I'm a self taught musician who makes an OK living out of Pop music.

Because I think being a musician is a great job I have always determined to give my son a good academic musical education, so that should he want to become a musician, he has the necessary skills to enter a good higher education music college/school.

But now I'm not so sure.

My son is 9 and is grade 2 in Piano and 3 in violin. He's competent but clearly not gifted. Looking forward, the practice regime required to reach a high standard seems too rigorous, taking away many of the other things I think children should to to become a rounded person.

What are other peoples experiences? Am I over estimating the practice required, or do you really have to be gifted/highly talented/a Nerd to achieve a high level?

Hi IRP... I'm a self-taught musician who made a living doing something else.

I was taught violin and piano slightly older and didn't get on with either formally. I did pick up useful theory at the time but I can't say I have any residual learned technique (everything I learned from other musicians later).

I'd be inclined to give him as much as he wants, whether or not he's going to a very high standard. You never know how things are going to work out... the main thing is the opportunity. If he doesn't want it he's going to rebel at some point and make the decision for you.

One of my sisters is the highest qualified musician (on piano) in our family and probably the least interested in music. She can read fluently but doesn't really have to play... my Mum was the same, probably even better. But I doubt it was possible to foresee that at a young age.

And of all the things I did learn when I was young, the one I now wish I'd done seriously was singing. It never occurred to anybody at the time, least of all me.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote:

---

And of all the things I did learn when I was young, the one I now wish I'd done seriously was singing. It never occurred to anybody at the time, least of all me.

---

I think this is an interesting point. I did lots of singing as a kid, liked it, never thought much of it, and used it as a way to earn 50p if I sung at a church wedding. I also learnt the piano, and went on to be quite a good pianist and piano teacher. But I really don't remember enjoying learning the piano particularly.

As an (ex) piano teacher I've realised that the problem is the instrument. The truth is, if you weigh up genuine MUSIC returned from instrument vs effort to learn it, the returns with piano are very low indeed for almost anyone. Singing on the other hand gives a great 'return' right from the start, as do many wind instruments for example.

When teaching piano, I would usually get to the end of the day and reflect on how I had not heard a single piece of music played at roughly the right speed, more or less musically correctly that day. Demoralising in a word. Bottom line, fewer kids should learn piano, and we should take a leaf out of the US way of doing things so more kids learn brass, woodwind, percussion etc. and all get together to enjoy playing or singing in groups. It's gotta be better than squinting at some left hand part of a piano piece and repeating ad nauseum at snails pace....

As for my 5 month old twins, I shall teach them piano just cos it's something I can do well for them. I shall give them the chance to learn violin/cello when they're 6ish simply because I think an early start is essential for stringed instruments. And if they don't like it after a year or so, they will be welcome to dump it and take up another instrument, or trampolining or whatever...

Quote:

---

He's competent but clearly not gifted.

---

How do you know?

Musical talent, well, real musical talent (as opposed to just plonking away at other people's material) is born of having something to say.

What do you know of what your nine-year-old son will want to say in ten years time?

I think you are possibly equating musical ability with technical ability. I know of many, many musicians who are technically brilliant, but who could not compose a decent tune or write a catchy lyric to save their lives.

In fact a certain Mr.Gilmour, who you will agree is a great guitar player, once told me that he avoids working with too many technically perfect musicians who have learnt to read music and have a classical and formal knowledge of orchestration, as he finds that it gets in the way of creativity.

Hi not that fool,

You've hit the nail on the head. I believe musical talent is more than just being able to plonk away at other peoples material.

However the educational musical establishment does not agree.

Entry onto a recognised music degree course requires a high level of technical ability, measured by your competence in reproducing other peoples material.
Even if my son did not wish to play in a classical orchestra he's going to have to have a musical education the aim of which is to produce musicians slotting into that classical tradition.

So I feel he's going to be up against a lot of technically excelent kids forced down that route by their driven parents, which I'm not prepared to do.

Is there another way?

Hi Rob,

I forgot to say. I'm not sure about giving him as much or as little as he wants.
After all you wouldn't do that with maths or english.
My view is; he's nine, I'm his father and at this age I'll make the decisions for him because he's not able to.

err.... only problem I dont know what that is!

I think what I meant was... as long he goes with it keep teaching him. That's a lot more commitment than you'll get out of most yoofs (including me, when I was one). If there's something he really wants more he'll say so. And like NTFA says... he might not play at the highest standard but he might compose or arrange or something else based on what he's learning now.

I really didn't want to be stuck in violin and piano lessons so I stopped going! I wish I hadn't though... although I would have been better singing.

And it's probably true to say this is one of those questions you can't get "right".

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote:

---

However the educational musical establishment does not agree.

---

The educational musical establishment can go stick it in its collective ear!

The educational musical establishment is not the only path to musical wisdom.

The educational musical establishment does not gig.

The educational musical establishment does not write music.

The educational musical establishment has never had a hit record.

The educational musical establishment is to be listened to if you want to play in an orchestra.

The educational musical establishment is best ignored if you do not want to play in an orchestra.

