The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Lack of respect in our industry for formal music or technical traininng.... Dynamics Plugins
Old 17th September 2007
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by big country View Post
I create not copy
how about you
It bounces off me and sticks to you. Seriously dude, you sound like you're in grade school. Maybe you ought to try a chat forum that supports real-time speech.
Old 17th September 2007
  #182
Gear Nut
 
wirerecording's Avatar
This has been a wonderful thread to read and hears everyone's ideas. Very educational ironically enough. i have been wondering for some time if the decline of the large established studio structure has closed the traditional education path for engineers. A formal internship program at one of the many big studios has been the best way to get a broad and detailed understanding of the musical, technical, and personal nuances of studio work. With many of these rooms now closed it seems recording schools have taken their place as the standard bearers. Schools can provide lots of good information, but there is no replacing being involved in a professional session (ummm whatever that really means ) On the job training is essential. The information void is also filled by a great many recording pundits, some with vast knowledge, many with just a bit. It all adds up to lots of confusion and misinformation. Is this a bad thing, and if so, what can be done to shift the "collective knowledge" towards a more productive avenue ?

Stuart
Old 17th September 2007
  #183
Lives for gear
 
big country's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg View Post


The "new world" evidently doesn't include spelling or grammar...

If those were some of the classes you dropped, you did not learn more by doing so.

What's REALLY amazing about this thread is how (more or less) every single person believes that THEIR experience (with one school or institution) defines what happens in every school or institution, and how THEIR personal path is the only correct choice for anyone...

If only peoples' opinions required examples of their work alongside; to put your 'money where your mouth is', so to speak...
wow

you sound like a well educated person
Old 17th September 2007
  #184
Lives for gear
 
big country's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by structuredloud View Post
It bounces off me and sticks to you. Seriously dude, you sound like you're in grade school. Maybe you ought to try a chat forum that supports real-time speech.
never thought of that



I'm 6'4 how tall are you
I'm tall your short

butt hanger

you went off my first post
Old 17th September 2007
  #185
Lives for gear
 
big country's Avatar
 

no wonder why me don't hangs here no mo

chill on the compressors
have a little dynamics
Old 17th September 2007
  #186
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by no ssl yet View Post
Since we are discussing school we should keep in mind that schools primarily teach you HOW to learn. They teach discipline and other usefull skills that come into play more when you are out of school and trying to apply what you learned.

As humans we learn via repitition. The real "studying" comes after graduation. School is like going on a road trip. The lessons you learn are passed so quickly as you move on to the next phase of the curiculum that they are like landmarks.

It's up to the individual to re visit those landmarks after graduation (and throughout life) to get to master what you've learned.

Mastery doesn't really come while you are in school. School is only where the learning begins as you build a foundation. The mastery/application/beauty comes later.

IMO.
Great thoughts there. I agree!
Old 17th September 2007
  #187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher View Post
Let me start off by saying that I know very little about music theory. I can read (trumpet for 10 years) and I can pick out just about any pop chord progression within a few minutes but there are plenty of chords I'm clueless about. I tend to go more by feel than anything. I do have relative pitch but not perfect.

Anyway…

We've all heard the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I think that that's what's in play here.

I know many many "graduated from Berklee" students who are truly clouded by their own education.

Education has actually built walls for these people and has stifled their creativity.

It's certainly possible that these students were never that creative but thru school have gained the confidence to try. I don't know.

I know that a lot of art teachers feel that children paint much better before they learn to color in the lines. I see a similarity here. Maybe?

This doesn't mean that I think school or music theory is a bad thing. It means that the truly brilliant will use it to their advantage while the run of the mill musician might become a slave to it.

My personal experience as a songwriter is that I need to steer clear of musical theory knowledge. I know too little to try and gain much at my age. I won't even write songs on guitar or piano anymore. My ability to play those instruments limits what I will write. I literally just sing into a portable device and figure out the chords at a much later date. It's my hang up. I know. If I knew every single chord and application I would certainly not need to do it this way.

So I feel this is why people bash it. Because so few of us are willing to study it long enuff to gain it fully, we actually limit ourselves with it.

I do know that the more talented musicians I meet do tend to know a lot of theory and it's correct applications while there are quite a few creative geniuses who know very little. These creative geniuses tend to hire those talented musicians to fill in the holes.

I believe you need to be truly brilliant to be amazingly creative and have all the theory to back it up.

This separates the brilliance of Eminem and Quincy Jones. Although they are both talented.

