Well said. Agree 100%. I've never really known that most of the really good self-taught players I've worked with were self-taught until quite a while after we began working together, for reasons stated above. Conflicts don't really come up because everyone pretty much knows what they need to do. But I don't think any of those people got there without a significant amount of woodshedding. You can have a gifted ear but if no one ever puts an instrument in your hands, it won't amount to much.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Self Taught: Yea or Nay
- Thread starter Xjenrbcjsmsbfjw
- Start date
-
- Tags
- self taught
I'm kind of a fan of alternating between formal instruction and teaching yourself. I started with formal as a kid with piano and saxophone, then taught myself guitar and bass guitar, then formal double bass (most intensely), and now years later I'm back to teaching myself a new technique for bass guitar.
It's a lifelong journey, there is a lot of value in both ways of doing things, and they can complement each other.
It's a lifelong journey, there is a lot of value in both ways of doing things, and they can complement each other.
I'm going to go with "expectation does not go up (and statistically probably goes down)".
BECAUSE: Everybody is self-taught. Even if you have lessons, you have to go home and apply those lessons. The "normal" method is "lesson taught first and then self-taught after."
So when somebody says "I'm self-taught" what they mean is "I haven't had formal lessons." They're saying "I'm missing a part of the normal musical education."
Now, of course they could make up for that lack of theory or technique or concepts with self-study and get back to "normal" or beyond. But there's a decent chance that they didn't, and are still missing part of a complete musical background.
BECAUSE: Everybody is self-taught. Even if you have lessons, you have to go home and apply those lessons. The "normal" method is "lesson taught first and then self-taught after."
So when somebody says "I'm self-taught" what they mean is "I haven't had formal lessons." They're saying "I'm missing a part of the normal musical education."
Now, of course they could make up for that lack of theory or technique or concepts with self-study and get back to "normal" or beyond. But there's a decent chance that they didn't, and are still missing part of a complete musical background.
Agreed. I too do not vote on vague, loaded, questions.
The lamest and biggest untruth is musicians who don't want to learn theory and/or take lessons because "it takes away their creativity or passion".
I think we all in some ways come from the camp of self-taught as most of us probably have played more than just "lesson" material.
I think we all in some ways come from the camp of self-taught as most of us probably have played more than just "lesson" material.
The obvious advantage of formal training is that you get the advantage of building on your teacher's knowledge, and the accumulated knowledge of generations of teachers. It's effectively a short cut to getting to a good solution to almost every problem. Your playing has the potential to progress very quickly with a formal regiment of study.
The advantage of self taught is that you focus on your own particular artistic areas of interest, and don't waste time and effort learning techniques you are not going to apply. There is also more opportunity to be creative and come up with something completely new and original.
Again, I think the answer is both, or at least devote some serious energy to both approaches at some point in your life.
The advantage of self taught is that you focus on your own particular artistic areas of interest, and don't waste time and effort learning techniques you are not going to apply. There is also more opportunity to be creative and come up with something completely new and original.
Again, I think the answer is both, or at least devote some serious energy to both approaches at some point in your life.
Vague, absolutely. I've been super clear on here that I think I asked the question poorly, but loaded? I'm going well out of my way not to say or even imply what my thoughts are on this. I'm not sure a question can be loaded if the asker just wants your honest thoughts on something without any desire to even put their two cents in, much less argue. To me, that is the opposite of loaded.
So I started off at 17 as a self-taught bass player. I used Hal Leonard books to learn the basics, and then got in with my high school jazz band and got my a** kicked, but after two years, I improved a lot.
So for me, when I hear "self-taught" my gut reaction is "oh great, a hack." But that is just the initial reaction based on my own experience.
So for me, when I hear "self-taught" my gut reaction is "oh great, a hack." But that is just the initial reaction based on my own experience.
good luck trying to convince yourself that something is true...my gut tells me you will be successful!
Not sure I get what you're saying. What am I trying to convince myself of? I'm honestly just asking a question and going out of my way not to share my experience on it so that I can hear what other people think without my interference. I don't personally think the question I was trying to ask was even arguable. What you feel in your gut is what you feel in your gut. How on earth would I use that to convince myself or anyone else that something was true?
who isn't self-taught? just because i have formal training/lessons/education doesn't mean i didn't learn skills on my own or from the 'street'.
if you're not learning on your own (self-taught!) = who's your daddy?
if you're not learning on your own (self-taught!) = who's your daddy?
Self taught. But I almost always played with others that were self taught as well. I never thought of myself as a true musician, just a person that loved to play and write tunes. For the most part I am truly appreciative of schooled and technically advanced players but I’ve heard some home-grown players that knock me out as well.
we're stating our views but we're attending to your issue. so tell me/us: where does your gut (filtered through your biases, i.e., what you've already learned to believe) take you? asking for a friend.
If it's for a bandmate/collaborator, I will always prefer trained musicians. If it's for a show, I don't care. The former because I prefer having a common spoken and written language with my coworkers. The latter because I know that self-taught people, especially in the pop world, are often quite innovative due to the need to work around their limitations.
There is also a method to learning new things in music. Like, you can learn how to get better at learning. A good teacher can teach you how to listen and practice in a way that optimizes your time. That's probably a way bigger deal, over the long term, than even the material a d techniques you learn in lessons.
Self-taught with no other musical experience or education is someone who I will not hire. If for no other reason that I can't talk to them about music with any common terms or referents.
I was completely self-taught on bass. That in no way negates the years of hard-assed formal classical education I got for violin, nor the far more mellow schooling I received for drums and trombone. I got taught. Just not bass.
I was completely self-taught on bass. That in no way negates the years of hard-assed formal classical education I got for violin, nor the far more mellow schooling I received for drums and trombone. I got taught. Just not bass.
