Formal musicians

[btd@carina.cray.com (Bryan Dongray)]

The artist who came to my mind who did NOT have any formal training
was Paul McCartney and I understand KaTe in the early years (although
I bet she has had some now), OK she was learning violin.
Paul McC' got some "formal" theory lessons quote recently when he was
composing something more classical (the name escapes me at present),
and his comments were to the effect that he was glad he had not had the
training when he was with the Beatles, since he believed it would have
had a negative effect on what was produced (ie made the music more
standard, not new, as it was at the time).

I'm not saying that those with a formal training cannot be as innovative
as those without, and it is true a formal training does mean that you
do not have to "reinvent the wheel". I just believe that without having
those long hours being drummed into you on what is "right", a gifted
person will not be tied down to conventions. OK, a non gifted person will
probably produce "bumpy" music.

Maybe I've been tainted by a few discussions with a formally trained
person about what is correct as opposed to what sounds better. I go for
the sound, they go for the rules. I get the "I'm better than you since..."
treatment, yet they're not very good, but believe they *must* be better
since *they* had training. Think of "Rimmer" from "Red Dwarf".

			Bryan Dongray

PS The book I had on music, was all about chord progression and harmonies,
and was referring to "classical" music of the 1800's. It painted "dischord"
was a considered a no-no! Lots of rules about no parallel 5ths and octaves,
and when to use what chords changes. It then kept quoting exceptions.

PPS What if you cannot play, but use (say) a computer or other tool to
perform the music you compose? And I mean using it properly and something
of quality sound, not a programmable tone generator! Unless you're very
very good. Does that count as whatever "playing music" is supposed to mean?