ARE classically trained better than self taught?

[sudeep]

Hey guys...i was just wondering how many of you out there are classically trained pianists and how many are self taught? Im a guitarist who taught himself to play the keys and fell in love!! But I always feel a bit intimidated or even inferior to a player who is classically trained...PURELY because he IS classically trained!!

 

I guess the other thing is so many people have done all their piano grades so when i say im a keyboardist ill always get asked WHAT GRADE did you get upto? and ill be like...oh i didnt do my grades...i actually resent my parents a little bit for not insisting i took piano lessons when i was young!! but i do justify that because i might not have had the love for it as i do now if i had started at a young age becuase i was forced to!!

 

Also it seems almost ALL of the top pianists/keyboardists ARE classically trained (regardless of genre)...whereas with guitarists, apart from Jimmy Page, Eddie Van Halen and a few others, most seem not to be!!!

 

Do those of you who are classically trained tend to look down on those aren't (even if you dont mean to)...OR am i just being paranoid, and should just shut up, work on my chops and forget about everyone else (which is what i normally do)!!! hehehe

 

Just want to hear what you all have to say!

[dansouth]

Training of any sort, from private lessons to a college degree, provides the opportunity to expand your horizons. Of course, it's up to you to make the most of those opportunities and incorporate the lessons learned into your own musical vision.

 

Why don't you try taking a few lessons and see if you find yourself learning new things? - Don't expect those "new things" to be immediately applicable to your playing. A teacher may first have to lay the groundwork for future advancement, and this can take months, even years. - Then you'll be in a better position to judge whether some sort of musical training will be profitable for your situation.

 

I would guess that unless you have a really bad attitude about it, training will benefit you in SOME way in the long run. The benefit may be subtle, or it may be revolutionary. People who are "classically trained" have had to learn much more than piano technique, and this experience gives them a broader perspective. On the other hand, if they feel that jazz, blues, and other styles are beneath them - many classical pianists do - then their training may have done them more harm than good.

 

Again, a lot of it comes down to your attitude and detemination. A good teacher can show you new places on the map, but it's up to you to explore those places and get the most out of the experience.

 

Good luck!!

[mwisniewski]

I came back to keyboards after about 10 years. I was classically trained before that. I've recently been re-training myself with books.

 

I will say this without my classical training, there's a lot of stuff I wouldn't have known or even thought to try learning if I had done it by myself. There's also a lot of stuff which is really good to know, but can be boring to learn by yourself.

 

I read some books recently and they'd go on and on about something, I'd try it out and go "oh that's what they're really talking about, I already learned this" but I wouldn't realize it by just reading about it.

 

It's really different in a structured environment where the teacher holds you to a higher standard. I guess the best way to describe it, is it has enhanced my ability to "see" the patterns in the music better. Larger overall patterns in the music that help guide you when you're playing, improvising, listening, or composing. It's like instead of playing in the dark, there are familiar lights all over the place telling you where you are and what the possibilities are.

 

I think the best thing about classical training is it gives you a good ear to critique yourself and others. It's realy snobbish, but there's lot of times people will go on and on about some wonderful player/music and my classical trained ear will just be cringing at all the mistakes and missteps I can hear. Like I said it's snobbish, and most people won't hear what I hear, but it becomes an ego/pride thing because you can hear what's wrong and know how to correct it, and of course you'll want to correct it.

 

And classically training has done wonders for my technique, I never have to think about "how" to play anything I just focus on getting the song right, my hands already know without knowing how to hit the keys, no matter how fast, slow or separated the keys are. I still need to practice but it's much easier because it is easier to memorize a song for a performance and it's easier to hear if what you're playing is really "good" or not.

 

I'm in a band and I do admit to occasionally getting annoyed at some members who are self taught, not all self taught people are like this, but self taught people do have a reputation in my area. It's mainly because of basic things like if we have to transpose the song for the singer and they don't know how to play the song in "that" key. Or you give them sheet music and they can't read it. Or the times when you'll hear other people just a little "off" beat/rhythm/melody and they're swearing up and down they're "on". So you'll show them why they're off but they can't hear it.

 

Anyway that's my take on it, having said all that though, pure classical training won't make you a great keyboard player, I'm proof of that, self-training will become more and more important once you've gone through the grades http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

By the way classical training can be boring, so it might be a good idea to mix it up with some self-taught sessions of stuff you really like/want to play.

[Laurie Z.]

Originally posted by mwisniewski:

 

Anyway that's my take on it, having said all that though, pure classical training won't make you a great keyboard player, I'm proof of that, self-training will become more and more important once you've gone through the grades http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

By the way classical training can be boring, so it might be a good idea to mix it up with some self-taught sessions of stuff you really like/want to play.

