Unhappy with attitude towards music....

[SolipsismX]

Here's my gripe. I've found a music major to be pretty worthless for me. I like some classical music and I've played several "classical instruments" for 8 years, but it's just not my thing. Does anybody else have this problem (i guess that means people still in college)? I don't see how learning about classical music (or there's the jazz option) is going to help me very much. I understand the need for theory classes, but nowadays it's not as important. A lot of the guys in this forum complain that music has gotten too simple on the harmonic level, but the pattern you hate now is just where the money is and to be honest, it's where the innovation is. I'm not saying all orchestral pieces suck (i like a lot of them), but symphonic orchestra based songs have been around for centuries. There's not much more you can do with it on the classical level. Which is why the general music program sucks in most schools. I can't write a song consisting of heavy synths and processing along with an orchestral part. It won't be taken seriously. Sure, some classes allow you to get a little creative every once in a while, but it's still pretty constraining. I had one professor who was open enough to listen to some more experimental stuff, but that's about it. Even the professor who taught electro acoutics was teaching us basically how to create clean sounds and arrange orchestral pieces with synths instead of acoustic instruments.

I think there's a stuck up attitude towards a lot of pop music in general. I understand most of it sucks, but that doesn't mean all of it is worse than the older stuff. I think people are trying to achieve something else now. Instead or writing a 30 minute piece, they're working within the confines of 3-15 minutes. And I think a more specific category that gets frowned upon is aggresive rock music. I mean, somebody just made a post about how guitar ruined music and how turning up the volume sucks. The problem is, that's the best way you can convey anger and aggression. I'm not saying you can't convey anger or aggression with just an orchestra, but honestly, when I want to get pissed off or blow off some steam, I put on some NIN. And I don't think Pantera is a great example of a good use of loud guitar(well I liked them when I was younger). I just mean you can be more dynamic with a guitar and you can get a more angry feeling with it when it needs to be there. The guitat itself has a lot of other moods, but I'm just focusing on this particular aspect because I noticed the guitar to be acceptable in the Jazz department when it was turned down and played for that sort've music.

I don't know, I started to rant. I just wish some non-traditional/unsafe music would get some more respect instead of thrown into the simple/teen angst/artsy fartsy pile. Of course I'm not saying that pile doesn't exist http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Maybe it's because only the younger generation still feels the urge to get pissed off with a song and yell.

oh well

[jamessievershome.com]

Have you thought about the food service or hospitality areas of study? I have a Master's in music and also attended Berklee. It is generally assumed that a music education is considered to be a luxury and not necessary to one's success, or lack of it, in the 'music business'or any other chosen vocation. Teaching is another matter which i did for awhile at a major mid-western University, but disliked the 'political' attachment associated to teaching. I make a very comfortable living as a marketing professional in and out of the 'music business'. You are speaking mainly of stylistic issues rather than the substance of theoretical issues, and quite frankly, with a knowledge of theory and composition/arranging you can accomplish all you may need. Buy a theory book and then forget what you learned.

Jim

[Guest]

To clarify one thing...

The thread "how guitar ruined music" was made as a joke by Dan during a flame contest which was held a week ago.

This have also been said in the thread itself so take the things in it with some salt.

 

Secondly, I think that you should finish your education.

I think you will regret if you quit.

Just because the music today (on charts) is boring doesn't mean that it will be the same in the future.

A good education will never be held against you.

 

"The knowledge roots are bitter, but their fruits are sweet"

 

------------------

--Smedis,--

[Guest]

I wouldn't sweat it, SolipsismX- after all, we're all just figments of your imagination! (just teasing)

 

Well there's a couple methods for getting out of your dilemna, I think.

 

First of all, try this perspective on academia- on one hand it's stiff and boring and conservative, on the other look at John Chowning, creating FM synthesis at Stanford a decade before the DX-7 took the pop world by storm. You've got your dishonest hacks and your brilliant explorers, often in the same damn music department.

 

 

Think individuals, not institutions.

 

 

Don't let mediocre teachers turn you off to the wonderful sweaty beautiful soulful world of classical music!

 

 

Transcribe the popular music you like. Be honest with yourself- is what you transcribed really harmonically innovative or melodically interesting?

 

Is for example the aggression there without the volume and timbre? Will it still be there when the novelty of the timbre wears off?

 

Go one step further- a transcription of a Bauhaus song usually sounds pretty damn mild, but to make a genuine transcription would be a chore. Assuming the out-of-tuneness is intentional, it would be a hell of a task to accurately transcribe and you could say the secret of the composition lies therein.

 

Even further, look at it like a true academic and invoke Schoenberg's Klangfarbemelodie. Okay, it's a campfire tune on paper, but it IS inherently aggressive because the timbre cannot be divorced from the compostition.

 

You don't have to hold any of these views, it's just an exercise. And it's the kind of thing stoned, drunken hard-rocking musicians do all the time, too, even if they think in other terms.

 

Don't forget that some of the stonedest, hardest rocking, hard-drinking aggressive musicians know theory up the ass, too.

