That's cause (IMO) its not such a simple question.....
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.
Was Jaco completely self taught?
- Thread starter David A. Davis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jaco pastorius
- Status
That's cause (IMO) its not such a simple question.....
- Jun 6, 2012
- 4,837
- 6,859
- Disclosures
- I don't wait 30 minutes after eating, to go swimming.
...... wonderful, colorful, thought provoking, sometimes funny conversation ensues. I LOVE that about TalkBass
I believe Jaco was so highly motivated that he taught himself by observing others and used that knowledge to get where he desired.
...... wonderful, colorful, thought provoking, sometimes funny conversation ensues. I LOVE that about TalkBass
And some BATTLE ROYALES too!
Not so sure I can agree with this - I'd say the opposite is true. How could one learn to think outside the box until he or she knows what the box is, where it is, or how big it is? Or if the box even exists altogether?
Hi J -bassomatic ...thanx for your answer 
artists???
f+A+o and f is art. (well sometimes
) where would you put Van Gogh?
as to music where would you put Mozart? (even Mozart just had piano lessons and no studies)
both of them died poor (certainly not because they had no skills
)
greetings
sometimes Wise sometimes not so Wise(b)ass
...thanx for your answer artists???
BTW whenever I see 'Museum of Art' I mentally move the space between the 'f' and the 'A' and move it to be between the 'o' and the 'f'. I just can't help it.
f+A+o and f is art. (well sometimes
) where would you put Van Gogh?as to music where would you put Mozart? (even Mozart just had piano lessons and no studies)
both of them died poor (certainly not because they had no skills
)greetings
sometimes Wise sometimes not so Wise(b)ass
I've got a few words for those who insist music ed stifles creativity, just two actually. There are seven letters; three of them are 'f's. : D
Side related: I started music playing keys and visited the Keyboard Magazine Forum for a while.
The general consensus over there: you NEED a teacher, you only learn bad habits and cannot learn how to play properly without one.
So I asked them: who taught your teacher? Who taught him? The one before him and the one before and...
It started out with people pioneering a new instrument, teachers telling them how to use it.
That being said, some people might benefit from it, others don't need it.
I haven't ever seen this, but I wouldn't say it's not possible. No one ever said that an encyclopedic knowledge guarantees creativity. However, in my experience, it's far more common to find people with no knowledge (or very limited knowledge) of their craft creating mediocre work. Ignorance doesn't imbue anyone with special creative powers.
So, it were the flintstones after all
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
A delightful response, almost Wildean in its elegance and incisiveness.
If all you ever received was a simple and concise answer to your question here, most of us would choose to spend our lunch hour elsewhere. It's 60% entertainment, 40% educational, which is how it should be or no one would be here to be educated.
I think it's false to make too much of a difference between someone like Jaco who lacked formal scholastic training in theory, and someone who did, when at the end result they both had the knowledge. Wooten talks about music as a language, and if we can accept that observation as essentially true, then those folks who believe that learning music theory in a pedagogical way actually can change the way they think about music are probably right.
If you are interested, take the time to read this article Lera Boroditsky, a professor at UCSD who has mad credentials in cognitive science and psychology HOW DOES OUR LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK? | Edge.org . If you don't have time or inclination, that's cool...essentially she says that when you learn a language, it affects the way you think in tangible, observable ways. What this means in the context of this particular conversation, is that learning the formal language of music can affect the way you think about music. Whether this might or might not stifle creativity is open for debate.
However, regardless of your own level of formal musical education, think of how dissonant music from other cultural traditions sounds to you at first listening. In fact, I'm betraying my own musical training trying to explain my own point, in relating say, Indian music to Western music in terms of consonance and dissonance. Do you see what I mean? With a formal, pedagogical musical tradition stretching back to Boethius, it isn't until the 20th century that Western music even has a way to express (microtonal) music from outside the culture. I'd say that it looks like knowing that "language of music" could be considered stifling to creativity.
While I think we could all find common ground in that having more education about music (regardless of its source) is essentially a superior condition to having less education, that's not the same as saying that pedagogical training cannot or does not stifle creativity. Those who argue that one must, "learn all the rules, to break free of the rules", are also somewhat missing the mark. I would argue that those who are "learning all the rules..." are at the same time truly and deeply mastering their instrument(s). By gaining powerful and deep skill with their instrument, they are able to explore possibilities that others might not, but does this mean they are more creative than they would be if they never learned the rules in the first place? Think free jazz...players trying to escape boundaries on creativity. Where did the initial boundaries come from?
Jaco seemed like the kind of musician who really appreciated the "melting pot" he came up in. He expressed that he benefited tremendously from being exposed to all sorts of pop, jazz, afro-cuban, classical...etc. It seems to me, that to truly keep from stifling creativity in any way, one must not limit oneself to learning one language of music, but to learn all languages of music. Focusing on Western music and theory will definitely cause one to spend deep time with their instrument, and give them the opportunity to master the same. That kind of discipline will likely result in intense creativity within that context. However that context will necessarily affect the way one thinks, and affect the nature of their creativity.
Thanks to the OP for spawning this discussion!
If you are interested, take the time to read this article Lera Boroditsky, a professor at UCSD who has mad credentials in cognitive science and psychology HOW DOES OUR LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK? | Edge.org . If you don't have time or inclination, that's cool...essentially she says that when you learn a language, it affects the way you think in tangible, observable ways. What this means in the context of this particular conversation, is that learning the formal language of music can affect the way you think about music. Whether this might or might not stifle creativity is open for debate.
