ace said:
I meant that he should spend time figuring out the basics himself before he worried about buying elaborate programs. I really didn't mean that he should go to college or anything, just that he should experiment and learn how to write music before worrying about how to make it sound good.
I know you didnt mean he should go to college, but you did tell him he should learn to write music before he tries any of this stuff. Maybe in your mind you cannot seperate making music, and writing it down. To me its just as silly as saying you cant write a rock song unless you learn to write guitar tabs first. Some people are really good at learning the guitar by ear, in fact I did know someone very good that did just that.
I just don't see the point in not learning the basics in a traditional way.
This is an important point. I think this is why you find it hard to understand where Im coming from. I strongly disliked the idea of learning music theory, becuase I thought it was boring but more importantly it didnt make sence and I couldnt get my head around it. If I was told I had to learn how to write music before I even started to write my own music like you did to the topic poster, well, I just would have given up and done something else if I really believed that. Music academia can often appear stuffy and snobbish and the theory and notation as very scary and difficult. Some people just dont get into orchestral music like that, and whats the wrong with that? Its a very uninspiring way to get into music if your brain just doesnt like the mathematical approach to music that really exemplifies the "traditional" way.
If someone tries hard you really can get quite far doing things by ear, and if they cant they can always go learn it the "traditional" or just give up completely. Those that do give up completly probably didnt have enough drive or inspiration to begin with anyway. If they want to learn it later, then thats fine too. But like I keep telling you, even if you have a degree in music that isnt any guarantee you will make music people will want to listen to or be sucessfull at.
I like to listen to music the makes me feel something. I dont care if the composer had a degree, studied with a great master, or just did it by ear. Regularly those with a ridgid music education dont make me feel anything at all. But the composers I like and listen to that do, and those that dont have a formal music education have talent, ideas and inspiration. Thats what they have in commen. I also know those which did take a degree in music and they say it can take a while to break out of the ridgid mindset they were taught in. One guy told me it took many months before he could even write a note of his own music! But this is something those that start by ear have in abundance, since thats how and why the started in the first place.
In the end those that dont have the drive or the talent wont make it, an education or not.
I think the way that a person crafts their music is a big determiner of its quality. So if the person that has never had any training and doesn't know how to read or write music writes a really great piece of music, would it have been an even better piece of music if he had had more training? Did that person put the maximum amount of effort into that piece of music? If the person with the music degree writes a really bad piece of music, did he put the maximum amount of effort into that piece of music or is he just a bad composer?
What a strange question!
Because theres
always more someone can learn? You really think any composer would tell you they know it all?
As to the second question, I think it was Spielberg who said art is never finished, only abandoned. I dont know anyone that thinks differently, and I heard a seminiar by John Williams where he quotes the same phrase so even he thinks his music isnt as good as it can be. But most of us are never going to be as good as John Willams. If we waited to do music, make a film or paint a picture until we had learnt everything that was possible to learn about the subject
to the best of our ability we would literally never start.
John Willams certianly didnt start out knowing everything he does now and you could easily say of his old music that it could have been better if only he knew more. So Im not really sure where you were going with this.
Not quite. I'm not saying that classical music is suffocating from a flood of mediocrity. The concert halls certainly aren't being abandoned because orchestras are stuck playing a new composer's poorly written work. They're still playing Mozart and Beethoven. If there are Mozarts and Beethoven's being born then I think they're either being handicapped by a lack of knowledge or held back because people no longer see value in intellectualizing music. The availability of technology is not replacing the fact that music is undervalued.
Personally I dont think Mozart and Beethoven being born today would really make any difference. I think really we are living in a different time, and you bemoaning the lack of Mozarts and Beethovens is just like someone bemoaning the lack Da Vinci's and Picasso's. I think you can certianly say that people dont see art education as important for becoming an artist anymore, dont you think? In fact its even worse considering the bad reputation of 'modern art' and "art students".
I have my own feelings on why concert halls are being abandoned, but I think the orchestras future is in the media. Ie. Thats how it will survive. I really think theres no question that the big film and game projects are really one of the only institutions that can regually afford to spend tens of thosuands for a full professional orchestra. While you blame modern society for not seeing any value in "intellectualizing music", yet Ive heard the same thing said about technology making essentially the same argument again.
Ed