 

And coming full circle, don't sweat it. In the end effect, it doesn't matter at all if what you do is "taken seriously" in school, and you only have yourself to live with, so get some solipsism going and do your thing.

 

my two Schillings, probably a year's wages for a great composer of old

 

- CB

[joegerardi]

Permit me to address your comments and questions on an item-by-item basis.

 

I don't see how learning about classical music (or there's the jazz option) is going to help me very much. I understand the need for theory classes, but nowadays it's not as important. A lot of the guys in this forum

 

Theory has been developed over the years. The groundwork was laid in classical. Understanding the differences in what you call "classical" (Which actually only defines a short time in the history of music. Mozart, Beethoven, etc. are "classical" musicians. Bach, Haydn, Handel, Buxtehude, etc, were of the Baroque period, and Liszt, Rachmaninov, Strauss, etc. were of the Romantic period.) will help the composer in today's times understand intervals, harmony, and sound. Learning about "classical" will give musicians an understanding of "How did he create that mood?" and "How can I get this across?" so that they may use the same styles, and create richer music.

 

complain that music has gotten too simple on the harmonic level, but the pattern you hate now is just where the money is and to be honest, it's where the innovation is. I'm not saying all orchestral pieces suck (I like

 

Innovation? Where do you hear innovation? I'm taking for granted that you are talking about popular music today. I can't tell the different players anymore, because they all sound exactly the same: 4/4 beat, a rhythmic guitar background, and throaty, gravelly complaint about how life sucks, or the same sequenced backbeat whilst nubile girls shag their tits at an audience whilst breathlessly talking about sex. I see no innovation there, it's just formulaic and repetitive- Done by Pearl Jam 10 years ago for the former, and Madonna 20 years ago for the latter. I would probably have a heart attack if someone ever mutated, modulated, or changed a time signature.

 

a lot of them), but symphonic orchestra based songs have been around for centuries. There's not much more you can do with it on the classical level.

 

So your saying that everything that can be done, every nuance, every trace of expression, every decent composition, has already been written? For 90 instruments playing together, that's quite an accomplishment. If I follow your logic, that would mean for a 3 or 4 piece band, we should have hit the same wall already, considering that with 1/18 of the available instruments in a band compared to an orchestra, it shouldn't take as long to get to the same point...

 

I can't write a song consisting of heavy synths and processing along with an orchestral part. It won't be taken seriously. Sure, some classes allow you to get a little creative every once in a while, but it's still pretty constraining.

 

Why ever not? Do you believe that all these classical composers were celebrated and "stars" during their time? Mozart died penniless and was buried in a common grave. Bach was all but forgotten until Liszt "rediscovered" him with a performance of the St. John's Passion" 90 years (or more- I can't remember) after his death. Go for it, Bubba. Their music is what made them great in the annals of history, not their celebrity. Do you for one minute believe that Curt Cobain will be remembered with more than a passing thought in 50 years? I don't think so, I believe he will be forgotten, just as so many classical composers were. Here's an example: Carl Phillip Emmanuel Bach, son of Johann Sebastion, was much more celebrated than his father ever was in their respective times. But were I to say the name "Bach" today, whom do you think of?

 

I had one professor who was open enough to listen to some more experimental stuff, but that's about it. Even the professor who taught electro acoutics was teaching us basically how to create clean sounds and arrange orchestral pieces with synths instead of acoustic instruments.

 

And you consider this a waste of time? Let me ask you: If you are creating a string part on a synth, are you aware of how to open voice the different parts to actually SOUND like a string section? Are you aware of the range of these instruments so that a bassoon doesn't sound like a screeching crow, a sax sound like beer farts? Professors will only give you the tools. It's your imagination and talent that have to go beyond that. Classical music evolved from Baroque, because the limits of Baroque were pretty much played out by J.S. Bach. The composers after him were experimenting with new sounds, intervals and instruments to go farther. Even within Bach's time the Baroque went through some amazing revolutions. Here's just one: Organists were not permitted to use their thumbs. Bach pushed the envelope and forced them to go farther. A proper education is music would teach young musicians to push the envelope on what they are trying to create in the same way.

 

I think there's a stuck up attitude towards a lot of pop music in general. I understand most of it sucks, but that doesn't mean all of it is worse than the older stuff.

 

That's true of everything and anything is this world.

 

I think people are trying to achieve something else now. Instead or writing a 30 minute piece, they're working within the confines of 3-15 minutes. And

 

This is only my opinion, but I believe that is because they couldn't write anything to support a longer piece. Additionally, that is where the money is: In nice, radio-playable singles. Are they writing what they feel, or are they selling out to the god of lucre?