The educational musical establishment is basically a collection of rather boring people who study the music of other, more talented people (none of whom were members of the educational musical establishment) who are now all dead.

The educational musical establishment is an exercise in musical archaeology.

The educational musical establishment has no money and as a producer friend of mine once stated, "When I man has no money, I find myself loosing all sympathy with him!"

Yeah, I think you've gotta make kids stick at things to some extent. My parents made me stick to piano, and I think I sort of liked it, but was not passionate about it. I can remember always practising just the night before a lesson. I'd probably have rather been playing computer games. But when I got to 16 and joined a band, I suddenly found that gd.8 piano was really useful, and suddenly music became my thing. And I had the basic tools to do it....

Don't forget also that many adults really don't want to be creative and would just enjoy playing other people's music in groups (or alone). There's nothing wrong with that. If you've got the tools, you get to choose...

I'm also a self taught muso who makes an OK living out of all kinds of music- and I don't have any grades at all, and I can't read a note.

While it's obviously essential to have a certain degree of talent (composing), and performance skills(session playing/orchestras), the qualities most required for any kind of successful music career seem to have far more to do with sheer bloodymindedness, (in the face of the odds against you), and a talent for wheeling, dealing, and what are now called 'people skills' (smarming and arse-licking, as it used to be called).

So I'd say that as long as he's up for it, keeping the musical skills he already has and developing them further (more in the way of composition than performance- there's more money in it, for starters...) should be important, but not at the expense of other activities that might help him develop the other qualities he'll also need.

An academic musical education is only important for the classical end of the market, and at the rate it's going, the opportunites in that field, in ten years' time, will be even less than they are now.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

HI IRP

Quote I'd Rather Play:

---

I'm a self taught musician who makes an OK living out of Pop music.

Because I think being a musician is a great job I have always determined to give my son a good academic musical education,

My son is 9 and is grade 2 in Piano and 3 in violin. He's competent but clearly not gifted.
Looking forward, the practice regime required to reach a high standard seems too rigorous,
taking away many of the other things I think children should to to become a rounded person.

---

With my niece now 5,
what I did is have a different types of musical instuments scattered around the house for her (i.e. not in one room)
keyboard, ukele, flute, xylophone, mouth organ, drums, various percussion.
She seems to have a knack for percussion & xylophone.
Although she way messing around on my synths at 3!

There are also lots of different types of music being played in the house.

What I also do is take her to outdoor live small gigs in the spring & summer where she can hear,
and more imortantly see nice music and go
"Oh can I try that"

She's an outdoor person and feels stifled indoors.


My parents force fed me violin for about 2 years when I was very young
before I and my tutor both relaised I actually prefereed keyboards
and that I preferred freedom of expression to regimented lessons and playing.


I guess what I am saying is that your son may well be gifted, BUT in a different instrument.
Also he may be a free spirit.
He may prefer learning in the outdoors.
And children do have short attention spans.


Basically for them flourish, they will do it, but in thier own way, using instuemnt/s of their choice.
We just need to be there, at a safe distance, to give them the necessary tools, encouragement, and freedom.

Tomafd,

Hmm, I'm not convinced an academic education is only useful for a classical musician.
I've worked on dozens of pop ballad tracks where a string arranger, with a classical training, has been brought in to arrange, conduct and produce that part of the music because no one else on the project was capable of doing it.

Where else can these skills be learnt outside of a classical training?

beware!!! is this his dream or yours??? if the later... toss off... as a child my father wanted me to play pro baseball... his dream unfullfilled... and yet i became the maladjusted composer i knew myself to be... make the opportunity available.... make all the oportunities available.... and you'll both be the happier for it...

The thing with classical music is, if you don't get the opportunity to learn it young, you'll never get good at it later in life and so it really is ruled out professionally or just to a high amateur level. Neither is it something that lends itself to being self taught.

Personally, I think the real educational no-no is getting all academic about rock,jazz,pop etc. That really is feeble middle class spoon-feeding. Kids should be allowed to discover that stuff for themselves, and make it their own.

How long has he been playing?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote I'd Rather Play:

---

I believe musical talent is more than just being able to plonk away at other peoples material.

However the educational musical establishment does not agree.

Entry onto a recognised music degree course requires a high level of technical ability, measured by your competence in reproducing other peoples material.

---

Outside of what we might broadly term "self-composed pop music", a lot of paid musical work requires the instrumentalist to be able to play other people's music with the mimimum of fuss and to a good standard of performance. imo this is always harder than playing your own compositions which tend to accommodate your own weaknesses, quirks and habits.

There are a number of high-level degrees in for example composition, media music and jazz which arguably don't fit the music degree stereotype suggested.

I say this as someone who is largely self-taught.

I wish my parents hadn't allowed me to give up piano lessons. I had a vile teacher (ruler across the knuckles if you made a mistake!) and just hated it. So I bought a guitar and became a mediocre self-taught guitarist and then got into synths and became a mediocre self-taught keys player. I would just love to be able to sit down at a piano and play anything I wanted if only for the hell of it.

