Academically Qualified?

The Pessimist wrote: JLocke wrote: Who cares? This. Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school. Booyah, high five *SNAP*

Not prog, but...

Dexter Holland (The Offspring) turned away from a PhD program in molecular biology to be in the band.
Peter Garrett (Midnight Oil) has at least some training in law, and obviously went into politics, but it's unclear from the Wiki whether he formally got a degree.


Edited by stonebeard - February 18 2010 at 17:32

The Pessimist wrote: The T wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ? The grass is always greener...(whoops) I don't think classical musicians yearn to improvise... they yearn for easier music to play so they can also relax...  Not true either. We yearn to be able to phrase a 4/4 semi-quaver trill in 13/8 at about 300 crotchet BPM And yeah Teo... ignore my Beethoven comment, it was rushed and not thought out properly Oh, to be young and blonde...

Like Dean, I don't buy it either that people just play entirely by ear

Mikael Akerfeldt claims to no little of theory.
You will find tritones, the harmonic minor scale, the phrygian dominant mode, key changes that fit well within the circle of 5ths, and chords that extend beyond the "usual" 1 3 5 type chords in his music.
Marty Friedman (of former Megadeth fame), also claims to know little of theory. Having listened to Rust In Peace and his solo album Dragon's Kiss more times than I care to remember, I find it his claim of not knowing theory to be well. full of sh*t basically.
He sure as hell isn't restricted to just 50s style rock and roll pentatonics, that's for sure.

J-Man wrote: Raff wrote: Tarquin Underspoon wrote: Not to be "the guy that brings DT into the thread only to be ignored because DT is possibly the most exhausted and universally annoying topic in the forum to all but the 15 fanboys who lurk in the shadows of PA for fear of being excommunicated from the Prog world".....but Dream Theater went to Berklee. Does that count for anything?   'course, they dropped out....... Didn't Jordan Rudess graduate from Juilliard? All of the original members went to Berklee (Rudess isn't one of them)

All dropped out of Berklee too

Man Overboard wrote: Academically qualified?  Who gives a toss?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP cares

Blacksword wrote: Bear in mind, also that the mindset of classical musicans, is very different from that of jazz and rock musicians. Firstly, classical is about composition. Improvisation is sneered at in classical circles. Classical music is played as dictated by the sheet music, that the composer composed. It actually doen't follow that a classically trained pianist - for example - could immediately and effectively turn his/her hand to jazz improv.

No, this is not entirely. It is NOT universally sneered at in all classical circles.
To say so is ignorant and naive.
Chopin is in fact notable for having been a masterful improviser, in addition to his excellent technical facility on the piano and his compositional skills.




Edited by Petrovsk Mizinski - February 19 2010 at 03:59

Man Overboard wrote: Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: Like Dean, I don't buy it either that people just play entirely by ear -- I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP cares I play by ear!  I've never had a theory lesson, completely self-taught on guitar, bass, and various keyboards.  I didn't look for online courses or tutorials, just sort of plowed away at it for the past 10 years, figuring what works with what and what doesn't and what makes sense.  I'd beg to wager that many of the guitarists you idolize have similar circumstances and never met with a guitar teacher until their label introduced one if they found it necessary.  I'm no Steve Vai, but I can understand the different feelings that the different modes evoke.  I might not know them by name, but goddamn, at its core you're just playing a familiar scale with a different root chosen.  It's not rocket science, it's music, it's natural, it's existed forever.  I love learning new nuances just about every time I sit down with an instrument.  I wouldn't trade this experience for some cut-and-dry music lessons from people with their own music prejudices. And yes, I'm sure a lot of people care, but really, -should- they?

I've just sent a long PM to Micah explaining my reasoning, I'll not replicate the whole thing here, but just mention one example - The Beatles - not trained in anyway, yet remarkably unconventional to typlical 1960s pop, though not to music theory - they used the IV-I cadence in several of their songs when V-I was the standard, they got that from hymn music, not rock'n'roll - they used it because it just felt right to them, but it is grounded in sane, dry, boring music theory. Theory just explains why things that feel right actually work - you don't need to know it academically to enjoy it or write it, but you do know it in practice through experience - to me they are the same thing.

