Jeff Berlin Discussing Music Ed

[gai113]

I am willing to bet some of the greatest muscians EVER had no formal musical education or even know what theory was.....


But yeah i guess it doesnt hurt..

Just like a metronome .... Ofcourse i would not want to become dependent on a metronome but if you dont know what SOLID time is how will you ever learn?
I do not see how a metronome could hurt your playing....

Basically my point is there are many ways to reach the same destination....

It would be close minded to think otherwise...

But ofcourse im always right and your always wrong

 

[engedi1]

I am willing to bet some of the greatest musicians EVER had no formal musical education or even know what theory was.....

Who are these people? I see and hear this kind of comment all the time, and I think that it is a myth. I think some musicians say "I'm purely self-taught" as a marketing ploy to puff up their image. Then, when you dig into their life, they studied clarinet from 5-10th grade or something like that. I am not saying that most people have a degree from a music school, but many of them (Jaco, Jamerson, Flea) played in their high school music programs if you consider that "formal" training. Also, many great players like Charlie Parker studied harmony on their own, but that is still "studying" music.

I offer a challenge to anybody to submit a list of skilled musicians who never studied music at all. I am not sure how to filter this without engaging the rage of others, but I would suggest that we need not submit names from genre's where you don't need knowledge of harmony, like punk, most rock and pop, and blue etc. (I love punk, and rock and pop, and especially blues FYI, just not the purpose here!) OBVIOUSLY, you can be self-taught and play in the Sex Pistols, that is purely about style, attitude and pose and to some extent, songwriting ability.
There are many great blues players who would say they can't read music. We ALL KNOW THAT ALREADY!
Let's have it, your list of amazing, prolific, versatile musicians, who never studied music, can't read a note, and sprang forth from the head of Beethoven like Athena from Zeus.

 

[jarrhead]

Who are these people? I see and hear this kind of comment all the time, and I think that it is a myth. I think some musicians say "I'm purely self-taught" as a marketing ploy to puff up their image. Then, when you dig into their life, they studied clarinet from 5-10th grade or something like that. I am not saying that most people have a degree from a music school, but many of them (Jaco, Jamerson, Flea) played in their high school music programs if you consider that "formal" training. Also, many great players like Charlie Parker studied harmony on their own, but that is still "studying" music.

I offer a challenge to anybody to submit a list of skilled musicians who never studied music at all. I am not sure how to filter this without engaging the rage of others, but I would suggest that we need not submit names from genre's where you don't need knowledge of harmony, like punk, most rock and pop, and blue etc. (I love punk, and rock and pop, and especially blues FYI, just not the purpose here!) OBVIOUSLY, you can be self-taught and play in the Sex Pistols, that is purely about style, attitude and pose and to some extent, songwriting ability.
There are many great blues players who would say they can't read music. We ALL KNOW THAT ALREADY!
Let's have it, your list of amazing, prolific, versatile musicians, who never studied music, can't read a note, and sprang forth from the head of Beethoven like Athena from Zeus.

Yanni can read, and knows all his crap WELL. But, he's self taught, isnt he?

I am willing to bet some of the greatest muscians EVER had no formal musical education or even know what theory was.....

Keyword there.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I offer a challenge to anybody to submit a list of skilled musicians who never studied music at all.

LOL what a loaded question, its implication means that no-one can be named. If by imitation of a player, (as blues players done) he learns, he has studied that player and there playing so he has studied music. LOL

Go to other cultures you will find highly skilled musicians with no formal training, but of course you mean famous, not skilled.

 

[engedi1]

LOL what a loaded question, its implication means that no-one can be named. If by imitation of a player, (as blues players done) he learns, he has studied that player and there playing so he has studied music. LOL

Go to other cultures you will find highly skilled musicians with no formal training, but of course you mean famous, not skilled.