Like my 10-yr-old daughter can. Grade 5 piano and theory and Grade 4 violin and not through pushy parental pressure - she just seems to have an innate aptitude for it but the formal training has re-inforced and developed that and without it, I imagine she'd just be plonking about.... if doing anything at all.

Despite the occasional tears and tantrums (typically revolving around practicing!) she enjoys being able to play, does it for the hell of it (currently tearing through a Beatles songbook for piano and violin) and she writes (literally) her own tunes (which are far more melodically and harmonically advanced than I could ever come up with ... a curious combination of naivety and technical ability).

So we are going to encourage it for as long as we can... and even if she shows signs of wanting to give up, we're going to try and dissuade her coz I don't want to her to look back in later years wishing we'd not caved into her request to give up. Now is most definitely the time for her to get a formal musical education because, as mentioned previously, doing it later in life (or trying to teach yourself) is all but impossible. And assuming she continues, she can do with it as she wants whether that's making some kind of career out of it or just playing for her own amusement.

Am I living my dreams vicariously through Alice? Possibly but at the same time I do have both perspectives - someone who dumped formal musical tuition as a stupid, stroppy teenager but who now regrets it bitterly and wishes my parents hadn't caved in so easily when I knew no better. My chops are good enough for me to get by but I'd love to have half the knowledge and technique my daughter has as a result of her formal 'classical' musical education. That's something she'll have for life and something I will never acquire now.... but maybe could have as a kid if I'd not been allowed to give up.

Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

he is 9, uni is still along way a way.

The important thing is he doesn't neglect his other studies for the instrument so he has the chance to branch out it whatever direction he chooses in several years time, but that he actually enjoys playing and practising.

Hollowsun - Alice sounds like a girl you should not let give up, even if she goes all grungy and teenagery and starts saying 'whatever' alot. I'm also thinking I can save a fortune on session players if I get my kids trained up on enough instruments. Surely these expensive children are good for something other than chimney sweeping

Quote jrbcm:

---

Hollowsun - Alice sounds like a girl you should not let give up, even if she goes all grungy and teenagery and starts saying 'whatever' alot. I'm also thinking I can save a fortune on session players if I get my kids trained up on enough instruments. Surely these expensive children are good for something other than chimney sweeping

---

That's the thing tho - if she DOES start throwing real strops and refusing at some point (like when them pesky boyfriend things start turning up, whatever), what to do?

I am hoping she won't though. There's a young woman here who subs for her main piano and fiddle teachers if they're away on hols, whatever, and she's pretty and trendy, goes out and gets pissed, likes all the current bands, is a damned good laugh, etc., but also gives lunchtime piano recitals or some pretty serious solo piano concerts or 'sessions' in orchestras on violin (they subsidise her student's lifestyle). Alice looks up to her enormously and can see that you can play Bach or Debussy and be in an orchestra and still be 'kewl'. This is re-inforced somewhat by the fact that the girl who accompanies her for her violin exams is also just a normal young thing who just happens to play piano exceptionally well. So, fingers crossed and all being well, she'll see it through and she can take it from there when she's of an age to decide for herself.

Half of me hopes she'll opt for a career in music but I also know how tough it can be (having gone down that route myself) so the other half of me would like her to become a lawyer so that she can keep me in a manner to which I'd like to become accustomed to.... either that or marry her screen idol, Harry Potter ... I mean Daniel Radcliffe

But if she does opt for a musical career, I'd like to think we've given her the best foundation because I don't care what anyone says, having good technique and being able to read and interpret music is 'a good thing' in the long run.

And I get a cheap session player!!!

Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

I feel you are doing the right thing HS.

Hopefully my niece will also have a solid musicial foundation from which to express her creativity.

Unlike my inability to express myself due to absolutely absymal playing, hence my reliance on computers.
Doesn't bring an instant flight of the spirit that true playing ability and creativity does,
but that's my price for being too hot headed when young.

Girls tend to have that certain concentrated depth anyway that boys generally lack.

Quote table for two:

---

I feel you are doing the right thing HS

---

We'll see!

Quote table for two:

---

Hopefully my niece will also have a solid musicial foundation from which to express her creativity.

---

Alice started off much the same when she was 3 or 4 ... picking out tunes quite accurately on a cheapo Casio. And I don't mean 'Three Blind Mice' but the theme from Harry Potter or ET! Which gave me a clue!

Quote table for two:

---

Unlike my inability to express myself due to absolutely absymal playing, hence my reliance on computers.
Doesn't bring an instant flight of the spirit that true playing ability and creativity does,
but that's my price for being too hot headed when young.

---

Yeah - you and me both. I find it damned frustrating to have an idea in my head and can't get it out coz the fingers won't work properly. Or if I have an idea that ain't half bad, not having the wherewithal and musical vocabulary to expand it.

Quote table for two:

---

Girls tend to have that certain concentrated depth anyway that boys generally lack.

---

Hmmmmm. You may have a point! All of Alice's teachers are female and the 'young' examples I cited above are likewise. I missed that!

That said, her teachers have a fair few lads on their books.

