, the terms seem to indicate the effort, not the outcome. Again, one has to practice a principle first that isn't known to them before they can use it, which can looely be described as art.
 
#50
bassybill said:
There's a huge difference betwen being self-taught and untaught.

A lot of academic learning is self-taught in every field.
Click to expand...

Not in most schools it isn't!. It is presented via an organized syllabus to exact an educational result. Different fields aren't a part of what I am talking about. I am talking about the separation of academics from art and that academics in practically everything comes first and art is the logical result of learning well.
 
#52
JimmyM said:
believe it or not, jeff made a point i really can't argue ;)

it was over in the thread i started. he said if one believes in the performance, he feels it will sound artistic anyway if you're got a good handle on the facts. that's really tough to come up with a counter argument, i must admit.
Click to expand...

Thank you JimmyM. Not for reason of ego, not for reason of arrogance, but I think things through from different sides. Many people don't. The idea is not to compromize the imortance of art, that is rock, blues, jazz, funk, anything at all, but to emphasize that those who wish to improve can do it with little problem. But there are a couple of things to recognize first.

1. You should ALWAYS play what you hear, but you don't necessarily have to pay a teacher to study these things (most of the greats never did this and so there isn't a good precedence for this)

2. Learning how to play is different than playing and therefore,

3. Academics is different than art.

Before one can speak French, one has to learn how. Before one can play the piano, one has to learn how. Before one can box, one has to learn how. Before one can cook, one has to learn how. There just doesn't seem to be any holes in this logic that I can see.

I'm not reporting from ego. I'm reporting from thinking about things differently than other people do. Maybe this is what some object to. But, not JimmyM. Not anymore! Thank you Jim.
 
#54
Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton
...to set a president that others belive will work for them.

Rune Bivrin said:
I thought that was what presidential elections were about.

However, if you want to have academia precede art, you'd better set a precedent...

Actually, I see plenty of examples in this thread alone of how a failure to grasp and/or execute academic principles in written language blurs the message, even if the artistic intent is ever so brilliant...

I thought that was what presidential elections were about.

However, if you want to have academia precede art, you'd better set a precedent...

Actually, I see plenty of examples in this thread alone of how a failure to grasp and/or execute academic principles in written language blurs the message, even if the artistic intent is ever so brilliant...
Click to expand...

Brilliant! This is my point exactly and you proved it perfectly! Academics is different from the artful expression, either in words or music! You nailed it way better than I did!
 
#56
JeffBerlin said:
Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton
...to set a president that others belive will work for them.



Brilliant! This is my point exactly and you proved it perfectly! Academics is different from the artful expression, either in words or music! You nailed it way better than I did!
Click to expand...

Well we all take that as a given the two are different things, but that was never the point you were making or did i miss-understand your premise, which i believe you make is the two need to be separate when being taught?:)
 
#59
raymondl3 said:
JeffBerlin said:
1. You should ALWAYS play what you hear, but you don't necessarily have to pay a teacher to study these things (most of the greats never did this and so there isn't a good precedence for this)
QUOTE]

Jeff, are you saying most of the greats didn't study (privately or at a college)? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Many of them anyway! Many great musicians never studied formally. And this is the downfall of many players who try and follow suit. Self taught musical stars were guided, motivated, and determined to play.

Here are two quotes to ponder!
1. "A self-taught man usually has a poor teacher and a worse student!" - Henny Youngman

2. "If you defend yourself in court, you have a fool for a client!" Anon
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back