 

I think a more specific category that gets frowned upon is aggresive rock music. I mean, somebody just made a post about how guitar ruined music and how turning up the volume sucks. The problem is, that's the best way you can convey anger and aggression. I'm not saying you can't convey anger or

 

I completley disagree. It's not the best, simply the easiest. Listen to some of Igor Stravinsky's works. There is tremendous aggression there. It's so bad in places, that at one premiere performance of his works, a man couldn't take it anymore and struck the person sitting next to him. Rachmaninov was one of the most aggressive of writers. He was able to convey his feelings through the NOTES note the VOLUME. Listen to "Flight of the Bumblebee." Another reason why learning classical is important. One limits oneself if one doesn't know more than one way to express onself.

 

aggression with just an orchestra, but honestly, when I want to get pissed off or blow off some steam, I put on some NIN. And I don't think Pantera is a great example of a good use of loud guitar(well I liked them when I was younger). I just mean you can be more dynamic with a guitar and you can get a more angry feeling with it when it needs to be there.

 

Next time, try Holst's "Mars, the Bringer of War." See if that doesn't display aggression out the wazoo. Just see how it works, that's all I'm asking.

 

I just wish some non-traditional/unsafe music would get some more respect instead of thrown into the simple/teen angst/artsy fartsy pile. Of course I'm not saying that pile doesn't exist Maybe it's because only the younger generation still feels the urge to get pissed off with a song and yell. oh well

 

As long as people live in an "I want it NOW" world, experimentation will always be the underdog. It's too easy to cop out and go the safe route, because you know there will be acceptance, rather than take a chance and possibly become a "has been." That's the reason I love 70's progressive rock so much: It was pushing the envelope in terms of time, notation, and instrumentation, and not pandering to the masses just to get the record contract. Fortunately, the times were willing to support that, and people were willing to listen. No more.

 

I don't want you to think that I'm flaming you here. You bring up a lot of good points, and I wanted to dialog with you on them.

 

..Joe

 

 

This message has been edited by joegerardi on 05-02-2001 at 10:41 AM

[soapbox]

Originally posted by SolipsismX:

I've found a music major to be pretty worthless for me. I like some classical music and I've played several "classical instruments" for 8 years, but it's just not my thing. Does anybody else have this problem (i guess that means people still in college)? I don't see how learning about classical music (or there's the jazz option) is going to help me very much. I understand the need for theory classes, but nowadays it's not as important.

 

When I was a music major, I was also ambivalent about being in college. I was in a hurry to become a rock star and I didnt see the relevance of learning Bach counterpoint.

 

Now, Ive had a quarter of a century to see the benefits of having been a music major. Ive seen many trends come and go in the pop music scene, but Ive been flexible enough to move with the times every step of the way because of what I learned in school. I also made connections in college with fellow students who eventually climbed the ladder in this business and in turn helped me because of the respect I earned from them while we were in school together.

 

Ive been able to make a living playing keyboards because I practiced the works of Chopin for hours at a time, and because I learned most of the jazz standards that are commonly played in clubs. Ive been able to make a living doing orchestrations because I conducted my own symphony in college. Ive been able to better understand engineering because of my acoustics class. Learning to write twelve tone music trained my ear so well that Ive been able to hear every little nuance in any kind of music. This has been an invaluable tool in helping me earn a living as an arranger.

 

I learned to analyze music thoroughly in college by being forced to focus on the following elements: 1) Melody, 2) Harmony, 3) Rhythm, 4) Timbre, 5) Form, and 6) Text (Lyrics). As a writer and arranger, I always double check my work to make sure I didnt let it fall short in one of these areas.

 

I was given the discipline in college to work hard and for long hours, which helped me immensely in the studio scene where Ive often been required to work for 24 or more hours straight under deadline conditions.

 

If Sony is offering you a great record deal, then drop out of college now! Otherwise, if youre dedicated to music, youre in the best place you can be.

[Lee Flier]

Egads! SolipsismX, you might wanna head over to the guitar forum, you'll get a lot more sympathy there. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

First of all, I myself feel that I'd have wasted my time being a music major. I appreciate classical music and enjoy much of it. But... I still find that I most enjoy listening to good rock music, and therefore that is what I wanted to play. NOT because it's "easier" than classical. Music has been a lifelong pursuit for me and I never stop wanting to work hard at learning new things. It is actually more difficult to DISTINGUISH yourself playing rock music precisely BECAUSE it is simple in structure and whether it gets across or not depends on less quantifiable things than whether you change time signatures. I am 38 years old and still working at how to build the perfect rock record. It's not easy unless you choose to make it so. If you wanna learn 3 chords and get a cute haircut and become a "rock star", maybe you think that's easy. The GREAT rock musicians work every bit as hard as classical players, they just work at different things.

 

I have definitely found that there are two camps in terms of the way people hear and appreciate music. One judges music based on quantifiable things like theoretical complexity or level of technical difficulty. The other judges on emotional impact and subtle variation within a simple structure. Either side can go over the top in its thinking. Rock music can become extremely "formulaic" while classical and jazz can become too "cerebral" or "avant garde" for all but a small audience to appreciate. Of course, the best music of any genre won't descend into either of these pits. But in general, there do seem to be these two camps of music listeners (and players), and neither one of them understand the other very well.

