The Logic Off Topic list

At 12:18 PM 10/3/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>Funny, by the likes of what you are saying.  I often felt like a lot of
>these Berklee and University types were in fact more Poser than
>anything else.
>
>A poser is someone who follows a trend, and poses in that fashion.  But
>is not true to the fashion, because they are in emulation of the
>concept.  Not, in creation of the concept.  Most of what I hear from
>graduates is very much indicative of the word "Poser".  Sorry.  But
>often very true.  I am not trying to diminish education.  But really, a
>lot of work, surrounded by educated artist, sounds very derivative to
>me.  Not that the opposite doesn't apply either.
>
>I usually listen to the individual, not what they are capable of or not
>capable of...but what they are writing as being more important.  Am I
>moved, emotional, am I experiencing what they are telling me in the
>story?  Do I feel connected?
>
>I have met Self Taught's that were better than Graduates.  Even
>graduates will go, "wow, that person is good".  I think we have all
>experienced this.  I think it really applies to all angles of
>creativity as well.
>
>Not all the greats came from universities.  Jimi Hendrix, George
>Gershwin or Edith Piaf.  I know that Miles Davis left Julliard, his
>reason was..."too much white music".  I know that John Lennon went to
>art school, barely graduating.  And yet Albert Einstein failed Algebra
>classes 3 times.  Django Rhienhart was a gypsy, no education.  Lost
>most of his mobility in his left hand during a horrible fire that
>severely burned him.  Then turned himself around, and continued playing
>with only two fingers.  Yet not one player I have ever met, can play
>with the same heart as he did.  He just bounces right out the speakers
>at every spin.  Aretha Franklin sang most of her young life, in church
>choir...just because she loved it.  Her first album will rip your heart
>out and it was done in seventy two hours.  Pure, untainted, raw,
>natural talent, that no woman has yet to come, without placing homage
>to Aretha.  Ray Charles.  Stevie Wonder.  Hmmm...So, who is the poser?
>
>I guess what I am trying to say is...you can't teach creativity,
>individuality and ingenuity...all you can do is give someone the tools
>and rules.  But at a certain point, it is really up to the individual
>to shape themselves.  Just because one can sit at a piano and pick out
>songs by ear...doesn't make them great as a songwriter or player.  It
>just means, they have good ear.  The idea of school is to accelerate
>ones process.  But in no way does that make them better than someone
>who is self taught, or skipped ear training class to get laid.
>
>Making this comment to be more true, than anything that has been said.
>
>Especially when dealing with Creative studies.  Leaving other studies
>like programming, medicine, law, etc. really necessary to have an
>academic approach.  Yet, I have talked to some programmers that said
>the same thing about education being rather "eh", when it came down to
>preparing them for the real world.  Most were already programming at
>age 12, so their teachers weren't giving them enough breathing space.
>Yet some the only reasons to go art school, is to learn proportions,
>life drawing, and few other semantics.  After that, go bye-bye...there
>really is no point in staying.
>
>Secular study or practice is often to rigid for creativity.  If the
>individual receives it all in the right way, it can serve them as good
>tools.  But if the individual receives to much structural inhibitions,
>it could serve to diminish the quality that inherently already exists.
>Leonardo Da Vinci, was recognized as a young genius who painted better
>than his master, during his small stint as an apprentice at age 14.
>Lucky for him, his Master was brave enough to admit his student was
>superior to his own work.  Kind of what separates Vladamir Horwitz from
>the rest, despite the fact that he came from a strict regiment of "You
>play it like this, or no pudding with your meat".  One then, recognizes
>the need to be "you" at all times.
>
>Peace,
>Alexis

I wouldn't disagree with you (except about the poser thing, which isn't 
true) because it is all correct. However one could name just as many 
examples of successful people who did go to school. It's true that it's not 
needed for everyone, but you are starting to imply that it is almost in 
fact bad for people (though delicately skirting around that issue).  I 
guess I am saying that if you have ten examples of successes that didn't 
need school, and 10 that did, it makes it a moot point. You also have to 
realize that a school is about more than its classrooms. It's about the 
environment of people with a common goal all networking together. This can 
be done anywhere, but in a school it can be very beneficial. I think the 
ones that go to schools and see nothing but 'posers' generally just go to 
the classes and think that is what the school is about. I think I learned 
the least in the classroom and the most in labs and working with other 
classmates on projects. We got to make our mistakes there without the 
consequences of a paying gig. I have to say it was an awesome experience 
for me and much more accelerated than reading books back home and jamming 
with local musicians. It was like taking things to another level. If you 
expect a school to make yourself creative, then of course you won't find 
it. And for many, it's also about getting out of their small town and 
meeting people from all over the world and sharing musical experiences, 
etc. For someone coming out of HS, Music college is a great stepping stone. 
Some day when I am rich enough to settle down, I would like to go back and 
finish school myself. I don't think anyone feels that people who go to 
school are better than people who don't. I also don't think that anyone who 
doesn't go to school is better than someone who does. It certainly won't 
make you worse off. :-)

Colin Miller