 

What he said. I learned at least as much (maybe more) on my own by studying popular music songwriting and keyboard players, but I would not have been able to completely use the information without my classical technique. I don't think you have to take lessons for an inordinately long time (I took for 16+ years but that's just me) to grasp the basics of theory and technique which will help you use what you hear. And I think you can go back and add this experience at any time, so it's never too late!

 

Now the soapbox: I have a problem with the classical music community when an attitude of "if you've learned classically, you're ok, if you haven't, you're not." Some of the best songwriters of the last decade were self-taught...and many traditional classical teachers don't know the first thing about ear training or improvisation, both of which are critical to a usable, enjoyable and complete understanding and appreciation of music. I taught myself how to compose and also how to play by ear - I never had a teacher who taught me those skills.

 

So if you can pick up some classical technique and theory/harmony education to go with the self-taught experience - you'll be set.

All of course, IMHO.

 

:-)

lz

http://www.lauriez.com

http://www.mp3.com/lauriez

[joegerardi]

Well, I go both ways. It is both a help and a hindrance. For technique, theory, and sight reading, NOTHING can beat classical training. It also builds a solid foundation in composing, because of the above. it's very easy to inherently know what works, and what doesn't.

 

However, that can also hurt you. I cannot play jazz. It simply breaks too many rules that are ingrained in me from classical training. It can in some ways limit you also. I remember seeing this incredible musician. She was in a rock band and had classicly trained chops that were to die for. However, her playing was too clean and sterile for the idiom. We both knew that she was the better musician technically, but she envied my ability to play in a more "rock" style. Go figure.

 

Never feel intimidated by another musician. If you are doing a gig and they come to see you, remember, THEY are paying to see YOU, and YOU are the one onstage. In that situation, YOU are the professional, and they are the audience.

[dansouth]

Jazz education is also available and may be a good way for classically trained pianists to become more comfortable with the idiom. Jazz doesn't break classical rules so much as it extends them. They cycle of fifths, for instance, is the foundation of jazz harmony, and it doesn't get much more "classical" than that.

 

A classically trained pianist with the right attitude and a little training can become comfortable in jazz within a year or two, and being comfortable in both idioms is a very empowering feeling. At least, it is on my instrument (not piano).

[robsmusic]

My classical training is in trumpet and voice. I am self taught as a keyboardist and drummer. I regret not having piano lessons because my lack of formal piano training limits my sight-reading and keyboard technique. But, my formal training in theory and voice helped me to be able to learn the piano by ear, and to be able to read chord charts (Real Book).

I learned by listening to and transcribing the works of the keyboardists that I admire ( Chick Corea, Stevie Wonder, Duke Ellington, George duke,Herbie Hancock, Jeff Lorber, Joe Sample, Les McCann, and others).

I sincerely admire those that have the time, dedication, and focus to stick with years of piano training.

I am now in my 40's, but I intend to start taking piano lessons in September( one of my neighbors is a piano teacher)!

 

Rob

 

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

R. Guilford Butts

www.mp3.com/robsmusic

 

"Your talent is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift back to God"......Leo Buscaglia

 

 

 

This message has been edited by robsmusic on 07-13-2001 at 01:56 PM

[mojosaur]

Classical training is essential--to play classical music......and a background in classical can help any musician, jazz, rock etc. Music theory, which applies to all music, is good too, but you don't need to know any of it to be a great musician....

 

The most important thing is to be yourself, which is easier said than done.

 

This message has been edited by mojosaur on 07-13-2001 at 03:20 PM

[Chad Thorne]

First, the disclosures: This is my first post here (I snuck over from the Bass Station). And secondly, I don't play much keyboard, only when composing, etc.

 

Having said that, I feel that classical training will definitely help you be a better classical pianist. For other genres, maybe it's not so important. Think of, for instance, Dr. John, Pinetop Perkins - I believe Thelonius Monk was self-taught? Anyway, there are and were many fine pianists/keyboardists whose learning was self-guided.

 

With all due respect to everyone here who posted a differing view!

[b_3guy]

I just finished a week of being the keyboard instructor & a band coach at a local music stores Summer Rock Junior Camp, ages 9 - 15. It was really sad from a keyboard playing stand point. 4 out of 10 could handle a combo scenerio. The other 6 couldn't do anything without music in front them. Some didn't even know a basic triad 1st inversion let alone talk about voicings, etc. I thought it was really sad. I know another guy who has 12 years of Royal Conservatory & if you pull the music away from him, he stops playing. Granted it is really important to read & know your theory, some sort of happy medium is required. Like I said it was really sad to watch the guitar players, bass players, & drummers cruising along & the keyboard players just looked lost .

[marino]

A classical training can't hurt; you learn to read well, so you'll know more music, and your technique will make some giant steps if you put the time in it. On the other hand, a few piano greats were basically self-taught (Monk, Errol Gardner...), and even a few "classical" geniuses, (Gould, Horovitz) had such an unorthodox playing position, that any "normal" teacher would call "wrong".