However, regardless of your own level of formal musical education, think of how dissonant music from other cultural traditions sounds to you at first listening. In fact, I'm betraying my own musical training trying to explain my own point, in relating say, Indian music to Western music in terms of consonance and dissonance. Do you see what I mean? With a formal, pedagogical musical tradition stretching back to Boethius, it isn't until the 20th century that Western music even has a way to express (microtonal) music from outside the culture. I'd say that it looks like knowing that "language of music" could be considered stifling to creativity.
While I think we could all find common ground in that having more education about music (regardless of its source) is essentially a superior condition to having less education, that's not the same as saying that pedagogical training cannot or does not stifle creativity. Those who argue that one must, "learn all the rules, to break free of the rules", are also somewhat missing the mark. I would argue that those who are "learning all the rules..." are at the same time truly and deeply mastering their instrument(s). By gaining powerful and deep skill with their instrument, they are able to explore possibilities that others might not, but does this mean they are more creative than they would be if they never learned the rules in the first place? Think free jazz...players trying to escape boundaries on creativity. Where did the initial boundaries come from?
Jaco seemed like the kind of musician who really appreciated the "melting pot" he came up in. He expressed that he benefited tremendously from being exposed to all sorts of pop, jazz, afro-cuban, classical...etc. It seems to me, that to truly keep from stifling creativity in any way, one must not limit oneself to learning one language of music, but to learn all languages of music. Focusing on Western music and theory will definitely cause one to spend deep time with their instrument, and give them the opportunity to master the same. That kind of discipline will likely result in intense creativity within that context. However that context will necessarily affect the way one thinks, and affect the nature of their creativity.
Thanks to the OP for spawning this discussion!
Not to be a fence rider, but I firmly believe both to be the case. Musical education can hinder if it becomes a crutch, a formalistic façade built to "avoid the void" and fail to come to terms with one's own creative self. But I wouldn't really blame the education in that case, I would blame the player. Similarly, people can drone on about how "technique" and "theory" get in the way of creativity, but maybe THEY are scared of learning and the work it takes, and the additional work it takes to break out of the box once they understand it. I took a lot of "formal" piano instruction when I was younger, but I never sat down and learned the bass to the music I really loved (minutemen, bad brains, other 80's indie/punk stuff) - I would have said at the time I didn't want to "copy" it, but I was really just scared it was too difficult. When you construct your own strange unique style, it can be very freeing, but without the context, it becomes its own straightjacket eventually.
The one person I had in mind for that was under the impression that the more knowledge he had the better he would become. Maybe he didn't have it in him but he was quite good technique wise but the final result was meh. He just couldn't let go of the 'mastery will make me' part. I don't want give any more than that in a forum.
EDIT: To relate it to bass playing since a*t is forbidden it would be like mastering scales, playing them forward and back ward and inside out, plus knowing every brand of string by just glancing at it and the qualities of every bass guitar made but the playing would just be scales, played very well but with no point but to be the 'right notes'.
Last edited:
When I played guitar in a trio, the bass player worked his @$$ off, taking lessons, practicing, writing charts (although I wouldn't call him a master of his craft), but he didn't have whatever that spark is that makes you a musician. I can definitely agree with you that there are some that won't be great no matter how hard they try.
I'm not too interested in the "who is capable of creating more artistic music, the schooled player or the self taught player?" debate.
Setting aside for a moment the artistic merits of the finished product, and looking only at the financial bottom line, I can say without hesitation that hiring educated musicians will generally save time and money in the recording studio. And it's not just knowing how to read notation. It's also about knowing theory, calling things by their proper names, understanding what the other musicians are doing on their instruments, being knowledgeable about topics like composition, arranging, ear training, etc. The educated musician will generally be quicker at communicating and understanding musical ideas in the pressure cooker of the studio.
I will concede there are "outsider" musicians who, without any musical training, can record amazing albums of their original and innovative music. But can they do it consistently, week after week, ahead of schedule and under budget?
Any home chef can cook a delicious meal for a special occasion, or bake a birthday cake. But a trained chef who's been to culinary school can repeat it hundreds and thousands of times, consistently and profitably, working with a diverse team of people, in a stressful environment, sometimes with sub-optimal equipment or ingredients.
Setting aside for a moment the artistic merits of the finished product, and looking only at the financial bottom line, I can say without hesitation that hiring educated musicians will generally save time and money in the recording studio. And it's not just knowing how to read notation. It's also about knowing theory, calling things by their proper names, understanding what the other musicians are doing on their instruments, being knowledgeable about topics like composition, arranging, ear training, etc. The educated musician will generally be quicker at communicating and understanding musical ideas in the pressure cooker of the studio.
I will concede there are "outsider" musicians who, without any musical training, can record amazing albums of their original and innovative music. But can they do it consistently, week after week, ahead of schedule and under budget?
Any home chef can cook a delicious meal for a special occasion, or bake a birthday cake. But a trained chef who's been to culinary school can repeat it hundreds and thousands of times, consistently and profitably, working with a diverse team of people, in a stressful environment, sometimes with sub-optimal equipment or ingredients.
Last edited:
- Status
