Talent vs. Tools to CREATE Talent THIS JUST OCCURRED TO ME

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by crufty

I think idiocracy is a classic. The costco cum Jurassic Park scene was genius, as was the senate turning into professional wrestling. If anybody hasn't seen it, definitely check it out. It is, in many ways, a very black, dark comedy. The cultural elite see America heading towards decline. The blackness comes from the fact that if you laugh at the game show were people are getting kicked in the nads, you are in fact contributing to the idiocracy of America. Yet, I couldn't help myself. I do consider myself somewhat in the cultural elite simply because I have had, for better or worse, a tiny bit of formal education in the arts. So that puts me a cut above the rest of america right? BBZZT. Not true, I'm a member of the idiocracy along with everyone else. To me, that is the power of the film.

There are funnier movies, there are classier movies, but there are not many movies with such enormous subtext. With idiocracy, either the audience gets it (mediocrity in all forms is dangerous) or, or the subtext goes right over their head and the movie mocks 'em for it.

Anyway, back on topic...

Exactly!

I'm actually surprised by the amount of people who just don't get it.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by beatround

Hi, I am new. I did a search but didn't really see where to introduce myself.

Seems like there's a lot of wisdom in this forum. I love it already.

I came seeking that wisdom so very happy I found it.

Can someone tell me there thoughts on recording schools in the USA. I mean, where you would suggest sending someone with talent but no technical training? Are there any individuals who went to school in the USA? Any alternative schools that work with a persons schedule and capabilities? Any that will give me hands on training versus books? Thanks.

YOu've replied to a thread in he forum. You want to find a forum that seems best suited to you question, like this one, "So Much Gear, So Little Time," and start a thread in that. You'll get some good responses I suspect.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

I could not agree more!

That's why I'm so happy that pretty much everyone has access to "art materials" these days.

Yes, but I prefer art created by artists who have training. And I think the more art that isn't created by trained artists, the less GREAT ART we have. -- NOTHING AGAINST ART BY UNTRAINED ARTISTS, except when those untrained artists criticize anyone getting trained. Then what happens is access to that training gets dried up; "training" becomes unpopular and the bar gets ridiculously low.

Yes some great art is created by pure talent and untrained ability. If the art is simple enough this can occur. Or if the individual is brilliant enough. "You give enough monkeys enough typewriters eventually one of them is going to write War and Peace."

But my position has always been great, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

. And I think the more art that isn't created by trained artists, the less GREAT ART we have. -- NOTHING AGAINST ART BY UNTRAINED ARTISTS, except when those untrained artists criticize anyone getting trained.

thumbsupthumbsup

agreed. For me, art is defined not by the artist but by the audience. And great art, in my mind, is instantly recognizable by everyone as such. It is accessible, creative and represents hope for mankind. I use my toddlers as a test. If you show a 3 yr old art, and they are blown away by it, then you know you are in the presence of great art. Now true, 3 year olds are blown away by garbage trucks and firemen, so its not always a good test, esp visually. But when it comes to music, they will respond immediately to finely crafted art. Put on crap and they quickly ignore it.

Try playing dark side of the moon for children. It really is amazing the effect that music has. Is dsom great art? I initially thought it was for the late night bong crowd, but it really does seem to transcend time and society the way only great art can.

Great societies have always had a balance between economy, science and art. In america, art has been catching it in the shorts for a while. I'm not even talking about artistic training, but simple things like art history or music appreciation. It's not hard to review a painting or track a week in class, and yet because art is not part of standardized tests, it doesn't happen. Imagine if part of the SAT, in addition to writing, grammar and math skills had music / visual art requirements...it would totally redefine american education. A bit off topic again (my apologies)....but I cannot help but suspect it is all related somehow.

/rant

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by crufty

Great societies have always had a balance between economy, science and art. In america, art has been catching it in the shorts for a while. I'm not even talking about artistic training, but simple things like art history or music appreciation. It's not hard to review a painting or track a week in class, and yet because art is not part of standardized tests, it doesn't happen. Imagine if part of the SAT, in addition to writing, grammar and math skills had music / visual art requirements...it would totally redefine american education. A bit off topic again (my apologies)....but I cannot help but suspect it is all related somehow.