Even so, if IRP's lad is not objecting (any more than is usual when it comes to practice, whatever), I reckon he should persist with the lessons for as long as he can... and beyond if possible... so that his son doesn't turn round in years to come to air the same frustrations as mine. S-o-o-o many people I know say the same thing - "I wish I'd stuck with it - I'd love to be able to play now... but it's too late".

Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote I'd Rather Play:

---

Tomafd,

Hmm, I'm not convinced an academic education is only useful for a classical musician.
I've worked on dozens of pop ballad tracks where a string arranger, with a classical training, has been brought in to arrange, conduct and produce that part of the music because no one else on the project was capable of doing it.

Where else can these skills be learnt outside of a classical training?

---

have you noticed its the same dozen or so people doing it though? Thats the thing - be cautious about encouraging anyone to make music their only goal in life. The competition is HUGE and isnt always won by the best but by the most, shall we say, determined.

He's your son - you are tasked with bringing him up to the best of your abilities and with providing him with the best possible chances in life... What you think IS best - just make sure that what you think you think is also sound !!

I started playing drums at age 8. (5 if you count mucking about). I was a loser at school. I went on to be a research mathematician at a notable University. I worked for the UN in such a capacity (going to south korea as a high point). I had no musical training but always maintained a healthy interest in recording. I canned it all in many years ago to pursue my music career - a decision ive definitely not regretted. Im successful but am fully aware of the number of (thousands ) of other people who would love to have my job. I have been very very very (and i say again) very lucky. Paraphrasing Dirty Harry - Will your son be lucky.....?

G'luck!

--------------------
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

I'd like to keep my sons future options open for as long as possible. If he decides at 16/17 after due consideration music is not for him, but something else, I will respect that decision.

My question is;

How much effort and practice is required to give yourself a chance of a degree place at a respected college/school.
Is it possible to adequately study all your other subjects and have a social life, or do you a young age have to "go for broke" to aquire the necessary enrty level techincal skills

Quote:

---

My question is;

How much effort and practice is required to give yourself a chance of a degree place at a respected college/school.
Is it possible to adequately study all your other subjects and have a social life, or do you a young age have to "go for broke" to aquire the necessary enrty level techincal skills

---

Sorry to sound harsh here, but I've discovered this the hard way. If a child is not a very high Grade 8 standard on piano/violin by the time they're about 14, it's really, really unlikely that they'll go on to be a pro classical performer. And frankly, to attempt that path is going to make any child very unhappy. You've got to remember there are some very, very talented kids out there who just find it easy.

Even most graduates of the top colleges -say, the Guildhall or Royal Academy will end up spending most their time teaching with maybe a few concerts. That's just classical performing though. If you're talking composing, recording, media stuff, whatever else, as discussed above I think it's a combo of talent and perseverence.

Quote jrbcm:

---

And frankly, to attempt that path is going to make any child very unhappy.

---

Indeed - we have seen far too many examples of this.

Through Alice, we have brushed shoulders with a certain faction of the local classical music fraternity where it almost seems to be nothing about MUSIC or enjoyment. It is typically driven by really pushy parents and it's all about winning rosettes and galas and competitions - the kids could just as well be ponies at a gumkhana.... and they are mostly precocious, rude and irritating little bastards which we try and steer clear of. Even though Alice could probably wipe the floor with many of them, that is NOT a road we're going down thank you very much - hideous!

That aside though, one thing to bear in mind (correct me if I'm wrong jrbcm) is that a Grade 8 is considered as a very respectable 'A' level qualification. Even if the lad's not aiming for a career in the classical repetoire, it might still be worth pursuing - surely that (along with some other 'A' levels) would get him into a college to study music further (if that's what he wants) and he needn't pursue a punishing regime to achieve that by - say - 17?

Steve

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote:

---

Through Alice, we have brushed shoulders with a certain faction of the local classical music fraternity where it almost seems to be nothing about MUSIC or enjoyment. It is typically driven by really pushy parents and it's all about winning rosettes and galas and competitions

---

heh

That's what I found studying music at Cambridge to be like, but with students and professors instead of parents. Soulless and sucking all the joy out of music.

--------------------
www.mikeandersonmusic.co.uk

Hi Jrbcm,

Thanks for the opinion. I think it's one I was beginning to form also.
As you point out top classical positions are rare and there are a lot of naturally very talented kids/young people out there, but if you widen it out to the full range of commercial music, Pop, media etc the options get more realistic although still very very tough.

Now I believe a solid classical education would serve one well in these commercial fields also, whilst reaching the very pinnacle of virtuosity would not be critical.

But how can a student gain access to these skills taught at good higher education colleges without the virtuoso chops needed to pass the audition?

Quote:

---

Now I believe a solid classical education would serve one well in these commercial fields also, whilst reaching the very pinnacle of virtuosity would not be critical.

---

Totally agree. And many an accomplished violinist would never have the required talent to flourish in commercial fields.