 

My advice is: Find a teacher that's proficient in BOTH classical and jazz fields. Also, one that's sensible enough to tailor a program of study around your needs. I find that the best training is to develop both things together. Why not to take the best of the two worlds? I wouldn't wait to have good classical chops to start improvising and harmonizing: That can (should) be done at the beginner's level. It's fun, and it develops your musicality and understanding of how music is put together.

 

Now a bit of personal experience: I have been teaching piano for 20 years, and I've met dozens of classically trained pianists in search of a bit of improvising knowledge. Some of them pick it up immediately, but most need to overcome lots of frustration in order to "cross the bridge". In this case the initial role of the teacher is more of a psychologist than a musician... Some of them can't believe that after 15 years of study they still know so little about music; some others need the permission of their parents, their teachers and Beethoven before they can *create* something, etc. etc..

Look, classical music is NOT the culprit here. The cause is the way it's taught. When your teachers tell you, for most of your life, "THIS is the way you can make music", then you discover another whole world, you thought it was simple enough to grasp, but no, it has other ways that you need to know, and it has a freedom you don't have, that's hard to take.

 

The classical world can be intimidating and snob to the point of being dangerous. But usually their snobbery goes parallel with their frustrations. You just learn to divide the two things: Classical music is simply NOT the same that the present classical music environment. All great composers, for example, knew how to improvise, from Bach to Hindemith and everyone in between. Even Horowitz and Gould were fond of improvisation.

 

Personally, I spent a few years in academy, and I did learn a lot, but I feel I could have learned the same amount of things in much less time, had my teacher really paid attention to my needs and possibilities.

My main teacher wanted to make a concert pianist out of me, but after an hard look at how they live and the general environment, I saw that wasn't for me. (Look, I'm not saying I *would* have succeeded...)

I even passed the exams to enter the Royal College of Music when I was in London, but in the end I never went there, and got lost playing some jazz...

 

I think every good musician is "self-taught" in some way. If you don't support your "schooling" with a strong sense of personal curiosity and a strong will to dig deeply the things you're interested in, you risk to find yourself frustrated and not realized.

 

OK I went a bit OT but maybe my experience could be useful on a more general level... for practical advice, see the beginning of the post...

 

Sorry for the ranting, and for the broken English

 

marino

[michael saulnier]

To me, classical music training on any instrument was somewhat analagous to being a very good english student and wordprocessor...

 

To write something meaningful, it helps to have a very good understanding of english language useage, and correct sentence, paragraph, and other grammar rules... It's cool to be able to type at 90 wpm and know a word processor inside out... It's great to understand the concepts behind story structure, narratives, and even how to interweave larger themes into your writing...

 

But... it's still ART to sit down at the keys and create something from nothing... and merely "knowing the rules" is no guarantee of the quality of that creation.

 

The same goes for music. The concensus to this thread so far seems to be... classical training = physical chops, sight reading, fundamental music theory... Great. Useful stuff.

 

The question is: can you take those tools and make ART?

 

guitplayer

[jamessievershome.com]

Just get as much music/life education you can get and play like a madman possessed when you can. I'm classically trained on guitar and keyboard and spent years as a manager and artist/keyboard product specialist for a major company. I started in R&R as a guitarist with only my piano lessons to get me by and after college getting a Master's Degree in Music I taught at the #1 rated University in the Midwest by US News & World Report on the Music Faculty.

Education is fine, but if you lack FIRE & INSPIRATION, you might as well work in a music library cataloging French Secular Music of the 14th Century. In my opinion, Fire & Inspiration + Motivation will do beter for you than a formal Music PhD. or anything an educational system can offer. Go for it!!

 

Jim Sievers

 

This message has been edited by jamessievers@home.com on 07-13-2001 at 09:44 PM

[jamessievershome.com]

I would also like to add that I still derive income from music in tha I have my own music marketing and distribution business and mix that with a little performance work. My real 'day job' is as a Communications Consultant marketing large scale systems costing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars and do quite well. I conciously made the decision long ago that I could remain in the 'music business' and be normal guy making what normal music guys make ($24K-40), if that, as a player/educator OR being successful in a respected field making a living comparable to, perhaps, a neurosurgeon as I do and still do the music thing in my way, my time and not experience the burnout that some experience. It all depends on what you want in life. I prefer prime rib to mac & cheese and, yes, education is all part of this. By all means, get as much education as you can in whatever field you choose, but figure out how you want to LIVE, and if your teachers taught you anything is that THEY are still there years later doing the same thing. That is one of the reasons I got out of the education racket at the University, but I also had other agendas as well.

