The Logic Off Topic list

teddybut wrote:
> that sounds about right. Maybe it would have a better reputation if 
> they
> wouldn't take all the posers $. I just didn't feel like waiting around 
> for 2
> semesters for the posers to drop out. I suppose that Berklee is more 
> of a
> realistic scenario as far as the percentage of musicians who suck in 
> real
> life. At Miami, there were %0 posers. They have very high standards for
> entrance.

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.

poser
n 1: a person who habitually pretends to be something he is not [syn: 
poseur]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
------------------------------------------------------------------------

poser
n. A wannabee; not hacker slang, but used among crackers, phreaks and 
warez d00dz. Not as negative as lamer or leech. Probably derives from a 
similar usage among punk-rockers and metalheads, putting down those who 
"talk the talk but don't walk the walk".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

> to me, music school is an oxymoron. If I had it do over, I'd stay in 
> NYC and
> take private lessons and play gigs. I did enjoy my time at Miami and 
> the
> school is excellent but I'm not sure it was the best way to go. I 
> learned
> more from my high school guitar teacher than I did in music school, 
> but I'm
> a freak of nature and that certainly is not the norm. Music school was 
> more
> of a place to meet future co-workers. For me it should have been called
> "music networking for future gigs school"...

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