I know exactly waht you're talking about, but you're worng. Berklee hasn't stifled anyone's creativity. Berkelle does give you certain tools, that allow individuals to function while being lazy. The "lack of creativity" is the result of a coice by the individual, but the education. Some people don't realize they've made that choice. It's kind of like voluntary brainwashing, but the problem is on the indicidual's side, not the eduation's side.
Old 17th September 2007
  #188
no ssl yet
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg View Post
To some extent this is true, but it is generally more true of grade school than college (or "trade school"). By that time, for most people, modes of learning are ingrained - some people believe we are each born to learn a certain way...

Higher education, indeed, IS about teaching useful skills and information - and (good) higher educators try to do their best to teach people from each learning mode.



While repetition is certainly recognized in most educational circles; if you're referring to repetition of actually doing something, it's not necessarily the case...

There are four accepted "modes" of learning - that is, essentially four major ways to teach, where each of us tends to respond best to one of those ways:

Tactual : people who learn best by touching things
Kinesthetic : people who learn best by "doing" - holding, manipulating
Visual : people who learn best from charts, diagrams, drawings, photos
Auditory : people who learn best from lectures and listening

A GOOD audio program encompasses each of these modes - which isn't all that difficult in professional audio education:

For a prospective audio professional, any given candidate might best understand a console (for example, signal flow and gain structure) by:

1. Sitting down at it and being able to examine it (aided by a book, diagram or experienced engineer), while actually touching faders and mic pres...

2. Actually tracking a group (or a drum set), and manipulating the pots and faders to experience the correct and "incorrect" ways...

3. Examining signal flow diagrams and gain structure theory, which might include "right" and "wrong" photos like you might see in a guitar instruction manual...

4. A thorough explanation of the theory and practice of console use, perhaps inclduing audio examples of distortion and noise floor...

You cannot dismiss any of these modes of learning, as none is considered "superior" or "correct", just part of life's rich tapestry of the differences between all of us (Like a U47, U67, and C12!)...
I'd say I learned more after college by reading my college texts than I did while I was in school (when it comes to mastery).

I wasn't saying we ONLY learn via repitition, but if you take major scales for exaple, you can have the theory explained to you forever by whomever, but until you practice (repitition) them they won't become a part of your knowledge base.
Old 17th September 2007
  #189
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
I know exactly waht you're talking about, but you're worng. Berklee hasn't stifled anyone's creativity. Berkelle does give you certain tools, that allow individuals to function while being lazy. The "lack of creativity" is the result of a coice by the individual, but the education. Some people don't realize they've made that choice. It's kind of like voluntary brainwashing, but the problem is on the indicidual's side, not the eduation's side.
I may be wrong. I said in my next paragraph that it was very possible that these students were never creative to begin with but by going to school, they had the confidence to try to be.

That may very well be a big part of the Berklee bashing. A lot of students might never have persued music as a profession if they never went to school for it. IMHO those people probably shouldn't have bothered. It's the students that don't NEED training that will probably get the most out of it. If they have the ability to learn in a structured environment that is.

You can learn a lot about music by watching others and applying it to yours. You don't need to sit in a classroom to STUDY music.
Old 17th September 2007
  #190
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher View Post
You can learn a lot about music by watching others and applying it to yours. You don't need to sit in a classroom to STUDY music.
Boy, do I THOROUGHLY disagree with that statement. TOTALLY and COMPLETELY disagree with that statement. Well, not totally and completely. I actually only kinda disagree, But it sounded more dramatic.

You don't have to study in a CLASSROOM, but, for what I do, you REALLY have to STUDY. For what I like to listen to you can't play jack**** if you don't know jack****. Study on your own. But I really think music has gone down in to the toilet en masse because people stopped taking the study of music seriously. It's turned into an EVERYONE CAN DO IT thing where everyone CAN do it, therefore everything kind of sucks.

OK, I'm talking about music and not engineering. I'll stop now . . .
Old 17th September 2007
  #191
Lives for gear
 
firby's Avatar
 

Miles Davis went to Juilliard. For a little while.