 

Jim

[marino]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

But... it's still ART to sit down at the keys and create something from nothing... and merely "knowing the rules" is no guarantee of the quality of that creation.

 

Absolutely!

 

I would only add this:

 

When it comes to really express what you have in your chest, the more "vocabulary" you've acquired, the more you can express it with precision. Technique is a mean, not an end. In a sense, it's freedom.

 

And don't forget, classical training it's not just technique, it's a voyage inside some wonderful music. Just don't be led to believe it's the whole world... It can only benefit you.

[Gus Lozada]

Originally posted by marino:

When it comes to really express what you have in your chest, the more "vocabulary" you've acquired, the more you can express it with precision. Technique is a mean, not an end. In a sense, it's freedom.

 

And don't forget, classical training it's not just technique, it's a voyage inside some wonderful music. Just don't be led to believe it's the whole world... It can only benefit you.

 

Excellent comment, MARINO.

Specially when you can support your words with your excellent music.

 

Some words of wisdom for everybody:

 

Knowledge is Power

POWER is not harmful. It is the way people uses it what hurts...

 

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

Gustavo G Lozada

 

Moderador de:

MusicPlayer.com/NuestroForo

"La voz en Español en Música y Tecnología"

 

GusTraX @yahoo.com

[joegerardi]

Whoa, there everybody!

 

I'm going to add a comment from the other side. What about those of us that want to be a player?

 

True, you're limiting yourself if you want to write songs, but what about those of us who don't care diddly about writing our own music. We want to bring to life the music of others.

 

I don't compose anymore. I'm not going to write the next great hit, and take great pleasure in sitting down and tearing off the Goldberg Variations, or starting the sequencer with Mozart's Piano Concerto in dm and playing the piano part along with it. Or best of all, ripping through Karn Evil 9, or Apocalypse in 9/8.

 

Classical training gives you the ability to play better in any idiom. When I earlier wrote that I can't play jazz, I meant that in the true sense of jazz: improvised music with jazz chordings. I can listen to Jack McDuff or Jimmy Smith, and copy what they're doing, but I can't play jazz. Sitting down and learning by ear is great, but you pick up all sorts of nasty habits which, IMHO, makes it more difficult to play in many styles.

 

The chops developed by classsical training will give you fingering techniques, finger independence, speed, and the benefit of someone showing you why and how you're doing it wrong that one cannot learn by being self taught. Hell, I was even taught the proper way to sit at a piano, and how to position my arms up properly to get the maximum benefit of the muscles one uses when playing. No book, tape, or self-instruction is going to show you when you are doing that wrong.

 

When I was asked by Emo (through Will Alexander) to transcribe the piano parts of his Piano Concerto No. 1 into a MIDI file, there was no way I would have been able to do that without a shitload of classical sensibilities. Here we have arguably the greatest rock keyboard player of all time, and I gotta use everything in my arsenal to play the parts.

 

So, all this is leading up to say: Don't denigrate classical training. It can only help, but remember that it is not the be-all and end-all. Use it for what it is worth, and it will serve you well.

[synthfoolsynthfool.com]

ARE classically trained better than self taught?

 

Tsk, tsk. There's that "better" word again when talking about music.

 

Is Jimmy Page a better or worse guitar player than Brian May?

Andres Segovia?

[DOS]

I was self-taught for a long time until I started talking lessons. I don't in any way think I'm better than self taught pianists, but I'll tell you, being classically trained helped me progress much faster because a pianist or any other instrumentalist can benefit much more from a tutor because then they'll have someone better than themselves watching over them, telling them exactly what to practice. The only difference between self taught and classically trained is that the latter spend about an hour per week with a professional. This hour can make the coming week much more progressive. I think if you have the discipline to teach yourself, you'd be amazed at how much you'll improve with lessons.

 

Mike

[mwisniewski]

Originally posted by b_3guy:

... I know another guy who has 12 years of Royal Conservatory & if you pull the music away from him, he stops playing.

 

Sadly, many people think this is classical training, unfortunately it's really not, this guy probably knows how to sight read, but that alone isn't classical training ... it's just classic http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

For me classical training means 3 things, in this order of importance:

 

You have been trained in:

 

A. Music Theory

B. Technique

C. Sight Reading

 

And when I say trained, I mean you've actually applied the knowledge to make music, not just read and understood the text or did it for a little while.

 

This foundation won't make someone creative, but I think if a player or composer has this foundation, their art will be much more expressive and truer to themselves.

 

I do want to point out one other thing, this training can occur through a traditional training method or through self teaching, either way it's "classical training".

[mwisniewski]

Oh wait! I forgot one important thing!!!!

 

Classical training means these 4 things, in order of importance

 

You have been trained in:

 

A. Music Theory

B. Ear Training!

C. Technique

D. Sight Reading