 

Since I fall into the "feel and simplicity" camp much more than the "chops" camp, I had to take a different approach to learning than traditional theory and classical training. I feel it has worked well for me. Not to say you won't get any use out of being a music major but really, if you've been playing classical for 8 years and you are still not appreciating the attitude behind it, it's probably not for you. You might want to seriously ask yourself what it is you really want out of your musical life. That's a good place to start. Do you want to make your living as a session player? Be in a band? Engineer or produce? How do you want to distinguish yourself? Don't ASSUME you have to go to college to do what you want. You might be able to save yourself some money and get in through another door.

 

Well if you give us some idea what you want to do, maybe we can help. I'm totally with ya on the attitude, though - it doesn't help anything.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 05-02-2001 at 11:47 AM

[Gus Lozada]

Hello.

 

I got your point. Now read carefully the words of someone without a formal music education, but an Industrial Engineering Major and a Master degree in business administration.

 

Teachers just show you the way things are. They teach you how to learn.

 

But it deppends entirely on you how do you use what you learned in this, the real world.

 

The best thing about music, is that it is a way to express yourself. I, as an engineer can not be that innovative and follow up my own rules. Of course, I have to design methods I did not learn in school to improve things and save some money, but I have to follow up some rules since we're in a global commerce community (I am a Materials & Purchasing manager for a Textile manufacturing company in Mexico).

 

Now, apply that to music. I have an electronic Pop band. But that is not because I am just looking for the money. I actually like it. I know the easiest way in Mexico to have succes is to be thin, handsome and play some cheesie (even more than mine) pop tunes, while dancing or even worse, dress like a Texan and play "Norteña" music. I'm trying to succed with what I like to do...

 

I have also played live concerts with a friend of mine which is an Orchestra director, combining my synths and sequences with a 12 piece orchestra, to play some classical music and also some Yanni, Vangelis and my favorite, the Jose Pablo Moncayo's "Huapango".

 

For a more "Classical" approach from contemporary composer, visit this URL: http://www.mp3.com/DanSouth

 

He will tell you through his music how important music theory is when you want to do your thing...

 

I don't suggest you to visit my site... you'd get depressed http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Think... and keep studying. You almost make it...

 

Remember: Knowledge is Power. What you do with that power dependes entirely on you.

 

GusTraX@yahoo.com

[joegerardi]

But Lee:

In your post you wrote "Do you want to make your living as a session player?"

 

These, more than most have to be grounded in ALL styles of music. Remember: You could be called in to fill in a classical style background, and if all ya got is 3 chords, then you'll be out of the session scene soon enough. Or, maybe you get a movie soundtrack and they slap some sheet music from Roderigo in gromt of you. What do you do then?

[Lee Flier]

Joe,

 

That is why I asked if our friend wanted to be a session player. In those situations, you ARE more likely to need theory. Whether he has to be a music major in college to learn theory is another story. You can take private lessons or learn from a book a lot faster and cheaper.

 

Also, please don't assume that someone with no formal training only knows 3 chords. I have no interest in being a session player myself, but I do know people who are session players with no formal training who can still follow along with complex pieces and read basic chord charts. People just have different ways of learning and communicating music. Some people can "feel" changes, even complex ones. It is true that if you're a session player and somebody slaps a classical piece in front of you, you're screwed. But hopefully you would find that out BEFORE accepting the gig. And if you established yourself as a rock session player who filled a particular niche, then nobody would call you for a classical gig.

 

So it really depends what you want to do. Some people pride themselves on being able to accept any gig, any genre, any time, and therefore they need formal training and need to be able to sight read as well as improvise on any complex changes that happen to come up, and know what the hell's going on. That's cool, but it's by no means the only challenge out there. Lots of people have been very successful operating within a certain niche if they do it well. If SolipsismX is frustrated with the classical format and attitude after 8 years, maybe that approach is just not for him. He certainly won't succeed at trying to do something he isn't really into, when there are so many other people who are much more motivated. It's far better to do what you love, and you're far more likely to get called if you have a great attitude toward the music you're playing.

 

--Lee

[joegerardi]

Lee:

Sorry, bud, I wasn't implying *you* only knew 3 chords, I was elaborating on the original thread, and the part about aggressive music.

 

Rereading your post after reading this one makes, it a lot more sense than the first time. Sorry 'bout that.

 

..Joe

[DrMarkAndersenexcite.com]

Here's my gripe. I've found a music major to be pretty worthless for me.

 

I'm a tenured professor of wildlife science. Students in our program get a good background in professional preparation. However, the most important thing they learn (and the single most important thing anyone can get out of a formal education in anything, in my opinion) is the ability to teach themselves something. A good solid background in music will give you the ability to deal with a variety of genres and situations. At any good music program, the ear training sequence alone should be worth the price of admission. At my university, faculty are allowed to take one course free of charge per semester. I took two semesters of ear training last year, and it was the single best thing I've ever done to improve my overall musicianship. I only wish I'd had time to take all four semesters. Sure, you can teach yourself theory, if you're really motivated. You could probably teach yourself calculus and partial differential equations, too, but will you?