Quote:
Originally Posted by soultrane View Post
hi bruce!

i wanted to say i loved going back and re-reading your posts about duke ellington, who is an idol of mine.

as you know, duke is interesting in the way that he shunned formal training. when someone asked him why he didn't go to juilliard, for instance, he said, "if i did that, i would lose everything i have."

also, i was reading about duke talking about the modern generation of jazz players, (this would have been about the '50's or so) remarking that while they had a lot of training, and could do more, technically, than the earlier musicians, the early musicians had more heart, more soul, so to speak, in their playing. i believe he is talking about people like bub miley, etc... the real originators.

i can't speak on engineering programs, but i think music schools train you to play how greats in the past have played. i heard carlos santana say that there are millions of guitar players in the world, but you've only heard of about 30, who established their own style, and the millions are all trying to sound like them.

great thread topic! as one who went through the whole gamut of formal training and sometimes feel i wasted money, in a sense, (still paying back student loans), i am interested to hear more opinions about this!

(btw, bruce... those sessions you did w. duke... do you know if those were released on "the private collection" series which was put out by the smada label?)
Old 17th September 2007
  #192
Lives for gear
 
firby's Avatar
 

Agreed completely. It could be a classroom it could be a woodshed. But whatever. For me it was mainly one room (room #1067) and a bunch of venues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Boy, do I THOROUGHLY disagree with that statement. TOTALLY and COMPLETELY disagree with that statement. Well, not totally and completely. I actually only kinda disagree, But it sounded more dramatic.

You don't have to study in a CLASSROOM, but, for what I do, you REALLY have to STUDY. For what I like to listen to you can't play jack**** if you don't know jack****. Study on your own. But I really think music has gone down in to the toilet en masse because people stopped taking the study of music seriously. It's turned into an EVERYONE CAN DO IT thing where everyone CAN do it, therefore everything kind of sucks.

OK, I'm talking about music and not engineering. I'll stop now . . .
Old 17th September 2007
  #193
no ssl yet
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Boy, do I THOROUGHLY disagree with that statement. TOTALLY and COMPLETELY disagree with that statement. Well, not totally and completely. I actually only kinda disagree, But it sounded more dramatic.

You don't have to study in a CLASSROOM, but, for what I do, you REALLY have to STUDY. For what I like to listen to you can't play jack**** if you don't know jack****. Study on your own. But I really think music has gone down in to the toilet en masse because people stopped taking the study of music seriously. It's turned into an EVERYONE CAN DO IT thing where everyone CAN do it, therefore everything kind of sucks.

OK, I'm talking about music and not engineering. I'll stop now . . .
OK I'll play devil's advocate. I agree that you have to study music to be a proficient musician (It doesn't matter if it's done in a classroom or not).

But even though I agree music has tanked a bit lately, I ask this as DA, Has music simply been simplified to a level where it has what the masses need to enjoy it? Perhaps the indepth study/mastery of music is primarily appreciated by other musicians and not by the masses.
Old 17th September 2007
  #194
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by no ssl yet View Post
Perhaps the indepth study/mastery of music is primarily appreciated by other musicians and not by the masses.

I believe this is probably true with any society which is in decline.
Old 17th September 2007
  #195
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by no ssl yet View Post
OK I'll play devil's advocate. I agree that you have to study music to be a proficient musician (It doesn't matter if it's done in a classroom or not).

But even though I agree music has tanked a bit lately, I ask this as DA, Has music simply been simplified to a level where it has what the masses need to enjoy it? Perhaps the indepth study/mastery of music is primarily appreciated by other musicians and not by the masses.
Ah! The masses NEED to enjoy?? This is what drives me to drivel. The tables have so thoroughly turned we've forgotten who's who. The PUBLIC doesn't KNOW what the public needs and wants. It's the ARTIST who is supposed to give it to them and give them the choices in multiple. The artist is supposed to be the visionary, not the public. The record companies are supposed to market what the artist creates, not the artist realizing what the marketing execs tell them they can sell!!

It turned around so thoroughly and completely (my apparent phrase of the day!) that I think we've been totally snookered. You have public, marketing and the artist. Only one of those is the creative entity. But the artist has become so cowed, such a begging loser, that he'll acquiesce to the wishes of the execs with barely a whimper.

Yes it's a market driven affair. Yes the public decides what to buy. But the PUBLIC doesn't know what it WANTS until it's given a fair choice. It's as if the whole process has imploded in on itself by incestuousness. And, I'm sorry, the public is stupid. It'll buy what it's given. That's what the ad execs know. That's why they've convinced the artist to follow HIS lead.
Old 17th September 2007
  #196
500 series nutjob
 
pan60's Avatar
 

i agree Henry!
not only is this in music industry but most of our life's today we no longer truly have a option we only have a choice given by marketing firms and political powers.
:(
Old 17th September 2007
  #197
no ssl yet
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 View Post
I believe this is probably true with any society which is in decline.
Ok so what "golden age" is our society declining from?