ExittheLemming wrote: Nah Dean I don't buy any of this. Such theory smacks of inventing an equation after you're presented with the answer. Consecutive 5ths for example are practically outlawed in traditional theory yet form the basis of most heavy rock (barre chord riffs etc) Take something that is very unconventional harmonically e.g. some of Syd Barret's more complex songs and sit and wait for the theorists to tell us why such progressions have been  musically satisfying to our ears since the dawn of time? Music theory in this regard is no better than back dated history or 20-20 hindsight.

Isn't this how all analysis works? No one sat down and said - hmm, if play a note that is 5/4ths of C it must be harmonic, they analysed why C and E sounded good together to find out why.

ExittheLemming wrote: Dean wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Nah Dean I don't buy any of this. Such theory smacks of inventing an equation after you're presented with the answer. Consecutive 5ths for example are practically outlawed in traditional theory yet form the basis of most heavy rock (barre chord riffs etc) Take something that is very unconventional harmonically e.g. some of Syd Barret's more complex songs and sit and wait for the theorists to tell us why such progressions have been  musically satisfying to our ears since the dawn of time? Music theory in this regard is no better than back dated history or 20-20 hindsight. Isn't this how all analysis works? No one sat down and said - hmm, if play a note that is 5/4ths of C it must be harmonic, they analysed why C and E sounded good together to find out why. Perhaps I've misunderstood you (It wouldn't be the first time) but yes, theory comes after the aesthetic phenomenon appears and the rules are changed to suit what we find pleasing. My take on what you have said previously is that you posit what we will ever  find musically satisfying has been around forever and is already contained in theory ? That is palpably untrue (but perhaps ya didn't say that, and I've been drinking wine so my faculties are somewhat impaired)

Well, it does sound like something I could have said  but it is a bit of an extrapolation of what I actually said.

Edited by Dean - February 19 2010 at 07:30

ExittheLemming wrote: ^ Well OK but when you state 'sounds good together' I suspect you mean consonance and yes, music theory (and its close relation to wavelength physics malarkey) would support why these notes sound aesthetically appealing to we humanoid critters since God was in short pants. (You being scientifically schooled will vouch for same) However if you listen to Bartok's string quartets (no they certainly ain't party pumpin' toe-tappers) you can audibly hear the strings beating against one another (wave interference ?) when the intervals are either microtonal or close (2nd's) but the effect is magically thrilling and I guess technically dissonant - so is there a case to suggest that music theory stops when  dissonance rears its ugly  aesthetically  ambiguous head ?

There wll always be exceptions and those exceptions will always fall outside what is "popular" ... they are never going to be easy-listenning. Bartok knew what he was doing - it wasn't random bum notes or lack of musical knowedge that put them there.

The T wrote: The Pessimist wrote: The T wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Funny ain't it how trained classical musicians yearn to be able to sit down and improvise while the self taught by ear (long haired proggy critters) yearn eventually to study theory ? The grass is always greener...(whoops) I don't think classical musicians yearn to improvise... they yearn for easier music to play so they can also relax...  Not true either. We yearn to be able to phrase a 4/4 semi-quaver trill in 13/8 at about 300 crotchet BPM And yeah Teo... ignore my Beethoven comment, it was rushed and not thought out properly Oh, to be young and blonde... Hey... don't be a hairist here.. not accepted.  Now go and dye that thing over your head...  (actually, I'm kinda brown...)

It's self hairism... I thought that was permissable?

I was thinking of dying it purple... you know, like Billy Connolly's beard? That'd be pretty prog rock I reckon

presdoug wrote: Catcher10 wrote: Excellent question.....Never really looked that deep into my collection of artists and what they did with education. I do know that Tom Scholz from Boston was a graduate from MIT in some engineering study. He started the band Boston while in school if I remember right....I think in this case his degree helped formulate the distinctive Boston hard rock sound that made that debut album so huge. I think I'll take a listen....its been a "long time..." since I've played some Boston. I saw Boston on their first tour-it was totally awesome!