 

Sure, some classes allow you to get a little creative every once in a while, but it's still pretty constraining. I had one professor who was open enough to listen to some more experimental stuff, but that's about it. Even the professor who taught electro acoutics was teaching us basically how to create clean sounds and arrange orchestral pieces with synths instead of acoustic instruments.

 

Actually, it might be useful to step outside your own usual genre. Try composing an 8-part madrigal sometime, and see how you can apply what you learned doing that to the process of creating the kind of music you normally create. To reiterate what someone else said earlier, creating clean sounds and arranging orchestral pieces with synths instead of acoustic instruments is a useful skill. Just ask anyone that scores films for a living.

 

 

I think there's a stuck up attitude towards a lot of pop music in general. I understand most of it sucks, but that doesn't mean all of it is worse than the older stuff.

 

Remember Sturgeon's Law: Ninetey percent of everything is crap. This is also true for classical music, it's just that the 90% that's crap was forgotten about long ago. With pop music, the 90% that's crap is pretty much in your face and mine, 24/7.

 

And I think a more specific category that gets frowned upon is aggresive rock music.

 

Again, to reiterate an earlier post, try some Stravinsky. Crank "The Rite of Spring"; if that doesn't make your pulse rate go up, you should check to make sure you have a pulse. Now try some Varese. Don't kid yourself, rock players from Hendrix to Yes to Sting and beyond have been influenced by the innovations of 20th century "classical" music.

[coyote]

Here's my take on the general "music ed" thing....

 

When I went to music school, I went because I had great stuff in my head but had no clue how to get it out for others to hear. As I got trained, I lost a lot of that wonderful stuff and started thinking in a more musically 'structured' fashion. However, I also learned som great things and was able to earn a living in the industry. And guess what? Here I am fifteen years later. All that wild stuff in my head that I thought was gone forever is coming back to me - and now I have the ability to get that stuff out of my head and onto tape!

 

I can't guarantee the education will help you (much of that depends on what *you* bring to the process) but it will not hurt....

[Botch.]

SolipsismX, the complaints you have about a formal music education can apply to many fields. I have two engineering degrees (two weeks away from a third) and the most complicated thing I do in the "day job" could be done with someone with a decent algebra education from high school. So many of the well-paid software geeks don't have a formal degree (including that Gates crook) and yet there's still art majors who put red letters on blue backgrounds, too. A formal education is good but not the only way to learn. Some career fields still require the "piece of paper" (engineering, architecture, medicine) but many, especially the arts, do not and are becoming more and more open to "what you can do, not what piece of paper you have". Don't know which way to tell you to go, just something to think about.

[dansouth]

Here's my gripe. I've found a music major to be pretty worthless for me.

 

It may be WORSE than worthless. If you're not going to make a decent living in music, you may be better off spending your tuition dollars on accounting or engineering classes.

 

But if you ARE planning in earnest to make your living in the music business, think of it this way. The guy who designed the Empire State Building first had to take the same boring drafting classes as everyone else. First, he learned to used a T-square. He diagramed objects in front view/top view/side view form, then eventually worked his way up to drafting the blueprints for a house. Not very thrilling, but these rudimentary lessons prepared him for his later achievements. It's important to learn the basics and to learn them correctly.

 

What if you chose, instead, to invest your time into learning the intracies of Pantera and NIN? That knowledge may serve you well for a while, but what are you going to do with it when you're 50? The "kids" aren't going to want to see your gray hair up on that stage! But if you have a GOOD MUSIC EDUCATION, you may be able to get a job scoring films, recording jingles, teaching, mixing, consulting, etc.

 

I like some classical music and I've played several "classical instruments" for 8 years, but it's just not my thing.

 

So why are you studying music at all, if it's not your thing? What if the aforementioned architect had said, "Drawing houses is not 'my thing'?" There would be no Empire State Building today if he'd copped that attitude.

 

Does anybody else have this problem (i guess that means people still in college)?

 

Yes, EVERYONE has this problem. But one of the earmarks of maturity is the ability to apply yourself to lessons that do not seem to have immediate value, i.e. to have faith in the people who designed your program and to work with them, rather than struggle against their approach.

 

I don't see how learning about classical music (or there's the jazz option) is going to help me very much.

 

If you were able to learn one tenth of one percent of what Mozart, Bach, and Tchaikovsky (or Ellington, Basie, Parker) knew, you'd be a brilliant musician. What better way to learn these lessons than under the guidance of an experienced music department?

 

I understand the need for theory classes, but nowadays it's not as important. A lot of the guys in this forum complain that music has gotten too simple on the harmonic level, but the pattern you hate now is just where the money is and to be honest, it's where the innovation is.

 

You're confusing theory with harmonic complexity. Theory is about how the building blocks of music work together to create the final effect, be they simple or complex. Most classical music is based upon very simple harmonic structures. A knowledge of voicings, voice leading, melody, harmony and orchestration will help you in every style of music you play later on.