I'm not saying it's not but if it is, tell me about it.
Old 17th September 2007
  #198
no ssl yet
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Ah! The masses NEED to enjoy?? This is what drives me to drivel. The tables have so thoroughly turned we've forgotten who's who. The PUBLIC doesn't KNOW what the public needs and wants. It's the ARTIST who is supposed to give it to them and give them the choices in multiple. The artist is supposed to be the visionary, not the public. The record companies are supposed to market what the artist creates, not the artist realizing what the marketing execs tell them they can sell!!

It turned around so thoroughly and completely (my apparent phrase of the day!) that I think we've been totally snookered. You have public, marketing and the artist. Only one of those is the creative entity. But the artist has become so cowed, such a begging loser, that he'll acquiesce to the wishes of the execs with barely a whimper.

Yes it's a market driven affair. Yes the public decides what to buy. But the PUBLIC doesn't know what it WANTS until it's given a fair choice. It's as if the whole process has imploded in on itself by incestuousness. And, I'm sorry, the public is stupid. It'll buy what it's given. That's what the ad execs know. That's why they've convinced the artist to follow HIS lead.


I think you took my statement the wrong way. The public knows what the public needs. So if the public is purchasing (And it's hard to judge in tage of bootleg/downloads) Is it our place to say they are not getting what they desire?


I think it's pretty pretentious to say "The public is stupid It will buy whatever its given"

IF that's the case why spend a budget making a record. It's all pointless the public will buy whatever its given so why not cut corners/costs TOTALLY

also why (before the download era gave us tainted sales results) did many things sit on the shelf even after being marketed.



I don't think I want to become so much of a "musician" that I consider my buying public STUPID.
Old 17th September 2007
  #199
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by no ssl yet View Post
I think you took my statement the wrong way. The public knows what the public needs. So if the public is purchasing (And it's hard to judge in tage of bootleg/downloads) Is it our place to say they are not getting what they desire?


I think it's pretty pretentious to say "The public is stupid It will buy whatever its given"

IF that's the case why spend a budget making a record. It's all pointless the public will buy whatever its given so why not cut corners/costs TOTALLY

also why (before the download era gave us tainted sales results) did many things sit on the shelf even after being marketed.



I don't think I want to become so much of a "musician" that I consider my buying public STUPID.
Ha1 Yes, but that's why the ARTISTE is such an arrogant asshole! I think the public won't know what they want until they hear it. How can they? They're aren't necessarily creative. They love music. But if something brand new hits them square in the jaw and they explode with excitement, hopefully that was the vision or artists bringing something creative to the table. You know? Not marketing directors. Not crafty old men trying to second guess a market. But rather cocky assed, full of themselves artists who have a need and a vision and will see their vision through with guts, foresight, hard work and wilingness. Not namby-pamby bull****.
Old 17th September 2007
  #200
Gear Head
 

After reading some of this thread, I realize I'm lucky as hell to be where I am. The music instructors at Western Oregon University are the most open minded, creative, talented and skillful musicians I have ever come across. Not only that, they are creating opportunities for all of the students who are interested in recording/engineering. Although the music program's main focus is music education & performance, any opportunity to get into engineering is definately a big plus to them.

For example, Dr. Kevin Walczyk -- who is also my advisor -- is a professional composer who was commissioned by the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra and the Oregon Symphony to wrote music for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. He hires student employees for live performance recordings and he encourages me to build up my gear.

I've been taking composition lessons from Dr. Jospeh Harchanko who has also been commissioned to write music for professional ensembles. Engineering technology and electronacoustic music is his main thing & a quite few classes are built around this. Needless to say, anyone interested in sound engineering is a big plus.

We also have some big names in this school. Students can take drum lessons from him. In case you didn't know, instead of typing a buch of stuff about him, I'll just quote from the WOU faculty page:
http://www.wou.edu/las/creativearts/music/brown.htm
Quote:
His professional career began with a stint with Earl Grant. Mel went on to be a staff drummer for the Motown Music Corporation, recording and touring with groups including the Temptations, the Supremes, and Smokey Robinson. He subsequently spent ten years working with Diana Ross, Suzanne Somers, Connie Francis, Pat Boone,and others.