Just to clear things up a bit, it certainly used to be the case that to do a music degree at uni/poly you needed Grade 8 on first instrument (and audition), grade 4-5 piano, and 'A' level music with grade at least say, C or above. Personally, I think if you can't attain these entry requirements, you're wasting tax payers money studying music full-time for 3 years. Music technology courses and the like are a bit different, but again personally, I just think there are too many and the entry requirements are too low for the students to have a realistic chance of getting work afterwards.

jrbcm,
I know nothing about higher level music education.
Could you point me in a direction to look to find whats available out there that would serve the student for a career as a musician, composer, etc in commercial music rather than aiming for a classical orchestra place.

Hi I'd rather play,

it's a tricky one this, and I'm really no expert. My personal opinion is that you'll get more opportunities in life with a degree from one of the old uni's (Oxbridge, Bristol, Durham, York etc.)or a famous music college(Guildhall, RCM, RAM). Just cos of people's snobbery, and the plethora of graduates from elsewhere with qualifications which people now percieve as a bit worthless like media studies degrees. It's a shame but I think this country works that way - it's not what course you've done, how well you did there or whatever, but where you went.

Having said that, of the places which do more commercial music oriented courses, some of the more respected ones might be as follows: Royal Academy, Guildhall, Surrey uni, LIPA, Kingston uni, London College of Music (LCM2), City uni, Huddersfield uni, Leeds. Sorry but I don't know of any particular other resources - what about The Times paper which rates courses?...

Hi I'd Rather Play

This is a very interesting thread.

I'm in a similar though in some crucial ways different position to yourself.

I'm a classically trained pianist who DID do the whole music college thing. Also learnt violin to about grade 8 as a kid, and got into classical composing as well as playing in bands - mostly jazz and blues at the time.

Since graduating my music degree has been of almost no economic benefit whatsoever, but I make a living of sorts through a combination of teaching and playing - the latter almost entirely now in non-classical settings (function bands etc.)

I have a 6 year old son, whom I am teaching the piano, and a 1 year old daughter.

I feel I have managed to strike a good balance between the kind of regular, methodical work necessary to make good progress, and not being a pushy parent that burdens him with a whole practice-oriented lifestyle that he doesn't want. I do find it helps that I have an academic musical background and have had a certain amount of training in early years music education (Kodaly method etc.) as I can probably guide his early learning in a more productive way because of it.

My main reaction to your posts above is that I think you're radically overestimating the value of an academic music college education. Such an education is really only practically helpful if you want to be an orchestral player, or a teacher.

People earning a living from playing an orchestral instrument do need to spend a substantial amount of time in their teens and early twenties perfecting a very demanding craft, and a music college degree is a good way of buying three years to do that. But plenty of people do it without one.

This category includes pit musicians in theatres and film and TV session players, as well as orchestral musicians as such. However we need to be realistic about how abominably difficult, competitive, and hard to earn a living in these professions are. And they're likely to get more so, not less. More and more orchestras are paying their players as freelancers rather than salaried employees, and more and more pit and TV scores are being realised by samples.

My feeling is that the only good reason for someone to embark on attempting such a career is because they're passionately obsessed with their instrument, and don't want to let go of it 24 hours a day. If your kid has this bug, you'll know it. If not, you'll be doing him no favours by pushing him onto a music college degree, to be one of the many people that music colleges take to boost their numbers and funding, who are never really going to have the kind of career those colleges are supposed to be providing.

Once you go outside of this narrow field of virtuosic realisation of other peoples' music on an instrument, and look at everything else in the music industry - pop, jazz, world music, music for the media etc - a music college degree is of no benefit, and is probably counter-productive. A person would be much better off spending those three years writing, collaborating, and hustling for work and contacts. Learning the business and people skills that are ACTUALLY the difference between success and failure. Certainly if they want to do anything pop-performance oriented, there is also of course a very small window of opportunity in terms of age, and they really want to try and be signed by the time they're 18, not retreating from the real world into an institution just at the point where their relationship with that world is taking shape.

I would also say that from the point of view of learning an instrument to a high level and making a living from it, the piano is a terrible instrument. It's extremely labour-intensive due to the complexities of thinking and playing several lines at once, and it's almost impossible to make a living at unless you're a child prodigy.

OTOH, the piano is a fantastic instrument - possibly the very best - for general musical background and understanding. Virtually anyone, doing anything in music, will benefit from having some background in the piano, though few will benefit from the huge amount of work necessary to go from this "background" to professional-level mastery.

My approach with my boy is that I'd like to get him to a level of solid technical competency, and more importantly general musical competency (ear training, sight singing, general rhythm work etc) by the time he's in his early teens. He's also going to pick up another instrument soon - he seems keen on the guitar - and I'd like to do the same with that (a second instrument usually being learnt much more quickly than the first, of course).

In early teenage years questions of personal motivation and preference come more strongly to the fore. Then, if he does decide he wants to go down the instrumental route, he'll have a solid basis for doing so, and I'll be realistic with him about the amount of sustained work and his OWN motivation that will be necessary for it. If he feels he'd rather join a band and write songs, he can stops busting a gut to go too much further with the technical stuff and concentrate on that. If he wants to do something else and have music as an ongoing hobby, he can.

I think the last route is probably the most likely, as he has several other obsessions he's much more motivated by than music (though he enjoys playing and takes a positive attitude to the work involved). And truth to tell, I'm pretty happy about that. Music is much too hard a profession to recommend to someone you love, who you want to have a happy life. Unless they burn for it and feel that absolutely have to do it or die, in which case it makes no difference whether you recommend it to them or not.