 

I'm not saying all orchestral pieces suck (i like a lot of them), but symphonic orchestra based songs have been around for centuries. There's not much more you can do with it on the classical level.

 

Have you been to the movies lately? Does every soundtrack sound the same. We haven't scratched the surface of the possibilities of orchestral music.

 

I can't write a song consisting of heavy synths and processing along with an orchestral part. It won't be taken seriously.

 

It will if it moves the audience or if it breaks new ground. Your soul and imagination are the only things that can limit you, but it sounds like you're letting them do a number on you.

 

Sure, some classes allow you to get a little creative every once in a while, but it's still pretty constraining. I had one professor who was open enough to listen to some more experimental stuff, but that's about it.

 

Learn to build houses before you attempt a skyscraper.

 

Even the professor who taught electro acoutics was teaching us basically how to create clean sounds and arrange orchestral pieces with synths instead of acoustic instruments.

 

There's a HUGE amount that you can learn by doing this exercise. It will teach you how the timbres of different instruments blend together, how phrasing is used to keep instrements from getting in each others way, the importance of dynamics, rhythmic demands of combining soft and hard attacks, staccato vs. legato passages, etc., etc. Did you catch all of that? Maybe you should repeat the course.

 

I think there's a stuck up attitude towards a lot of pop music in general.

 

There are lots of pig-headed people in the world - jazz players who hate rock, rockers who loathe classical, classical musicians who despise jazz. What good do these attitudes serve? You can aspire to rise above the mediocrity by learning and appreciating all forms of music.

 

I think people are trying to achieve something else now. Instead or writing a 30 minute piece, they're working within the confines of 3-15 minutes.

 

I have a feeling that you are not well-acquainted with a lot of classical music? Have you ever heard of the "Minute Waltz" or "The Flight of the Bumblebee?" How many operatic arias go longer than four or five minutes? The movements of most concertos, suites, and sonatas are quite brief. On the other hand, today's "jam bands" often play songs that are longer than 20 minutes in length.

 

As far as music trying "to achieve something else," this is a fallacy. Dance music is as old as humanity. People have been shaking their booty to sound since they lived in caves. Sexuality has been a part of music forever. Why do you think women like to go to the opera? Shock value is nothing new, either. Riots ensued after the initial performances of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and Stavinsky's Rite Of Spring. Every new generation thinks that they invented stuff that's been around for centuries. Your classical education should have taught you this.

 

And I think a more specific category that gets frowned upon is aggresive rock music.

 

Only if you play it in a public place when people want to relax in peace and quiet.

 

I mean, somebody just made a post about how guitar ruined music and how turning up the volume sucks.

 

I was referring to the STAGE VOLUME of guitarists who drown out the rest of the band and annoy the patrons of the club while trying to achieve their signature "sound." I said nothing about the volume of music in general. And, by the way, Smedis is correct. It was a JOKE.

 

The problem is, that's the best way you can convey anger and aggression.

 

Not true. A novel or a painting can convey anger and aggression in absolute silence. What does that say about a musician who can't convey these same emotions without 120 dB of sound pressure behind them?

 

I'm not saying you can't convey anger or aggression with just an orchestra, but honestly, when I want to get pissed off or blow off some steam, I put on some NIN.

 

Good. I'm glad that you appreciate different genres. Everyone is drawn to music that suits their mood at the moment. But you REALLY need to listen to a wider variety of orchestral music.

 

I just mean you can be more dynamic with a guitar and you can get a more angry feeling with it when it needs to be there.

 

A guitar and a symphony orchestra are merely tools. In the right hands, both can convey a wide variety of emotions.

 

I noticed the guitar to be acceptable in the Jazz department when it was turned down and played for that sort've music.

 

The Jazz instructors don't want to suffer tinnitus for the rest of their lives. Guitar playing is like mixing. If you can make it sound good at low volumes, it will sound good turned up loud. But just because it sounds good loud, doesn't mean it REALLY sounds good.

 

Maybe it's because only the younger generation still feels the urge to get pissed off with a song and yell.

 

Wait a few years. You're going to meet a lot of angry old people, and they're going to do a lot of yelling. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Michael Jones]

EDUCATION!!!...

 

the one thing that separates the musician from the "one hit wonders"

 

Remember the Music!

 

 

Michael

[joegerardi]

Dansouth:

Thanks. I couldn't remember the title: "Rite of Spring." All I could think of by Stravinsky was "Apres Midi D'une Faun," and I KNEW it wasn't a piece about Bambi!

 

..Joe

[SolipsismX]

Just to clear some things (and I didn't bother to put a name to each quote, but you get the idea)

 

"""Innovation? Where do you hear innovation? I'm taking for granted that you are talking about popular music today. I can't tell the different players anymore, because they all sound exactly the same: 4/4 beat, a rhythmic guitar background..."""

 

You're forgetting I said MOST of popular music DOES suck. You're right. But there IS pop music that changes time signatures and keys still and does some pretty cool things. Tool is a great example.