The jazz artists Mel has played with reads like a "Who’s Who" of jazz, including Gene Harris, George Benson, Teddy Edwards, Joey DeFrancesco, Bill Watrous, Leroy Vinnegar, and many more. For the past six years, Mel has led bands three nights a week--including the Mel Brown B-3 Organ Quartet on Thursdays-at Portland’s Jimmy Mak's (listed by Downbeat as "one of the world’s top 100 places to hear jazz").
He's an awesome guy & I'd love to take lessons from him.

Dr. Tom Bergeron (not the TV host) is probably one of the most skillful saxophone player I've heard. Brief overview:
Quote:
Tom has performed extensively throughout the United States and Europe with his own ensembles and as a soloist; and he has appeared with a broad spectrum of internationally renowned artists, including Anthony Braxton, Rosemary Clooney, Natalie Cole, Robert Cray, Ella Fitzgerald, Vinnie Golia, Dick Hyman, Oliver Lake, Dumisani Maraire, Bernadette Peters, Bobby Shew, Mason Williams, Marin Alsop's String Fever, Guy Lombardo's Royal Canadians, The Fifth Dimension, The Ink Spots, and The Temptations.
Not to mention Christopher Woitach and Keller Coker.
_______

What I'm getting at is not all programs are the same. All of the above instructors have real world experience in and out of the studio. I think they'd do anything to help their students out & they prepare us for the real world. They are also realistic when it comes to the music business & all of them have horror stories about that business. Anyone with technical experience is also well supported.

Sorry about this rant, not to mention spewing stuff that may seem like a promotion for a school you never heard of, but there's also a lot of respect for people in our profession . . . well maybe not record companies . . .
Old 17th September 2007
  #201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Produceher View Post
I may be wrong. I said in my next paragraph that it was very possible that these students were never creative to begin with but by going to school, they had the confidence to try to be.

That may very well be a big part of the Berklee bashing. A lot of students might never have persued music as a profession if they never went to school for it. IMHO those people probably shouldn't have bothered. It's the students that don't NEED training that will probably get the most out of it. If they have the ability to learn in a structured environment that is.

You can learn a lot about music by watching others and applying it to yours. You don't need to sit in a classroom to STUDY music.
Nope. Still not the same thign I'm talking about. Creative before and equally creative after, but lazy and choosing not to use it.

It's like living in NYC and walking everywhere and then moving to LA and driving 3 blocks to get coffee. Certainly tools can lead a non-lazy person to choose to be lazy.


Berklee prepares you so well for so many situaions, that you're almost never stuck for having a formula for dealing with any given musical situation. Before Berklee, the only choice for dealing with some of those would have been to use your imagination. after Berklee, you have the option not to, becuase you have an academic way to deal with it. Develop that habit enough and then when your out of your comfort zone there's a panic and shut down as opposed to in a sense, living every moment out of the comfort zone and being comfortable with that.

Yes, there are cetainly some people who shouldn't have gone, but those people are the excption, or maybe civilans in disguise. Let's ignore them.

You've now got people who learned an instrument, were creative, got good at it and went to Berklee. They choose to embrace what they're taught and abandon their roots and when they come out continue to choose to deal with musical situations through academic approaches rather than creative approaches.

The successful Berklee grads learn to deal with this. I think a very few are aware of it in school, some go through a bit of a transformation pretty quickly after and most take quite a while to mature to the point of having the self-awareness of their choice. There are plenty who never become aware, but there's nothing about education or a Berklee education that makes the choice for the individual.


Gearsluts is very similar to the Berkelee environment in the sense that there's clearl a Gersluts way (or two) to deal with everything. There's a short list for gear, as well as it's sepcific application. there's defintiely a desire to fit in through ownign certian gear or using certain techniques. I'm sure there are many people who've never A/B'd Radar converters, but wouldn't hesitate to consider them their first choice converter, the same with ITB and OTB summing or even that ITB automation and recalls are significantly easier.

And what woudl a Gearsult do if put in a situation to mix where they had to choose between useing two different sets of converters that they'd never used before, Radar or X? OR on that smae project have a choice between ITB or OTB summing and there wasn't time to A/B, just choose. They'd fall back on what they "know" becuase no one wants to screw up, especailly a Berklee grad who automatically has a reputation preceeding them. So people choose safety over the risk of being creative and that's what you see. Education doesn't cause that, but it certainly enables that.

As people have said, education and "talent" (which I don't believe exists) combined is going to give you the best results.

