Is Classical Music Training Overrated/Worthless? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Today's Posts
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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2012, 01:19 PM   #11 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: England
Posts: 1
Default

I think the value of it is, that this is what music was built from is worth it. Classical music is called such as it is what music was born from, all music today started here. I would never count anything to do with the music industry pointless, being able to read tabs is good, to me a bit of a cheat, but I read it as well as sheet so there we go. Reading sheet music is a talent in its own which, to me if you want to call yourself a commited musician you would want to learn it. The worlds getting lazy and it does make me sad that people don't want to learn even the most ancient of forms. Or even acknowledge its importance. My own opinions here agree or dont. To me though if you want to be commited, you'd want to learn notes, even the basics.
Memoirs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:17 AM   #12 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyProblemsProductions View Post
What are the values of learning notes, sightreading, etc? I've been composing for over a year, and I've never really grasped music theory. What's the value of it? Is it necessary to make kick-ass music? And where's the "Music Theory for 3 Year Olds" book?
Music theory is so much more than just learning to read sheet music. It may sometimes seem like the easier/better road to be self taught but the truth is that it's not. Being self taught, if not taken seriously, is just the way to be lazy and make an excuse for not learning and taking yourself seriously as a musician. If a person DOES take being self taught seriously and does all the work, on the other hand, it's just like trying to reinvent the wheel. You will spend a lot of time (and I do mean A LOT of time) trying to re-discover something that all your trained peers already know and there's a very small chance that you'll figure it all out on your own. So, you have to ask yourself why you want to waste all that time trying to figure out something that people (much smarter than you or I could ever hope to be) have already figured out for you. What an utter waste of time. The truth is that there is not a single song out there that you would come across (popular or otherwise) that cannot be analyzed and reproduced through an in depth knowledge of theory and harmony (tonal, post-tonal, and jazz), ear-training, counterpoint, and form. The only exception might be music from other cultures not based on the twelve-tone chromatic scale and, even so, there is a theory and study for that too (when are you ever going to be playing that yourself, anyways? If you really feel the need to use that type of music, then simply collaborate with someone who studied world-music. Most of our instruments wouldn't easily play their scales either way).

Also, don't be discouraged by the people that speak of being able to "play by ear" and attribute this skill only to the "self taught" musicians. While some people have the knack for that sort of thing, anyone can learn it through *gasp* professional music training. What do people think ear training is all about? Take your ear training seriously and you'll not only learn this skill, but you will be just as good or better than the "naturals." In addition, you'll have the theoretical knowledge to accompany this skill. Most musicians of any professional ability and training are simply expected to have this ability by the end of their training and it isn't so miraculous as one might think.

The "secret" about most of your favorite popular musicians worth looking at is that the vast majority that claim to be self taught still learned their stuff out of the same textbooks that classical and jazz musicians studied, they might have just simply studied it without a teacher (although your skill will increase much, MUCH faster and you will grasp the concepts MUCH more thoroughly with guidance. Having a GOOD instructor can really mean the difference between you coming out of your training being a professional or an amateur). In fact, most musicians will still claim to be "self taught" even though they studied privately for years since they didn't receive a "formal" or "academic" training in a college or university. Don't let them fool you, this misleading claim of being self-taught is much more common than many might believe.

Besides, with a thorough training in classical and jazz theory you will not only learn the most common basic harmonies that can be found in most music (especially the "four chord" popular tunes), but you will also have available to you the discoveries made by musicians throughout all known musical history in the entire western tradition!

Also, don't let the ignorance of some people discourage you when they say,"musical training stifles your creativity by restricting you to the classical "rules."" In fact, in addition to giving you the ability to analyze any piece (classical, jazz, pop, rock, or otherwise) and be able to reproduce the methods that they had used, you will also have a pretty good understanding of what all has been done in the past, therefor giving you the ability to break some of what used to be considered "the rules" knowingly and with intention rather than just out of plain ignorance. The truth is that classical musicians have recently broken every pre-established rule at one time or another, they just have the ability to compose/play exactly what it is that they want at exactly the time that they want it knowing all the possibilities (if you're good enough and work hard enough). History will show you that Bach sure as heck didn't do what Palestrina did, Mozart didn't do what Bach did, Beethoven didn't do what Mozart did, and so forth through Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg, Reich, etc. You will come to find that there are no rules today that hasn't been broken a million times long before you where even born and the rock and pop musicians weren't the first ones to do it by a long shot! (Not really quite the rebels that they think they are in comparison.)

The catch to this, even with training, is that you will have to work harder at this than you've probably ever worked at anything to have the abilities listed in my post, training or not. It's not enough to simply "attend the classes (or private lessons), get the grades, and graduate" and then expect to have a professional ability in anything. You will have to attain an in-depth knowledge of all musical subjects studied and practice them to the point where they are innate and automatic rather than something difficult and full of effort. I am still surprised at the pathetic excuse for musicians that pop out of some schools and that they actually dared to give a diploma (did they really intend to put their stamp of approval on THAT?) In fact, this happens quite often. The good news for you and me, though, is that these poor souls are almost always the result of their own lack of effort rather than a failing on behalf of the school or individual classes and therefor are not a reflection on trained musicians (because they still lack a whole lot of training). Sometimes it's just easier on behalf of the universities to give a degree to those who simply do the bare minimum than to expect everyone to be on the top level (I mean, who would want to attend a university where the vast majority of the students aren't given a diploma?).

A word of advice if you decide to engage in a serious study of music. In music, your effort (or lack thereof) will be directly reflected in your actual abilities. Learn the exceptions as strongly as you learn the common rule. Don't simply worry about what will or will not be on the test. If you want to compete in this field you need to learn it all and must shine above your peers. Any weakness in your practice and education will be apparent every time you pick up your instrument to play or open your mouth to sing or put your pen to your manuscript paper. Unless, of course, all you want is to be an amateur hobbyist. Then, by all means, simply get by and do only what is necessary. In fact, don't even bother studying music, since you'll never really have hope for being a professional in the field (unless, of course, you are "discovered." In which case, you better start buying your lottery tickets since you'll have a better chance at winning that than having some record producer actually care about the mediocre abilities that they'll probably find in any untrained musician off the street). You might actually be smarter to just do music for your own enjoyment and just study something else in college that you can hope to have an income in. This may sound EXTREMELY harsh, but the truth is that the image of the "starving musician" working as a waiter and never really going anywhere is not only real but quite common. If you don't love music enough to put in the work, than don't ever expect to make a living at it.

Either way, good luck in whatever you choose to do! I wish you the best!
neptune1bond is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.