 

"""So your saying that everything that can be done, every nuance, every trace of expression, every decent composition, has already been written? For 90 instruments playing together, that's quite an accomplishment. If I follow your logic, that would mean for a 3 or 4 piece band, we should have hit the same wall already,"""

 

You've followed my logic PERFECTLY. I HATE standard 4 piece bands. The kind of pop I like usually involves good orchestration in the background, a crap load of synths and a whole lot of processing ALONG with the 4 piece band. And as for the classical instruments, I stand beside my statement that it's all been done before. But what I mean by that is, we need composers who are trying new things. I don't mind the violins and brass sections, (in fact I love them) but I think they need to start adding some more instruments to the ensemble. What about writing a piece with an electric lead guitar or heavy synth work? And yes, I know it's been done before. I just don't think it's been done enough and it's not being welcomed enough.

 

"""This is only my opinion, but I believe that is because they couldn't write anything to support a longer piece. Additionally, that is where the money is: In nice, radio-playable singles. Are they writing what they feel, or are they selling out to the god of lucre?"""

 

This is true of a lot of pop musicians, but like dadabobro said, a lot of pop musicans now know their theory and have been through the same schooling a lot of us have. You'd be surprised how many rockers there are that were band nerds in high school or were taking piano lessons their whole life.

 

"Have you been to the movies lately? Does every soundtrack sound the same. We haven't scratched the surface of the possibilities of orchestral music."

 

You know what's funny? YES, MOST SCORES DO SOUND THE SAME. In fact, the few scores I respect, are the ones that doing what I am promoting. They're using a lot of processiong and doing things in a less tradtional manner. My personal favorite is Angelo Badalamenti. He writes a very standard and eerie classical piece, but then he tweaks it. I'm not sure if this is just when he's with David Lynch though. But I'm going to be sick if I hear another one of jerry g.'s pieces. They've become so formulaic. Did you guys see the previews for pearl harbor? It sounds like every other million dollar epic score. Saving Bravehearts Titanic List. Blah

 

"""As far as music trying "to achieve something else," this is a fallacy. Dance music is as old as humanity. People have been shaking their booty to sound since they lived in caves. Sexuality has been a part of music forever. Why do you think women like to go to the opera? Shock value is nothing new, either. Riots ensued after the initial performances of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and Stavinsky's Rite Of Spring. Every new generation thinks that they invented stuff that's been around for centuries. Your classical education should have taught you this"""

 

Who ever said I was talking about emotional innovation? I was talking about writing something within a shorter period. Of course I've heard the one minute waltz, I'm just saying that they're doing something different now with the time they have. I know short songs have existed for a long time now. But I don't think they've ever had as much of a range of timbre as they do(can) now. I mean, folk songs have been around forever, so I'm not saying if fred durst and some loser start singing the acoustic version of "nookie" that they'll be doing something new. But try listening to Aphex Twin's Bucephoulous Bouncing Ball. I've never heard anything like that (or at least something similar that manages to be good)

 

Overall, I think two things were mistaken in my letter. The first thing is that I came off sounding like theory is worthless and classical music sucks (by the way, I do know the difference between baroque, romantic etc, I just use classical because we all understand it). I LOVE a lot of that, i just think that pop gets looked down upon and is judged by Blink 182 and Limp Bizkit. There IS good music out there that's pop and is being made today. The second misunderstanding is that I'm JUST pushing pop. I'm now, I'm also trying to encourage people to accept more experimental compostions. Like I said earlier, a symphonic orchestra with theramin or a squencer going would sound very cool if done right. A lot of you also said I shouldn't worry too much about narrow minded professors, but what you guys don't realize is that in some cases, I only have access to things like Pro Tools and other fun toys THROUGH the school. And in my case, we only have a limited amount of time per student. I'm usually in a situation where I'm sitting here recording a violin trio when I want to be recording a band or making my own music. Of course I got a digi 001 box recently and a nice tube mic so I don't need the schools EQ anymore

[michael saulnier]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I have definitely found that there are two camps in terms of the way people hear and appreciate music.

 

Ummm... Lee, there's another FAR LARGER camp. They care little for technical performance or emotional statement.

 

They just want to DANCE.

 

American Bandstand baby... "I give it an 8 'cause it's got a good beat".

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

guitplayer

[stratman_dup1]

The sad part Guitplayer, is that there is a WHOLE LOT of truth to that statement.

[Guest]

SolipsismX, reading your second post I have the feeling you're actually one of the few who is really getting something from your musical education.

 

Listening with your own ears- go sovreign human being, go!.

 

The answer is in your hands with your digi 001- DIY. That's the real grand tradition anyway, from Bach kustomizing his organs to Theremin inventing his own instruments to John McLaughlin applying Indian Vinja techniques to his guitar playing.