They key for someone interacting with a Berklee grad is figuting out how to unlock the "talent" and creativity that drove them to Berklee in the first place.
Old 17th September 2007
  #202
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Ah! The masses NEED to enjoy?? This is what drives me to drivel. The tables have so thoroughly turned we've forgotten who's who. The PUBLIC doesn't KNOW what the public needs and wants. It's the ARTIST who is supposed to give it to them and give them the choices in multiple. The artist is supposed to be the visionary, not the public. The record companies are supposed to market what the artist creates, not the artist realizing what the marketing execs tell them they can sell!!

It turned around so thoroughly and completely (my apparent phrase of the day!) that I think we've been totally snookered. You have public, marketing and the artist. Only one of those is the creative entity. But the artist has become so cowed, such a begging loser, that he'll acquiesce to the wishes of the execs with barely a whimper.

Yes it's a market driven affair. Yes the public decides what to buy. But the PUBLIC doesn't know what it WANTS until it's given a fair choice. It's as if the whole process has imploded in on itself by incestuousness. And, I'm sorry, the public is stupid. It'll buy what it's given. That's what the ad execs know. That's why they've convinced the artist to follow HIS lead.
Certainly an uninformed choice is unlikely to be as accurate as an informed choice. Can't argue with that.

The idea that of the three entities, public, marketing and artist, only the artist is creative is on of the most self-handicapping, self-aggrandizing and arrogant points of view possible.

Their has to be an editing layer inbetween the artist and the public. With 40,000 albums released every year, there's no way the public wants complete choice or could even handle 10% choice.

Really what people wnat is variety delivered very slowy. Fomr the most part people want more of the smae, but they do eventually get bored, so there has to be a little variation, but just the barest minimum.

If an artist wants to establish a new direction, the best way is to start in the mainstrem, establish an audience and then take them to a new place.

Forget music and bussiness and just think about human nature.
Old 17th September 2007
  #203
I've really only seen the scorn towards "educated people" here in America. It is very strange, but cuts across many "walks of life." I acutely felt it in high school, where it was "cool" to not do your homework and fail classes (any wonder why 1/3 of my senior class didn't graduate?) I saw it when working in hi-tech, and the firm I worked for didn't hire any programmers who had a degree in programming from a US university (but there was a practical reason for that; CS grads typically weren't well-equipped to handle actual production code in the Java language, whereas Indian, Pakistani, and Israeli-educated students graduated with sufficient skills to immediately work as a Jr. developer).

But the audio world, and the musician/engineer bias against educated musicians, is even stranger. I think part of it has to do with an excess/overabundance of people trying to stake a claim to being a professional musician or engineer. There's certainly way too many CDs on the market, most of them thoroughly mediocre. I think it has to do with the economics of small groups in America, who often pay to play but may be able to recoup their money and make a bit from selling CDs at gigs. Groups that never should have recorded anything churn out crap at an insane rate. And there's a whole stable of amateur, semi-professional and professional engineers who serve this client base. I know - I've been there!

I think part of it has to do with an odd manipulation of one trope Americans hear, process, and say every day - "freedom of personal expression." People feel they have a right to personal expression, which strangely extends to feeling they have a right to making CDs that express their individual artistic creativity. If there's any critique of said product, it is defended on the basis of being a personal expression.

Which is not to say that "uneducated" people who have this feeling will necessarily make bad albums. But, not knowing about the harmonic system one's music derives from, not understanding a long history of understanding about voice leading, not understanding tuning systems, the physics of sound, and how to arrange multi-part music, not understanding any of these is unlikely to help the musician make better or more interesting music.

I began with mentioning I've only seen this in the US. I worked in Turkey for 2 years as an AE, where the fact I had university education in physics of sound, AE, and music was considered not only a good thing but something to be respected. For Turkish rock and jazz musicians (many of whom are insanely good already at their instruments and had university education in music), the dream was to be able to go to Berklee.
Old 17th September 2007
  #204
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
As people have said, education and "talent" (which I don't believe exists) combined is going to give you the best results.

They key for someone interacting with a Berklee grad is figuting out how to unlock the "talent" and creativity that drove them to Berklee in the first place.
I think education and practice turns talent in skill. A few members of my family have no musical talent whatsoever so they do not persue music. When I was young and started playing violin I had the talent to play some music by ear while some musicians need printed music.