But basically I think following the academic, classical technique based approach up to about grade 5-6 is pretty useful for anyone. Beyond that there are gradually diminishing returns in terms of the relationship between the work involved to progress, and the practical relevance of that progress for most musical fields.

Quote jrbcm:

---

The thing with classical music is, if you don't get the opportunity to learn it young, you'll never get good at it later in life and so it really is ruled out professionally or just to a high amateur level.

---

Not necessarily.
I started a 70 year old guy off on double bass in 2001-he's playing in amateur orchestras and having a great time!
It's all about personal approach, surely? If you're set in your ways you might put up self imposed limits that prevent you from exploring your potential. I'm not saying that it will be easy, and it would take a very special type of persistence and single mindedness to get there. On the other hand, the kind of single mindedness that comes with 'maturity' is not always there in your formative years -obviously.

I've gone through the music college route, but I was playing jazz in folk clubs and listening to rock music at home while doing the classical course at college. In my own case, my career path has been anything but a straight one -it's wandered all over the place, but I can produce a c.v. that includes bassist for various jazz acts from swing through to fusion, lots of folk acts, classical gigs with ballet and light orchestras, sessions, panto and cabaret gigs, and some m.d and conducting jobs.
This is not me being big headed. The point here is that I did a lot of it all myself because the Royal College of Music in the early 70s didn't even have a big band running officially. I played in the big band that was formed by students.
I've learned the approach to other styles of music myself, by listening and in many ways I've learned a lot unconsciously, blundering into (rather than actively planning) situations career wise and working from there. It's not always been easy, but at least I've managed to prosper creatively, and the biggest breaks in my career have happened serendipitously (seemingly by chance more than design), where I met a musician on a gig who then introduced me to someone else, that led on to other things (including my first SOS article in 1986!).
The most important point here is that you never stop learning, and IMHO you never should. Mind you, I wish I knew in my 20s what I know now (old hoary cliche, I know) which would have saved me a bunch of time and aggro at college.
While I was at college I was too busy trying to find out who the hell I was, let alone work out what I wanted to do musically, so I could have done it all so much better. I envied the other folks who were highly motivated and had a true sense of themselves and as a result went for and achieved professional success easily.
So success and fulfilment came slowly -but it did come.
Likewise, when I first started recording and sequencing in the 80s there were no courses as such, and so I taught myself by trial and error. Having a classical background made it easier as I knew what I wanted to achieve and (broadly) how it should sound in my mind and worked from there.

For me, flexibilty and versatility is the key. A classical background is essential for reading the dots, but there's also lot of background in the classical world that can be very rewarding, if you can avoid the snobby bullshit merchants and use discernment to find what's useful and discard the rest. But there's also the feel factor, which they don't teach you at college. The love and enthusiasm of music has to be inside you from birth and you have to make sure that that isn't beaten out of you or depressed out of you by academic studies. I still have the love of music and the enthusiasm and I try to convey that to my students -otherwise why are we doing this?
Last week I was doing a first performance of a new work, and the conductor of the piece told me about other musos he knew who were looking to join the police (the force, not the band) as they wanted a 'black and white life' (his words). They wanted a secure job with a pension and their mortgage payments to be on time each month.
Which is very sad.
We both agreed that music is the best job going -you get paid to do WHAT YOU LOVE, and the lack of security just happens to be part of the job. I wouldn't be doing anything else in life. I haven't a pension, but then I don't want to retire, there's far too much to do, and far too much to learn, and far too much fun to be had doing it!

Hope this helps,

Dave.


--------------------
Lots of Ataris which keep on going, 12 Kurzweil 1000 modules, a bunch of hardware synths. Still recording to tape -the old ways are best.....

Thanks for your considered reply Wurlie
Hmm..I may well be overestimating the classical education thing.

An experience I've seen with Producers again and again is there reliance on Classically educated string and orchestral arrangers. For the most part they would rather not deal with theses people as there is clearly an educational/class divide evident. They would be much happier if the session player could handle an arrangement.

If I was capable of doing this job I could have picked up tens of thousands of pounds worth of work.

I see the combination of knowing and reproducing whats musically fashionable, combined with orchetsral arranging as the ultimate combination of backroom boy skills to (once you have made those difficult initial contacts) keep you in work.

But the only way I can see this training being obtained is via a degree.

Quote I'd Rather Play:

---

Thanks for your considered reply Wurlie
Hmm..I may well be overestimating the classical education thing.

An experience I've seen with Producers again and again is there reliance on Classically educated string and orchestral arrangers. For the most part they would rather not deal with theses people as there is clearly an educational/class divide evident. They would be much happier if the session player could handle an arrangement.

If I was capable of doing this job I could have picked up tens of thousands of pounds worth of work.

---

Are you sure about that?