 

 

The bogosities you perceive in the music world lie far deeper than musical theory- the seperation of thinking and feeling for example is a byproduct of ages of oppression, not something inherent in music itself. "Oh, those passionate but stupid masses/black people/women, better leave the rule-making to the calm and intelligent nobility/whites/men"- that kind of putrid shit. Best ignore the deep penetrating intelligence of Funkadelic and the wild kinky passions of Robert Fripp, 'cuz they don't fit the stereotypes.

 

Tomorrow belongs to you- take it.

 

Take also into consideration what Lee Flier said:

 

He certainly won't succeed at trying to do something he isn't really into, when there are so many other people who are much more motivated.

 

Someone who "sucks" but LOVES what they do is going to kick the ass of someone who is highly skilled but half-hearted. That's the way it is and the way it should be IMO.

 

Put all the skills you learn into the perspective of what you love, and you will triumph.

 

- Cameron Bobro

[Valkyrie Sound]

SolipsismX:

 

I'm pretty much with Dan and Joe on this...

 

If you want to break the rules of music...

you need to learn them first. It's WAY more

effective to hear something that starts out

following the rules and then quickly surprises

you and logically takes off in another, new direction.

I love stuff like that....

 

It almost sounds as if you're in not quite the

right program....

Exactly what kind of degree are you doing?

Might I suggest looking into taking the units

you have and moving to a school that has

both an electronic music program and a

production/recording program within the same school?

It sounds like you're in need of something in between the

two. Any good school will make you learn theory and such but

maybe you can find a school and add a minor in recording

to give you more access to equipment.

Of course, I always suggest USC... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

I don't know what your budget is but I hope

you've filed for Federal Student Aid...

http://www.usc.edu/music/depts/index.html

 

Best of luck...

Whatever you do... sticking

with school is part of learning to be

responsible and learning to make

and reach a goal. If you can't do that...

I don't know what to tell you....

Personally, I'd never hire a drop-out...but

that's me... I need proof that people can be

responsible and complete the tasks I give them.

If they can't even finish school....

BUT if you're looking to be completely indie

and never work for anyone but yourself then...get out of school!

 

Valky

www.vsoundinc.com

 

This message has been edited by valkyriesound on 05-03-2001 at 05:53 AM

[dansouth]

Originally posted by joegerardi:

I couldn't remember the title: "Rite of Spring." All I could think of by Stravinsky was "Apres Midi D'une Faun," and I KNEW it wasn't a piece about Bambi!

 

Joe - right title, wrong composer. "Afternoon of a Faun" was by Mendelssohn. Too much good music to keep track of... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[joegerardi]

Now I'm even MORE embarrassed. I planned to type "L'Histoire du Soldat" and got totally screwed up. Well, at least I got the LANGUAGE right!

 

Hopefully, the meds will help...

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Bobro]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Joe - right title, wrong composer. "Afternoon of a Faun" was by Mendelssohn. Too much good music to keep track of... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Oops-a-daisy, L apres midi dun faune is by Debussy!

 

Prelude to the afternoon of a sexually aroused gas mask is however Zappa.

[Bobro]

IMO a fan of Tool and Aphex Twin (in other words, someone with good taste in contemporary popular music, hehe) is going to find many "classical" tunes to their liking listening toward the East- starting with Mussorgski, Bartok, Kodaly, and going from there.

 

-CB

 

 

PS. I changed my User Name.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Bobro:

Oops-a-daisy, L apres midi dun faune is by Debussy!

 

Yeah, Debussy, Mendelssohn - one of those French guys with a double-S in his last name...

[soapbox]

Here ya go:

 

Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune , by Claude Debussy.

 

Have a listen!

 

While you're at it, here's my all time favorite (which has already been recommended by several posts):

 

Le sacre du printemps (The Rite of Spring) , by Igor Stravinsky. This link also contains the great, "L'Oiseau de feu (The Firebird)," by Igor Stravinsky.

[SolipsismX]

mmmm... fire bird. One of my favorite pieces of all time... we also did a cool percussion and auxilary performance of it in high school. Mmm... band nerds

[DOS]

I think you should continue to persue your music education if you truly love it. Forget making ends meet--that's the attitude that guides me towards my music major. If you're looking to make 7 figures, maybe music isn't for you and if you want to be a rock star, well then I'll let you in on a little secret... 90% of pop musicians don't know how to read music. Music majors such as myself just look for happiness in life and don't expect more than a modest income. Although it is VERY possible to make buttloads of money, music majors who have made a living doing what they love have something much more important than money. I have great respect for my music professors and I think that if you go so far as to get a doctoral degree, there will be plenty of well paying opportunities as my professors have told me.

 

As far as emotion and classical music and such, I just want to say that any instrument or group of intruments can unleash deep emotion under the control of a skilled player. Yelling and screaming is not emotion... that's the influence of drugs and money. I have never listened to a piece by Beethoven that has not given me goosebumps, as cheesy as that sounds, and yet I feel the same way when I listen to NIN (I LOVE NIN!) and that's what studying and appreciating the great masters can do. Trent Reznor did it and I think that's why he's the great composer that he is. Kurt Cocaine never did and that's why I can see (or hear) right through his facade.

 

Mike