/rant

Yes, it is all related somehow.

And SAT for art as a requirement. That'd be fantastic.

[nostudio]

Originally Posted by crufty

if you show a 3 yr old art, and they are blown away by it, then you know you are in the presence of great art. Now true, 3 year olds are blown away by garbage trucks and firemen, so its not always a good test, esp visually.

I think its a good "test", as far as that's the appropriate word, for pretty much the same reason.

Imagine if part of the SAT, in addition to writing, grammar and math skills had music / visual art requirements...it would totally redefine american education.

I dunno. I don't think that any artistic creativity, or any real heartfelt response to art can be taught in a class room. It's just not the right setting, or atmosphere. No one ever became good at music in a school music class.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by nostudio

I dunno. I don't think that any artistic creativity, or any real heartfelt response to art can be taught in a class room. It's just not the right setting, or atmosphere. No one ever became good at music in a school music class.

In theory and practice there's a lot of truth to that. But it's not absolutely true. There are an AWFUL LOT of great musicians that came out of the classroom. And coming out of a classroom is a misnomer. You come out of a practice room, working out the ideas you were exposed to in a classroom.

"Heartfelt response" is only a portion of what makes art art and what makes art great. The artist has a heart and his learning how to convey that heart through his tools is something that the artist either knows how to do or doesn't. That is not something addressed in a school, by and large.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by nostudio

It's just not the right setting, or atmosphere. No one ever became good at music in a school music class.

Ah...

Not everyone can, or should be, a musician. But, the history of fine arts, as a rule, can be taught--like Math, or English. You don't have to be a poet to appreciate Shakespeare, but a lot of (not all) folks require instruction in order to appreciate shakespeare. The world would be a better place if folks not only knew composers by ear but also could explain the theory behind classical music.

For example of application, a sonnet in iambic pentameter is a very simple concept. Anybody can learn it, and anyone can practice writing poetry in that style. doesn't mean they will be a good poet, not saying all art has to follow forms. But for someone who poetry doesn't come naturally, that form can provide a guideline and allow them to create a poem that is more mature/accessible then a simple nursery rhyme. however, if you are never taught that style, which is incredibly simple and easy to learn--you may never intuitively hit upon it. and your own art will suffer for it.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by kats

Keep in mind that it isn't the artist who invented the recording tools and techniques that we impose on them today.

The industry has.

Les Paul, musician and artist, invented the multitrack recorder, not "the industry".

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Even with todays technology, real musicians, GREAT musicians always sound better. Technology is a convenience for the home recordist, composer and a fad for the producer. I just think that by the time the fad is over an we want to go back to GREAT live musicians, the pool is going to be far too small because not enough musicians will know how..

That's right.

Originally Posted by Chucho

Funny thing about musicians is that some of the well practiced, capable, trained ones can make really sucky music.

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

People who have studied music are better at the language of making music.
They don't necessarily make better music. But they are less limited. They aren't stumped by musical questions. They're less, limited by their imagination. There was a time an ignoramous couldn't get near a recording studio. The majority of crappy music is a direct result of people who don't know shit about music. That doesn't also mean people can't rise above their limitations.
Why wouldn't you want to find out everything you can about the art you love. Why would you want to be illiterate and not know the function; the building blocks, the structure and mind of music.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I mean look at physics. Almost all great physicists are under 30 when they make their great discoveries. The reason is pretty clearly that they don't 'know' enough yet to know that their radical ideas are silly, whereas their elders do. They knew enough to be dangerous basically, and weren't fully indoctrinated into the current knowledge base.

That is not true, and not the reason. Their recent study of recent discoveries opens doorways to new understanding of why and how things work the way they do, which gives them increased power over those things, they have more language than their predecessor, not more ignorance.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

This is true however the technology to hide mistakes has significantly reduced the employment opportunities for people having enough chops and talent to only rarely make mistakes. The result I've seen has been a serious reduction in the size of the musical talent pool even though the musical concept pool has obviously become unprecedentedly large.