The experience I've had of working as an arranger in commercial fields is that it's mostly lowly, hourly-paid hack work. For example arrangers are not generally recognised as having a creative stake in a musical work, thus are not usually (in most contracts) eligible for royalties. The MU has a jobbing rate for arranging which is calculated per bar or per minute (can't remember which), like the rate for a session player, and it's quite low and requires that you pump the music out pretty quickly and carelessly to get any decent return on your time. And then there seems to be a lot less work for arrangers than session players, since in many cases the string lines will be sampled, or the producer will be able to arrange them himself or whatever.

This is how it was when I last did it anyway, and to be honest, I got to a point where I just stopped trying to get any work in that area because it was a poorer return on my time than many other things I could do, with more hustling required and little if any scope for future development. The money in creating any kind of music is in having your name down as composer, or a producer with points, no matter how little of the detail you actually provide. That's why these guys don't mind paying a hundred quid to get someone to painstakingly arrange their strings and brass, because they know it's a tiny fraction of what they'll be getting for their contribution to the overall "concept".

Don't get me wrong - it's certainly good to have as many skills as possible. But the idea of spending years busting a gut to get into music college, then years doing the degree, to get the occasional arranging job seems illogical to me, when the people really making the money on that job will be the ones who spent those years working and networking.

Yes I take your point about getting that part of the earnings cake in perspective.

Although I dont know where you get your Arrangerment figures from.
The arrangers the producers I work for use pay the arranger around £600 - 800 per song.(depending on how many tracks) Thats coming over to the producers studio, runing through the song chatting about the arrangemnt plot, Arranging, then conducting at the recording session. Thats not doing the fixing. I had always thought this typical.

Thanks again for your insights into the education dillemma

Quote I'd Rather Play:

---

Yes I take your point about getting that part of the earnings cake in perspective.

Although I dont know where you get your Arrangerment figures from.
The arrangers the producers I work for use pay the arranger around £600 - 800 per song.(depending on how many tracks) Thats coming over to the producers studio, runing through the song chatting about the arrangemnt plot, Arranging, then conducting at the recording session. Thats not doing the fixing. I had always thought this typical.

---

Ah, that's a bit different. What you're talking about there is more of an M.D. than just an arranger. Fees for conducting sessions can be quite substantial, and typically at least twice what the players get. Your figures there don't sound unusual, and yes, I suppose doing a music college course could give one the skills to go into that kind of M.D. work.

By "arranger" I meant more just the process of transcribing and arranging a MIDI part, or tarting up some scribblings into usuable parts for performers.

Wurly - forgive my ignorance. Does an arranger literally voice the strings? I.e. determine chord inversions etc. (Like composing ?! ). I could never envisage handing over such a vital aspect of a composition to an 'arranger'(/composer)

--------------------
Support your right to arm bears!

Wow, cool thread, and very balanced, useful responses. At the risk of not really adding anything, I figured I'd chime in. I did classical piano training as a kid, up to Grade 8 around 13 years old. Started prepping for Grade 10 but joined a rock band around the same time (16 years old).

One thing I am constantly thankful for, is that my classical piano teacher taught me to read popular music books and play chords, rather than just reading music. The downside was that I ended up losing some of the discipline required to prep for a grade 10 piano exam. The upside is that I learned to improvise.

I spent a couple of hours last night with a 14-year-old boy who has taken classical lessons and wants to learn to improvise. I showed him how to play a blues scale and some rudimentary rock and roll 12-bar stuff, just to give him a start. I can tell you I have had many people who are classically trained come to me and say "oh, I wish I could just sit down and play instead of needing music all the time."

My son, who is nine, started playing electric bass guitar about a year ago and has become very proficient, even surprisingly so (and I'm not saying that because I'm his dad, I'm actually fairly hard on him). I have no plans to push him to classical lessons but I do insist he learn to read music, learn theory and know how chords and scales are built. Although it is certainly possible to play good music without having any musical training, I personally would rather play with people who can read a chart and know the appropriate language (music) for the situation. Just as it might be possible for me to move from Canada to Spain and get along okay knowing only English, if I really want to get anywhere, I'd better learn to speak Spanish.

I have been quite honest with my son about his chances of doing well in the music business. I spent time on the road after getting out of jazz school (after the rock band). It's a tough business, but playing music can be alot of fun. The challenge is to balance the fun part with the discipline part.

Music as a learning tool is not just about the music. It is about using new parts of the brain, about discipline and creativity and learning that there is more to life than just letters and numbers. It is about using a gift to add enjoyment to yours and other lives. These things are perhaps more important than the actual music education.

I'm not convinced being a musician is a great job 'though. I've told both of my kids that they cannot specialize in any full-time arts-related curriculum until college. I want them to have traditional schooling just in case, because the music business is such a long shot.

Use classical training for what it is good for - reading music, learning theory, playing without looking at the keyboard, getting great chops, etc. Use rock and jazz and other forms of music for what they are good for - improvising, playing with others, knowing the "groove", entertaining at friends' parties and picking up girls.

Randy

Quote:

---

Use classical training for what it is good for - reading music, learning theory, playing without looking at the keyboard, getting great chops, etc. Use rock and jazz and other forms of music for what they are good for - improvising, playing with others, knowing the "groove", entertaining at friends' parties and picking up girls.

