Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Success Of Un-schooled Vs Schooled Musicians?
Forums > ABRSM > Teachers
stephensutherland
Greetings;

I hope this question does not offend anyone in the least.
But it's a question and I thought I'd see what your opinions are.

In the US, from a commercial perspective it appears that unschooled musicians are more successful than those schooled through the rigours of a complete music complete with ABRSM exams or A college Diploma.

Rock stars, Pop Stars etc (commercially successful) appear to be self-taught musicians with excellent ears or ability or connections.

Has it appeared the same to you all in general ? or is it simply my imagination or lack of knowledge ?





elidatrading
Rock and pop stars have got someone to promote their image, that's all.

Liz
Trebor
Most rock/pop success is either heavily image-based or due to a fairly original and distinct sound to their music. The actual technical ability required for most of the music is not that high, so there is no necessity to go through grades and so on.
flutey toot
Yes i would agree with what has been said so far - the success of pop/rock is due to their promotional manager as well as their ability to give a good stage performance. Fans arent looking for perfection when they go to a gig - more the overall show and stage performance. Eg Robbie Williams - not a great singer but a brilliant performer!
Then again, the same could be siad for classical musicians - there are those who can pull of a good performance through their ability to communicate with the audience, yet dont necess have 'perfect' technique!
Franchonard
QUOTE(Trebor @ Jul 17 2005, 10:18 AM)
Most rock/pop success is either heavily image-based or due to a fairly original and distinct sound to their music. The actual technical ability required for most of the music is not that high, so there is no necessity to go through grades and so on.
*


These days possibly but in the early days of brit rock and progressive music you had to be good to get anywhere. The Beatles and Pink Floyd proved that you need no academic qualifications to write and play good music, pop it may be but it was good music. Led Zep and others, the same.

Technical ability was not that high? Now? True. In the context of the original post, nonsense. You had to be good as singer- (or instrumentalist- ) writers and they had less sophisticated studio equipment then.

QUOTE
Rock and pop stars have got someone to promote their image, that's all.

What's different in the "classical" world?

huh.gif
chocolatedog
Well SOME rock/pop stars may have 'excellent ears or ability' but I think an awful lot of them JUST have connections, nothing else! There are too many mediocre ones out there! Sometimes I think they've made it just because they look the part. (Have you noticed how many of them LOOK the same???!!!)
Franchonard
QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Jul 17 2005, 11:39 AM)
Well SOME rock/pop stars may have 'excellent ears or ability' but I think an awful lot of them JUST have connections, nothing else! There are too many mediocre ones out there! Sometimes I think they've made it just because they look the part. (Have you noticed how many of them LOOK the same???!!!)
*


That's because they are manufactured these days. The moguls are selling fashion not music. The term "music" in "music industry" is happenstance. But it is an industry.
smile.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.