The visceral excitement of a gut level collaboration among great performers with minimal head-tripping has become a rarity and, at least in my estimation, has been an immense loss to popular music.

It's hard for me to draw on the talent of those around me here when they have no chops. The old guys still have chops, some of the young guys do, but, not most of them. They will drop out as they always have.

Originally Posted by Mike Derrick

Ahhhh, why not.

Good quote, thought I'd bump it. Although the only thing I've ever autotuned was an out of tune piano.

I've heard records where everything on it was autotuned. EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by crufty

True...but is it really technology that is the root, or market forces?

It is man's lazynes and greed combined. Most are not "self regulating" look at the "Did you ever fall in love with talent" thread.

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But if more musicians and audio engineers had bigger balls and insisted in the musicians using their ability and not falling back so easily on the toys, maybe we wouldn't be enabling quite as many lame musicians.
Maybe if the guy really couldn't cut it, say come back after some rehearsal. Then if that didn't work just give him the evil eye like he's a worm. Make him feel ashamed. Make him be a musician. Fuk.

Yeah, and stop leaving it up to the "Live Eng." to out the phonies! That's right, we dump them.

Originally Posted by crufty

I'm not saying that guiding principles will help, some, like myself, are beyond all help but there's bound to be cats out there whose ability and music would be improved if there was a means to that end.

Like required reading a document before proceeding? I'm all for it.

Originally Posted by crufty

Making music requires hard work and dedication...I'm guessingwhat? that outside of a few, even the most talented musician has to work on their craft. It may come easily to them, but they still need to practice. So folks who struggle past reason, or spend their idle youthful years plugging away at the guitar, etc, they are going to find a way (to your point).
Music gets treated like a red headed step child. Want to learn the violin? you'll be lucky to find a single teacher, and you'll be even luckier if there is a performing arts school to help you get to the next level.

It's up to the parents to encourage and up to the student to be dilligent.

Our hypothetical young student gets a mac, and discovers garage band, how can an industrious student (willing to be tought), but not a driven student (unwilling to be self taught), learn? Henry's point, as I understood it, was that technology is enabling the production of crappy music.

That is not what he's talking about, he's talking about the use by adults, who've had opportunity to pik up a book and read about it. If you aren't "driven" you can't cut it as a musician, even with a school.

True. But without any awareness of melody, structure etc, the masses are going to not only make crappy music, but also be unaware of what good music is. Today technology is an enabling factor. I'm saying that technology should also be an educational factor. When you buy a synth, you usually get a breakdown of what synthesis is. But when you look at garage band, there is no indication as to how to create a song....

Like required reading a document before proceeding? I'm all for it.


We used to move to a place to get that training, beg if we had to, before a drug problem developed.

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Of course this is still a different type of thing compared to very solid muso's that play the thing down once and instantly there is magic. And it is a pity that the second variety is not exactly on the increase, but as long as the result qualifies in my personal view as interesting and at best 'goose-skin-inducing' I couldn't care less how it was made. Rant over....
Oh, and boxes will never create 'talent'. Not in my definition of the word anyway....

Why would true driven talent be on the increase, as it takes parental encouragement, or, extreme discouragement (though you get a messed up human and no guarantee with talent this way) and an industry that values it for it to flourish?
That's not what is happening.
It's like a baby with a loaded handgun. The baby wants to know why it makes the loud sound but can't fathom that you don't point it at your face when you make the loud noise, so it blows it's head off.
Nobody took 5 seconds to think what the use of this technology would do to the real music biz in the future before adopting it, unless the record companies thought they could pump out crap cheaper, in which case, "SUCCESS IS AT HAND" and at what cost?
You'll get some breakthrough stuff, but, at what cost.
Most of mankind hasn't even discovered all of the effects of sound and music, yet hear we are promoting ignorance in the airwaves as if it's all going to be fine.
Cocaine was fine for recording on or with till we figgered out what was making mixes sound so thin.