---

that is it, in a nutshell. If you want your child to be a really rounded musician then that is great advice.

I followed a very similar path with my musical education and that is exactly what i would say to my kids. If i had any.

--------------------
www.mikeandersonmusic.co.uk

I agree somewhat. I am a currently working toward a degree in Piano Performance and have been playing since I was 3. I'm now 20, soon to be 21, am highly regarded at my university by both students and professors, and also have done my fair share of international competitions and such. The classical education had always been the driving force in my musical life, and it has been of great benefit on multiple levels. Yet I realized about 4 years ago, a successful career in classical performance is hard to acheive, and that's putting it mildly. Early, the competition was mentioned... and it's true: there are incredible number of prodigies in the world.

I completely agree that there is much to learn from classical training as far as musical technique is concerned. I'd like to add to that. The connections made by the brain when forced to process information in a different way (i.e. music as opposed to physics) can benefit everyone in very individual ways, outside the realm of music. In my personal experience, learning the intimate side of the piano and become 'friends' with the instrument has not only enabled me to have extraordianry control and precision in the my playing, but has also paid enormous dividends for my ears. As someone who is hoping to continue a career in the music business (audio engineering etc.) this is almost like having years of mixing under your belt before you've actually done it. I remember the first mix I did; it was a pleasure, fun, and sounded damn good considering I was 14.

Enough of my life story. What I meant to say is that strong musical education and experience can benefit in more and indirect ways than many think. This is just one example from one person, and I'm sure others here have had similiar experiences. The thing I'm afriad of is that so many of my collegues studying classical music refuse to accept the rest of the music world! It's depressing because there is so much other music out there, and they are completely closed off. Push the classical training, but don't let it take over. It almost useless if it does.

Thanks guys for all your contributions and sound, considered and knowledgable advice. There is probably no where else in the world I could have gathered so much wisdom.

What a great place this forum is.

Quote Doublehernia:

---

Quote:

---

He's competent but clearly not gifted.

---

How do you know?

Musical talent, well, real musical talent (as opposed to just plonking away at other people's material) is born of having something to say.

What do you know of what your nine-year-old son will want to say in ten years time?

I think you are possibly equating musical ability with technical ability. I know of many, many musicians who are technically brilliant, but who could not compose a decent tune or write a catchy lyric to save their lives.

In fact a certain Mr.Gilmour, who you will agree is a great guitar player, once told me that he avoids working with too many technically perfect musicians who have learnt to read music and have a classical and formal knowledge of orchestration, as he finds that it gets in the way of creativity.

---

Ah so clearly none of the great composers had any creativiy did they? (ok I know a few were not formally taught, but the vast majority were)
I think you might find that many musicians who did a little music at school or got a few grades certainly fall into the nothing other than four square approach, but don't tar all of us with the same brush.
Personally I love DG but many of his great moments came from acid trips - is this your new approach to creativity? Drugs versus practice anyone?

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

Really difficult question...
At university everybody fell into the group of having had private tuition since they were around 4 years old. It really does take this long of dedicated hard work to produce a good classical musician. And those who start later rarely achieve the same level. And even then it was only the very best performers who ended up working in performance.
But how do you know at 4 years old whether the child will get to this level? - its a huge investment and at many points along the way there will be other things to do and resentment of the work required. Personally I turned down great opportunities in my teens that would have made me a far better musician.
On the other hand I've heard many a competent rock guitarist who picked up the instrument at 14 and had 2 years of lessons, from someone with minimal training.
Only you know your son...

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

But how do you know at 4 years old whether the child will get to this level? - its a huge investment and at many points along the way there will be other things to do and resentment of the work required.

---

That's why I think the early years, BEFORE adolescence, are so important. Generally speaking there isn't usually that much else that's overly time consuming that's going to make a reasonable amount of musical work impossible. Primary school is a fairly light workload for anyone of reasonable intelligence - GCSEs and A Levels are a way off.

And of course they haven't discovered the opposite sex yet at this point.

If a child has a good, consistent level of musical development added to their normal school and general discipline from say 4 or 5 to 12 or 13, then it should be pretty easy to tell by the end of that time whether they have the ability, musicality and most importantly the self-motivation to take it to the next level. If they do, then you'll have given them what they need to do that. If they don't, then you'll have given them an opening into a lifetime of enjoyment and insight as an amateur, or even just the basis for enhanced enjoyment as a listener and some general cultural awareness. And all it will have cost is an hour a day or so that they otherwise would probably have spent in front of the television frying their brains instead.

I read somewhere about how Mr Suzuki started the Suzuki method in Japan. Apparently one aspect to it was that the academic pressure on secondary school pupils there is so intense, he felt he had to get people to the highest possible musical level prior to that, because from that point onwards there just wouldn't be time.

Of course if that process uncovers the few for whom it's really worth arranging their whole lives around their musical talent and ambition, then the time can be found, with some basis for knowing it's worth the risk.

Sure, and did you know that when music is added into the curriculum performance in other subjects increases (also happens with physical exercise) shame it has rather a back-burner in our UK corriculum.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound