BS: Formal vs. Informal Education

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 11:49 AM

Everytime a thread like this emerges, it becomes an "us against them" thing. I'm a classically-trained singer and a self-taught guitar player, and I have an undergrad degree in liberal arts and an MBA. And guess what ... none of it means a hill of beans in the grand scheme. I started college as a voice major and changed my major to liberal arts a year later, because it was destroying the joy of music for me. I would have left school but I felt it was important to finish, regardless of major.

The voice and stage presence is a gift from g-d, whom I thank everyday, but I do wish he had given me longer fingers so I'd be a better guitar player. The other stuff has just happened to open a few doors for me.

I DO NOT CARE WHAT KIND OF "FORMAL" TRAINING A MUSICIAN HAS HAD IF HE/SHE PLEASES MY SENSES. Some of the very best I have ever heard have not even a high school diploma.

If you're tone deaf and have absolutely no musical talent .. all the formal training in the world ain't gonna make you better.

If you've got the gift ... formal training may enhance your talents ... it can also stifle your talents.

moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:53 AM

Mark, if I had taken formal music training in the beginning when I first started taking up the banjo, knowing myself, I would have been turned off playing an instrument. As I learn more about music I am gaining a better appreciation for what formal music training might offer me. I have no clue if in the future I will take any formal music courses, but for now it is definitely not where my head is and I feel very comfortable with that.

Oh, I forgot one thing. The main reason I now have a university degree is because my dad said he would kill me if I left school.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Fortunato
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:45 AM

I play, sing, and perform the way Pete Townsend throws paper wads, intuitively, without benefit of formal musical education. When I speak of this with our sax player, Juilliard trained (the prestigious school of music, New York, USA), referring to areas of my performance that need work, I refer, deferentially, to my lack of education. He responds, "Yes, but you know the songs". And I do, and I can play them, even those that have lots of passing and swing chords, substitutions, inversions, etc. (Guitar)

But fundamentals do count. Where I am deficient, I often lack the language or fundamental understanding to receive communication to correct my deficiency.

There is a point in ensemble playing and the contruction of arrangements where formal training is damn useful.

Or else you may frustrate the hell out of your band.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:35 AM

Education and me have never been a happy mixture and I managed to get an unclassified in 'O' level music. I think I would have failed anyway but a friend of mine had just got hold of a new Greeves Griffon scrambler and riding that seemed much more fun than attending an exam so I missed the exam.

Somehow, without any revision (couldn't be bothered with boring things like that), I did pass enought 'O' levels and started taking A Levels in Physics, Chemistry and Maths but I dropped out after three months as I couldn't stand school any longer.

Looking back, I do regret my descisions and certainly would have found more musical knowledge useful. I suppose I could teach my self more theory but I think I am just plain lazy and when I am in the mood for music, all I want to do is play.

I have tried to catch up on my lack of formal education in other areas before and am in fact attending an interview on Tuesday for entrance to an HNC in Business IT. I did try this course before and hated every minute of it but was doing well until my father had a severe stroke and I had a nasty split up with my girlfriend and I blew the course. Mayybe this time round I will finally get myself some form of formal qualification. I'm not that bothered about not having an qualifications but unfortunately, employers are.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mark Clark
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:19 AM

Gary, I agree that one should have both. By itself, solid formal music education seems to be an impediment to mastering traditional and popular styles. Not that formal training can't be overcome with very happy results, but often that seems not to happen. It's common to find talented classically-trained violinists who seem unable to master the nuances of fiddle playing or to learn music entirely by ear. Of course it's even more common to find self-taught players who have not learned to play in tune or produce a pleasing tone.

There are examples of musical masters who were entirely self-taught---Earl Scruggs comes to mind and some of the Kentucky thumbpickers (Ike Everley, Merle Travis)---but I think many of the well-loved but self-taught performers played with more heart than technique. Having been down the self-taught road myself, I don't recommend it to beginning musicians. I think people should avail themselves of some formal training andlearn to ignore it as needed to get the musical result they're after.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:13 AM

Although I have a formal degree in nutrition sciences and completed an internship so that I could become a dietitian my greatest nutrition teachers have had no formal education but they developed an incredible base of knowledge from their experience and dedication to the field of nutrition.

It was a rude awakening when I graduated because that was when my real education started. I picked up valuable nutrition information from all kinds of alternative sources. The unacceptable 'fringe' kind of nutrition information I was receiving finally made sense to me and my work became meaningful.
I am still glad I got my degree but only for monetary reasons. If gives me a sense of security knowing I have the official papers to be hired in our health care system but that is about it.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 09:57 AM

When I left school to go to sea (at fifteen) logarithms was a birth control method for trees, and calculus grew on yer teeth if you didnt brush em. Since then, I have been a memeber of a scientific institute for 25 years, and work with Doctors and scientists on a regular basis.. Education is an individual achievement and responsibility, which never ceases until death. Yours, Aye. Dave (not the sharpest pencil in the box but can still write)

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: MMario
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 09:30 AM

"Education" and "learning" are two seperate items, at least as they seem to be as defined by today's society. One can be highly educated, yet know practically nothing. There are examples all over the place. On the other hand, there are people with incredible volumes of knowledge that have a bare minimum of "Education". Obviously this is not innate, it must be learned, somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Gary T
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 09:12 AM

Formal education/training tends to deal with theory and intellectual understanding. Informal education tends to deal with experience and intuitive understanding. (These are broad generalizations, certainly not absolute or precise.)

My experience has been that the most efficient learning comes from a combination of training and experience. Learning theory is dry and academic without experiences to apply it to. Learning by experience is often haphazard and frustrating without theory to guide it. Either one by itself can get you a far way with enough time, but put the two together and you can really make tracks.

Subject: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 08:48 AM

Bonnie and I have been sharing some thoughts about the value of formal education as compared to self-education, and we thought we'd open this up to some others' opinions. In another recent thread, I recalled a point made by Pete Townshend (of the Who) in an old interview. In response to the interviewer's question about where he got his musical training, Mr. Townshend crumpled a ball of paper and threw it across the room into a wastebasket. He then said that, in order to be able to do that, he needed to be able to calculate the lift needed to overcome the weight of the paper, the air resistance that the ball of paper would encounter, the arc needed to clear the rim of the wastebasket, and various other physical properties. He said that he didn't actually have formal training in any of these areas, but somehow he had picked up enough knowledge about all of them that he was intuitively able to put the right combination together and accomplish the task at hand.

The example was intended to illustrate that a person might have a lot of musical "education" without having gone through a formal course of study, and I think we would all acknowledge that there are many highly skilled musicians out there who demonstrate this. In my opinion the concept also has merit in non-musical contexts, although I believe our society is reluctant to recognize that people may be educated without that education having been provided or endorsed by a recognized institution of higher learning.

So with that as a long-winded backdrop, what do people think? Can you be "educated" -- musically or otherwise --without the benefit of a formal course of study? Are there types of education that you can only get from formal study? Are there any advantages to self-education over formal education? And should society at large be revising its views of what it means to be educated?