I rely a lot on talent but some of those talents are not backed up by skill. I have the talent for drawing but no formal training in art so I have no skills in the art department. I have a talent for dealing with computers so I'm a student employee that takes care of the midi lab at school. My talent with computers is greater than a lot of students and professors at school so I end up helping a lot of people. Some professors have no talent at all with computers so you know where that puts me.

If people did not have talent, how would they know what to do with themselves?
Old 17th September 2007
  #205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascottk View Post
After reading some of this thread, I realize I'm lucky as hell to be where I am. The music instructors at Western Oregon University are the most open minded, creative, talented and skillful musicians I have ever come across. Not only that, they are creating opportunities for all of the students who are interested in recording/engineering. Although the music program's main focus is music education & performance, any opportunity to get into engineering is definately a big plus to them.

For example, Dr. Kevin Walczyk -- who is also my advisor -- is a professional composer who was commissioned by the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra and the Oregon Symphony to wrote music for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. He hires student employees for live performance recordings and he encourages me to build up my gear.

I've been taking composition lessons from Dr. Jospeh Harchanko who has also been commissioned to write music for professional ensembles. Engineering technology and electronacoustic music is his main thing & a quite few classes are built around this. Needless to say, anyone interested in sound engineering is a big plus.

We also have some big names in this school. Students can take drum lessons from him. In case you didn't know, instead of typing a buch of stuff about him, I'll just quote from the WOU faculty page:
http://www.wou.edu/las/creativearts/music/brown.htm

He's an awesome guy & I'd love to take lessons from him.

Dr. Tom Bergeron (not the TV host) is probably one of the most skillful saxophone player I've heard. Brief overview:


Not to mention Christopher Woitach and Keller Coker.
_______

What I'm getting at is not all programs are the same. All of the above instructors have real world experience in and out of the studio. I think they'd do anything to help their students out & they prepare us for the real world. They are also realistic when it comes to the music business & all of them have horror stories about that business. Anyone with technical experience is also well supported.

Sorry about this rant, not to mention spewing stuff that may seem like a promotion for a school you never heard of, but there's also a lot of respect for people in our profession . . . well maybe not record companies . . .
Define "played with".


Skillful is great. Moving is much better.
Old 17th September 2007
  #206
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Define "played with".
I'm assuming you're refering to the Mel Brown quote . . . uh . . . let's see . . . performed with . . . recorded with . . . but that's not my quote. I'm saying this guy has performed and recorded with some big names in the jazz/Motown world.

Quote:
Skillful is great. Moving is much better.
Actions speak louder than words? All of the people I mention always lead by example and they are extremely busy with their craft.
Old 17th September 2007
  #207
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Certainly an uninformed choice is unlikely to be as accurate as an informed choice. Can't argue with that.

The idea that of the three entities, public, marketing and artist, only the artist is creative is on of the most self-handicapping, self-aggrandizing and arrogant points of view possible.

Their has to be an editing layer inbetween the artist and the public. With 40,000 albums released every year, there's no way the public wants complete choice or could even handle 10% choice.

Really what people wnat is variety delivered very slowy. Fomr the most part people want more of the smae, but they do eventually get bored, so there has to be a little variation, but just the barest minimum.

If an artist wants to establish a new direction, the best way is to start in the mainstrem, establish an audience and then take them to a new place.

Forget music and bussiness and just think about human nature.
That's me. I'm totally arrogant, self aggrandizing!

OF COURSE marketing people are creative. Of course the public is creative. But none of that matters. It's the artist the people are supposed to be listening to, and THINK THEY ARE, not the marketing director. But you know what? These days that's exactly what they're listening to.
Old 17th September 2007
  #208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
The idea that of the three entities, public, marketing and artist, only the artist is creative is on of the most self-handicapping, self-aggrandizing and arrogant points of view possible.

Their has to be an editing layer inbetween the artist and the public. With 40,000 albums released every year, there's no way the public wants complete choice or could even handle 10% choice.
I think this kind of thinking and line of reasoning dilutes ideas of what creativity is. The word has become so diluted it's near useless. Either we have to reclaim the word, or abandon it altogether.

Everyone wants to be considered "creative." Marketers, telemarketers, vice-presidents, auto mechanics, janitors, country presidents, musicians, whoever.

There are skills involved in every profession. Decision-making, too. Some people are better at professions than others. Some are even brilliant at what they do.

But not every profession really has creativity. And in professions with creativity, not every professional is creative.