Ok, it was a bit of a loaded question, because the answer is so obvious.
But I really disagree with your last point. Indian classical music, is as, or more intense, then studying classical music here. African tribal drummer study for years and years before they are allowed to play for anybody.Their music is part of their religion and they take it very seriously. Japanese and Chinese musicians are expected to master their traditions with utmost perfection, so as to not dishonor the tradition-similar to studying martial arts. I think world musicians in other cultures are probably more respectful of music and study it with greater intensity. Of course what they study and the method are relevant to their cultures but they are definitely studying!
Only in the west, can one achieve great fame in music, and be completely ignorant. It is an attitude thing mostly and a cultural phenom. There is no doubt there are many many famous, rich players who can't read a note, and don't know what note is on the 6th fret of the E string.
Do we consider these great musicians?
The post I was objecting too, was the myth that "some of the greatest players ever" had no study.
I want proof of this...

 

[jarrhead]

No, but some great players have had no formal training.

If you've looked up how to run arpeggios on a tab and taken it apart. you've studied music LOL

Good people have had no training, but everybody has studied..

 

[Fergie Fulton]

The post I was objecting too, was the myth that "some of the greatest players ever" had no study.
I want proof of this...

Guthrie Govan, all done by ear and self study and of course technique.
Now those that argue technique is not music, but a seperate thing, i would imagine will not be surprised that some of the greatest players that can be named will be "the greatest" because of their technique, not nesessarly their music. But then i suppose the point will be put they are "exceptions to the rule", but if we are to believe that technique and music are to be treated separately, then the overlap of the two might negate that argument as put by Jeff.

So search Guthrie out and decide great player, great technique, great music or just a great musician?

 

[Roy Vogt]

Jaco was "formally self-taught". If you read his biography ( I recommend the second edition) it goes into his apprenticeship with highly trained musicians on Wayne Cochran's gig like Charlie Brent and Jazz Masters like Ira Sullivan.
If you read any bios of Parker (Bird Lives), Coltrane (Chasin' the Trane) or even Jimi Hendrix you'll see this same apprenticeship. Jeff even commented on Billy Sheehan's training (decidedly informal) at one time.
Finally, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others of their era were not Conservatory trained (those didn't exist yet). However, that doesn't mean they didn't study and learn music through the vigorous private teaching and apprenticeships of the time.
Most people don't learn in a vacuum. There's a good private teacher at least in the background.

 

[Billnc]

Jaco was "formally self-taught". If you read his biography ( I recommend the second edition) it goes into his apprenticeship with highly trained musicians on Wayne Cochran's gig like Charlie Brent and Jazz Masters like Ira Sullivan.
If you read any bios of Parker (Bird Lives), Coltrane (Chasin' the Trane) or even Jimi Hendrix you'll see this same apprenticeship. Jeff even commented on Billy Sheehan's training (decidedly informal) at one time.
Finally, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others of their era were not Conservatory trained (those didn't exist yet). However, that doesn't mean they didn't study and learn music through the vigorous private teaching and apprenticeships of the time.
Most people don't learn in a vacuum. There's a good private teacher at least in the background.

And this remains one of the few occupations where one may learn through apprenticeship.

 

[tZer]

And this remains one of the few occupations where one may learn through apprenticeship.

That's one school of thought, so to speak. I'd argue that while it may not be the most efficient way to go about learning and becoming fluent in any particular area, the skills and knowledge to become an expert in just about any occupation or vocation can be learned - even mastered - without acquiring a formal education.

I'd also argue that you cannot master anything without study and practice (in or outside of a formal education). It certainly requires a huge amount of self discipline and drive to do so outside the traditional school setting, but believing that a formal education (going to school, studying under a teacher) is a requirement for fluency in any field, while probably the one of the best ways to go about it, is definitely not the only way.

