Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2011, 05:28 AM   #1 (permalink)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 19
Default Formal Music Training Vs. Autodidacticism

Which do you think has brought forth more valued pieces of music?
The musician that comes out of berklee college/Juliard?
Or the musician that works the day job and just loves to do it even though he may not be as technically savvy as the formally educated musician?

This is not Genre Specific and I'm just wondering what everyone's thoughts on this were. Give the Pros and Cons of each or certain acts that walk the tight rope between the two.

Thank you

- J.B. -
chanpyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 05:55 AM   #2 (permalink)
Do good.
Blarobbarg's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 2,035

The obvious pros to being formally trained is that you (might) understand music theory better than the self trained musician. But then again, it takes a longer time, and obviously, money to go to school for that.

Being self made costs less, but you would not be as technically proficient.

I guess it all depends if you want to go to college or not, really.
Blarobbarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 06:31 AM   #3 (permalink)
\/ GOD
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161

I've seen great musicians formed both ways. I think both styles of learning have their merit.
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 09:36 AM   #4 (permalink)
Killed Laura Palmer
ThePhanastasio's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ashland, KY
Posts: 1,667

Obviously, for any musician, very strong formal training at a school like Berklee or Juilliard would be beneficial. In that sort of environment, the musicians are nourished and taught by other talented musicians in such a way that would contribute to their own musical growth. They're consistently put in with other musicians of significant skill, and able to bounce ideas off of one another, gain performance experience, and gain a very deep understanding of music theory and techniques at their given musical instrument.

With that said, I don't think that a formal education is at all necessary for a true musical prodigy. There have been people all through the history of music who have really made it both ways. Although I'm not inclined to truly pick one method of learning over the other necessarily, I will say that those with a natural affinity for music are able to listen to other artists, pick up what they're playing, and have an innate understanding of the composition of given pieces over a period of time, which go into their own compositions. I mean, hell, Jimi Hendrix never took guitar lessons.

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken
Perhaps they're better left unsung
ThePhanastasio is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads

© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.