Marketers are not creative. They can be brilliant at what they do. What they can do can shape people's perceptions of art. But they do not create art. A PA system also shapes people's perceptions of art, but we don't call it creative. A funny person at the party who is skilled in relating TV or movie episodes might be (erroneously) called "creative" by people who feel he his able to do something socially they can't. But skillfully parroting Borat episodes is not creative - it's a skill, some are real good at it, some aren't.

Creativity requires direct innovation that has lasting effects. Not the marketing of that innovation, not the shaping of people's perceptions of that innovation. Not "recognizing" talent. Any hack can "recognize" talent. Not writing a "one-hit wonder" (it doesn't have lasting effects). With these definitions, we realize few people are actually creative. Which is ok.

(I'm gonna be REAL POPULAR with this one): I'm not even sure audio engineers are inherently "creative," or that "creativity" should be part of their job skills, with the exception of situations when the engineer is the principal creative artist on a project (such as dub mixers, sole-authored electronic music, etc.) Of course, there are great audio engineers and poor ones, but what differentiates them perhaps isn't creativity so much as other skills (people skills, auditory perception skills, technical proficiency). But, I'm not sure on this one. Hopefully others will have thoughts on this.

There's an excellent book which looks at why creativity has become so widespread in use, but also why it should be narrowed in scope:
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. It's focused more on science, but also includes art and music.
Old 18th September 2007
  #209
Gear Nut
 
James R.'s Avatar
 

Hi Pegleg,



Sorry, I used the wrong label. When I said schooled sound engineers I should have specified that these guys were more lab coat like guys, very schooled on the techincal side of the equipment. More than likely started with electro/engineering degrees. As far as there not being any actual recording schools back that far, you're probably absolutely right.
Sorry for my confusion on that statement and for not articulating my train of thought better.



James R.
Avian Studios
(we're for the birds)
Old 18th September 2007
  #210
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer View Post
I think this kind of thinking and line of reasoning dilutes ideas of what creativity is. The word has become so diluted it's near useless. Either we have to reclaim the word, or abandon it altogether.

Everyone wants to be considered "creative." Marketers, telemarketers, vice-presidents, auto mechanics, janitors, country presidents, musicians, whoever.

There are skills involved in every profession. Decision-making, too. Some people are better at professions than others. Some are even brilliant at what they do.

But not every profession really has creativity. And in professions with creativity, not every professional is creative.

Marketers are not creative. They can be brilliant at what they do. What they can do can shape people's perceptions of art. But they do not create art. A PA system also shapes people's perceptions of art, but we don't call it creative. A funny person at the party who is skilled in relating TV or movie episodes might be (erroneously) called "creative" by people who feel he his able to do something socially they can't. But skillfully parroting Borat episodes is not creative - it's a skill, some are real good at it, some aren't.

Creativity requires direct innovation that has lasting effects. Not the marketing of that innovation, not the shaping of people's perceptions of that innovation. Not "recognizing" talent. Any hack can "recognize" talent. Not writing a "one-hit wonder" (it doesn't have lasting effects). With these definitions, we realize few people are actually creative. Which is ok.

(I'm gonna be REAL POPULAR with this one): I'm not even sure audio engineers are inherently "creative," or that "creativity" should be part of their job skills, with the exception of situations when the engineer is the principal creative artist on a project (such as dub mixers, sole-authored electronic music, etc.) Of course, there are great audio engineers and poor ones, but what differentiates them perhaps isn't creativity so much as other skills (people skills, auditory perception skills, technical proficiency). But, I'm not sure on this one. Hopefully others will have thoughts on this.

There's an excellent book which looks at why creativity has become so widespread in use, but also why it should be narrowed in scope:
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. It's focused more on science, but also includes art and music.

If you think marketers aren't creative, talk to Gil Griffith for an hour and then see what you think.

Individuals are creative, job titles are not. If you put Picasso in charge of maketing at Warner Bros, they would market their albums more creativly than any other label, and I don't mean the packaging.

Do you really think that there aren't creative garbage men? I can't cite any because don't really know any, but I guarantee there are, but guys figure out new ways to get the garbage into the truck and mamagemnet coming up with creative ways to make routes more efficient.

Richard Avedon's definition of art is anything done well.

I know what he means, and for a single sentence description, I'll agree, but i do think it involves a little more than that. But there is an "art" to everything and anything can be ellevated to the level of "art".
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
quietdrive / So much gear, so little time
1
TML / Bruce Swedien
2
Nik / So much gear, so little time
29
Renie / So much gear, so little time
27

Forum Jump
Forum Jump