 

[Billnc]

Hey Jeff!
I'm woodshedding, and going over some things 'your style'.
I'm investigating the V chord in minor. I'd previously been taught either, diminished whole tone, Diminished, or Phrygian major over this chord. I started taking the various chords to the seventh degree (i.e. 7+5 7-5 and some of the substitute triads to get the altered 9ths in) and worked through the leading tones, upper approaches and enclosure of chord tone (upper scale tone to leading tone to chord tone) etc. Much like the chord studies for bass (I did the saxaphone version on guitar many years ago)

I understand your point! Lots of material without scales. Thank you so much for your insights.

 

[engedi1]

I think that the points of studying music that Jeff has layed out, must be learned at some point. One doesn't need to go to music school to learn these things but one must learn them. I don't think Jeff is saying that everyone needs to attend music school. What he is saying, is that everyone will improve tremendously if they study music, not just licks.
Now, in the case of someone like Guthrie Govan, who is a shred monster!, don't you think he could only improve by studying music? Those in his genre like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, are very accomplished musicians, as well as two-handed tapping hair rock gods.
Clearly, there are many out there who practice 8 hours a day, transcribe the solos and parts of musicians they love, and have unbelievable natural God-provided talent.
I certainly don't make the point that one needs to go to conservatory to learn music. My point was that all the greats that Roy mentioned arker, Trane, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and Jaco all studied music intensely. Beethoven was so intimate with music, he was able to innovate never-heard before harmonies and know what they would sound like, even when he was deaf or mostly deaf.
I have read Bio's on all of the classical greats fore mentioned, and they all had one thing in common: a serious musician for a dad, who made them learn piano and or violin, from the age of 3. Beethoven actually studied with Mozart at one point, and Mozart studied with Haydn, who he was on intimate enough terms with to call "Papa Haydn"
The jazzers that Roy mentioned certainly studied music, although not in a formal setting. I have heard that Coltrane and friends got a lot of their inspiration from studying the extended harmonics of Ravel and Debussy. So one can see they were definitely learning music.

 

[richmoore1998]

I think this shows us all a great example of not only musical maturity but maturity as a person. Thanks for the insight and for the many years of inspiration to us all... The single enemy that I seem to face on a regular basis is complacency and this is certainly inspiring...

Cheers....

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I think that the points of studying music that Jeff has layed out, must be learned at some point. One doesn't need to go to music school to learn these things but one must learn them. I don't think Jeff is saying that everyone needs to attend music school. What he is saying, is that everyone will improve tremendously if they study music, not just licks.

Again you state the obvious, Jeff makes it clear that music is the central core of any instruction, as it should be, and for those that seek it out there are plenty of places to study, again this is not a problem.
Anyone who studies their subject to another level will benifit, again the obvious is stated.
But there comes a time where you must link technique and music in a way that relates to an audience, unless you never intend to perform or record. If you write music to impress other like minded musicians you will end up in a vaccum of musical expression if not carefull.
If your audience do not study music to the degree of the composer they will never appreciate it on a musical platform he sees it in, but on a basic level of "it sounds good so i like it".

Musical education is about music not academia, academia is just part of music and is useless without application.
Music existent before academia...academia exisits to explain music.

 

[NickyBass]

It doesn't matter which famous bassists have studied 'formally' and which haven't. I want to improve as a musician, and that means constant work...I can make lists to justify my own personal moments of lazyness, but that isn't going to light a fire under me to be motivated to learn. There are alot of great musicians who've never opened a theory book. That doesn't make it ok for ME not to open one.

If we want to improve, we have to work hard, period. I'm happy if someone is where they want to be musically....but I'm not. So instead of dismissing learning theory because Paul McCartney never needed it, I will continue to work on my musicianship. I never understand why someone would criticize someone else for seeking knowledge.

 

[Commreman]

It doesn't matter which famous bassists have studied 'formally' and which haven't. I want to improve as a musician, and that means constant work...I can make lists to justify my own personal moments of lazyness, but that isn't going to light a fire under me to be motivated to learn. There are alot of great musicians who've never opened a theory book. That doesn't make it ok for ME not to open one.

If we want to improve, we have to work hard, period. I'm happy if someone is where they want to be musically....but I'm not. So instead of dismissing learning theory because Paul McCartney never needed it, I will continue to work on my musicianship. I never understand why someone would criticize someone else for seeking knowledge.

+1,000,000. I work each day to improve all aspects of my playing, and my understanding of what this thing we call music is. The more I learn, the more I realize that there is so much more to learn. Being able to absorb all of the great information being put forth here by players from a much higher caliber from where I am now is a real blessing.

 

[Roy Vogt]

It doesn't matter which famous bassists have studied 'formally' and which haven't. I want to improve as a musician, and that means constant work...I can make lists to justify my own personal moments of lazyness, but that isn't going to light a fire under me to be motivated to learn. There are alot of great musicians who've never opened a theory book. That doesn't make it ok for ME not to open one.

If we want to improve, we have to work hard, period. I'm happy if someone is where they want to be musically....but I'm not. So instead of dismissing learning theory because Paul McCartney never needed it, I will continue to work on my musicianship. I never understand why someone would criticize someone else for seeking knowledge.

Paul had at his disposal a very trained musician in the persona of his producer, Sir George Martin, so he and the other Beatles had their own apprenticeship experience. Of course, they were Rock Stars when they did it

 

[Roy Vogt]

Hey Jeff!
I'm woodshedding, and going over some things 'your style'.
I'm investigating the V chord in minor. I'd previously been taught either, diminished whole tone, Diminished, or Phrygian major over this chord. I started taking the various chords to the seventh degree (i.e. 7+5 7-5 and some of the substitute triads to get the altered 9ths in) and worked through the leading tones, upper approaches and enclosure of chord tone (upper scale tone to leading tone to chord tone) etc. Much like the chord studies for bass (I did the saxaphone version on guitar many years ago)

I understand your point! Lots of material without scales. Thank you so much for your insights.

It's cool how all of that works, isn't it?

 

[tZer]

...I never understand why someone would criticize someone else for seeking knowledge.

First off, +1 to all the stuff that lead of to the phrase I am quoting.

As for criticizing someone for seeking knowledge - I don't think that's really the proper frame. To me it's when people seem to think that learning theory will make them more musical people will chime in and say things like "you don't NEED theory to be musical". While it will definitely put more tools in their kits as musicians, like a metronome, it won't make them more musical. So thinking they "need to learn theory" to become more musical is a little misguided. To become more musically aware?

Some people seem to feel that the reason they cannot write appealing songs is because they don't "understand modes" and if only they'd learn the modes, they'd suddenly become more musical in their writing.

While learning more about anything is never a bad thing, thinking it's what's going to turn you into a musician is also somewhat wrong-headed. As many have stated, there are plenty of examples of musicians who write incredible music and who don't "use theory" to do so. That's not to say they don't end up creating songs that can be reverse engineered to identify all the 'theoretically correct' content therein, but they didn't sit down and say, "I'm going to compose a song using the Dorian mode and the cycle of 4ths" - they may have just started playing something that was appealing while being rather oblivious to exactly what it was in relation to the academic side of music.

That doesn't stop them from being musical just like knowing the academic side of things isn't necessarily going to make them more musical.

 

[JeffBerlin]

I am willing to bet some of the greatest muscians EVER had no formal musical education or even know what theory was.....


But yeah i guess it doesnt hurt..

Just like a metronome .... Ofcourse i would not want to become dependent on a metronome but if you dont know what SOLID time is how will you ever learn?
I do not see how a metronome could hurt your playing....

Basically my point is there are many ways to reach the same destination....

It would be close minded to think otherwise...

But ofcourse im always right and your always wrong

This is true that some of the greatest musicians in the world didn't go the route of having a formal education. But, since some pay teachers to learn from, then you had better get what ytou are investing in getting. Plus, relying on yourself to te3ach yourself a subject that you really don't know much about brings up that old legal axiom, "If you defend yourself in court, then you wll have a fool for a client!"