On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Caio Rossi wrote:
> Tako wrote:
> > How can you justify this? If your criteria are based on classical forms,
> > then I suppose pop would by definition be inferior.
>
> Ok, so let's define that: classical musicians have to study a lot, have to
> master things I don't even know they exist, while popular music musicians
> are regular people, with no academic study in the area ( by definition, of
> course.
Where did you get this definition? Eddie Van Halen, Annie Lennox, Pat
Benatar had "classical" training (among many others). Charlie Parker
applied rigorous Stravinksy-esque compositional techniques to his sax
music. Also, there are schools, like Berklee, which are institutions
specializing in training pop/jazz musicians.
Besides the real point is: who says academic training makes you a better
musician? Maybe it gives you better background for certain kinds of arts,
but not all.
There is a saying in computer and arts worlds, that if you finish your
degree, you didn't make it. If you're really good, the real world tries to
rescue from the world of academics (Steve Jobs of Apple, Chris
Schaldenbrand - inducted to the Met in his Junior year at IU, etc.)
Tako
|
|  |
