How can i become a better keyboard player?

Exactly. I never really understood why...

Never said that.... at all. Even recommended taking lessons.

Most people that I KNEW that came out of the CONSERVATORY I went to (not any school), only wanted to play existing compositions. That was concerning a discussion around the conservatory iteself. I found their teaching methods to be bad, never said schooling was the problem! Please read more carefully, it might be less tiring in the end.

They may be very creative, but that creativity is not nurtured correctly, as you say. Learning technique doesn't stimulate everyone, especially when half the program is imposed from the top and depends on the taste of a few people...

I also recommended taking lessons for as long as possible, even waiting 6 months before stopping!! But always bearing in mind that you might have to nurture your own creativity, by exploring, expermenting.

It was in Lebanon. The Conservatory there is pretty much copied over the French system.

You have courses 1-8 (1 year or a bit more each) to your first diploma, then you have 4 more years before "graduating".

You can teach courses 1-3 when you finish 1-8.

Desert_Storm wrote:   "2% of the people that came out were creative. The other 98% were just playing machines." With the risk of getting into a completely other topic, how do you define creativity?

I think I said it wrong, sorry to cut the parallel debate.

2% of the people actually WANT to create something!!

That doesn't need much more definition I suppose. I was very surprised to see people were contempt with only interpretation.

Desert_Storm wrote:   So yeah, they have catch phrases but that doesn't mean they're right. You're right, it doesn't have to be true. For me, though, it's pretty accurate. Let me elaborate a little: That phrase is, of course, an exaggerated claim of an aspiring professional musician. In that context, I think it's a good description, for me it's like walking towards the horizon, the further you go, the further it stretches. After twelve years of playing, I still regularly see and hear things that I thought impossible before, or I discover that things I considered amazing before are even more genius once I better understand what's behind them. It's a little (forgive me for getting philosophical) like the famous Plato quote "I know that I know nothing" - not uttered in false modesty, but in the process of learning: The more you learn, the better you see how much more is still left to learn.

 

I understand this phrase is not a bad thing on its own, it's just that with teachers (generic ones, that have the same program for 15 different kids), you have to be careful not to dampen your imagination...

Other than that, it's a fine motto.

Desert_Storm wrote:    To me, learning with a teacher is like a medical treatment. It's better to stop it when you don't need it anymore. There maybe (there are surely) excellent teachers who can teach you what you need to know, but as you can't really know that in advance (or else you would teach yourself), it's better not to take the risk in my opinion. Well, I disagree. Of course it depends what you're after. If somebody wants to play rhythm guitar in a metal band (and only that), it's unnecessary to spend years learning about jazz improvisation or Bach's four-part harmony. But if you seriously want to become a good musician, there's not really a way around taking lessons.

That's what I said in the first place!

I'm just saying not to take lessons all your life!

Desert_Storm wrote:    With my students, I always focus on what they want to learn, but still try to show them what's behind that, and what the "underlying mechanics" of any part of music are. I don't know many who don't appreciate it (or don't get better that way), except for some kids that only want to play AC/DC riffs with some friends. But even then, it's nice to play a solo about an ever so simple chord progression, or improvise one, or write one yourself, and there comes music theory. And when you can do that, it's always nice to make the solo sound more interesting or less conventional, to improve the technique and so on - it just doesn't stop :)

 

I also think it's not so easy to know when to stop, that's why I gave the 6 months period. It's in order to see if you're still learning, if it's still helping you get what you want.

You seem to be a fine teacher, but most ones I've encountered had a different philisophy:

1. Learn the theory before practice

2. You absolutely NEED to have 10 years experience before even trying to write something of your own.

3. Everyone is the same...

I think students themselves are willing to be creative, but teaching seems to be actually much harder than learning...

"2% of the people that came out were creative. The other 98% were just playing machines."

With the risk of getting into a completely other topic, how do you define creativity? In terms of improvising and creating your own music, I have to admit I've seen the inability to do that quite a lot in the classical department. However, I think that this is very deep in the nature of classical music, we play music that was sometimes written hundreds of years ago, and the goal is to do that at a very high technical and musical level, getting to know the composers and their style to deliver an authentic yet personal interpretation is a crucial aspect of the study, and the people that make it to the big stages are there for doing exactly that. Actually, many of the most brilliant instrumentalists/interpreters of classical music on any instrument have never written an original piece of music in their life (that the public knows of), and yet they're amazing in doing perfectly what they are "supposed" to do. So although I think that a classical musician, too, should be able to improvise and come up with own ideas, I can understand that this part is sometimes neglected, since those abilities are neither the final goal of the education, nor will they give you the job in an orchestra/ensemble or as a soloist.

In the jazz/pop department however, I've never met anyone who's "just a playing machine". This study focus is very much centered around improvisation and impromptu arrangement, creating pieces of music directly while playing it with other people. Of course this can't magically enable someone to write songs if he hasn't any natural gift in that direction (nothing in the world can!), but I would go so far to say that people who are completely uncreative don't even make it into that study, due to heavy focus on the things above. Also, when I think about it, I don't know anyone from that department of my conservatory who doesn't play in multiple bands
If you're interested, check out the band phi, I made a thread for them here. A great example of the mix of high musical skills and creativity, also a good example of the many fine bands of people I met at the conservatory 

So yeah, they have catch phrases but that doesn't mean they're right.

You're right, it doesn't have to be true. For me, though, it's pretty accurate.

Let me elaborate a little: That phrase is, of course, an exaggerated claim of an aspiring professional musician. In that context, I think it's a good description, for me it's like walking towards the horizon, the further you go, the further it stretches. After twelve years of playing, I still regularly see and hear things that I thought impossible before, or I discover that things I considered amazing before are even more genius once I better understand what's behind them. It's a little (forgive me for getting philosophical) like the famous Plato quote "I know that I know nothing" - not uttered in false modesty, but in the process of learning: The more you learn, the better you see how much more is still left to learn.

To me, learning with a teacher is like a medical treatment. It's better to stop it when you don't need it anymore. There maybe (there are surely) excellent teachers who can teach you what you need to know, but as you can't really know that in advance (or else you would teach yourself), it's better not to take the risk in my opinion.

Well, I disagree. Of course it depends what you're after. If somebody wants to play rhythm guitar in a metal band (and only that), it's unnecessary to spend years learning about jazz improvisation or Bach's four-part harmony. But if you seriously want to become a good musician, there's not really a way around taking lessons. With my students, I always focus on what they want to learn, but still try to show them what's behind that, and what the "underlying mechanics" of any part of music are. I don't know many who don't appreciate it (or don't get better that way), except for some kids that only want to play AC/DC riffs with some friends. But even then, it's nice to play a solo about an ever so simple chord progression, or improvise one, or write one yourself, and there comes music theory. And when you can do that, it's always nice to make the solo sound more interesting or less conventional, to improve the technique and so on - it just doesn't stop :)