Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Normandie]

Was the Beatles' lack of formal music education an asset or a deficit? I'm genuinely curious as to what the musicians on this forum think.

In reading Goldman's The Lives of John Lennon, I came across the following excerpt in a discussion of the very early days of the band (p. 69, hardcover):

Lennon claimed that by avoiding music lessons, the Beatles preserved the integrity of their imaginations, a trite and highly questionable idea that betrays his characteristic fear of being sucked into the normal world by absorbing its lessons. The truth was that the Beatles woud have had far greater strength and freedom if they had known more about music. 

I must say, I resent Goldman's editorializing here, and I tend to agree with John, but then—I'm not a musician.

If anyone cares to share their thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.

[Moogmodule]

That’s an interesting question. It’s got lots of facets to it. Just as a quick response I’d say:

I think it’s always better to know more about any subject your working on then less. But the Beatles did pretty alright as they were. What more does anyone want from them? What greater strength or freedom would have shown in their records? John would have added more chords to Tomorrow Never Knows?

Not doing lessons (which they actually did do anyway in some cases) didn’t mean they didn’t know a lot about music. They knew it from listening to hundreds of records and reproducing them for their shows particularly in Hamburg. Not knowing the names of scales and the like doesn’t mean you can’t use them. You’re just relying on ear for what works. Something that the Beatles were unusually good at.

It’s often repeated (even by Paul)  that they couldn’t read music. I’m sceptical of this. While no doubt they weren’t sight readers I’m sure at least Paul and George picked up some reading on the way.

[Hello Goodbye]

Sight reading for guitar is very difficult unlike other instruments.  I never became proficient at that but did learn to read music for guitar which helped me learn to play various songs and their arpeggios.

It's important to remember that The Beatles had the luxury of having George Martin to help them put their rough compositions together to form a proper piece of music.  This is especially true later on when orchestration was added to their compositions.

[Moogmodule]

Sight reading for guitar is very difficult unlike other instruments.  I never became proficient at that but did learn to read music for guitar which helped me learn to play various songs and their arpeggios.

It's important to remember that The Beatles had the luxury of having George Martin to help them put their rough compositions together to form a proper piece of music.  This is especially true later on when orchestration was added to their compositions.

It’s a good point that they had George Martin. Maybe if they’d been more academically knowledgeable the they could have gone fine with another producer. But frankly even if they’d had reasonable intensive music lessons they weren’t going to get to the level of Martin in knowledge. And if they had they would have been very different musicians to the ones we got. There’s thousands of musically adept and knowledgeable people unleashed on the world each year from universities and music schools. But there’s only ever been one Beatles.

[Moogmodule]

I must say, I resent Goldman's editorializing here, and I tend to agree with John, but then—I'm not a musician.
.

Yes Goldman’s editorialising is as facile as he accuses John of being.

[Hello Goodbye]

Eleanor Rigby

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nZ3QIKOMlk" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nZ3QIKOMlk</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZA6jtxtTfQ" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZA6jtxtTfQ</a>

Paul McCartney – lead and harmony vocals
John Lennon – harmony vocal
George Harrison – harmony vocal

Tony Gilbert – violin
Sidney Sax – violin
John Sharpe – violin
Juergen Hess – violin
Stephen Shingles – viola
John Underwood – viola
Derek Simpson – cello
Stephen Lansberry – cello

George Martin – producer, string arrangement

[nimrod]

For what its worth, I agree with Goldman. They were very lucky to get George Martin to arrange, advise and teach. For example , on 3 part harmony, songs like This Boy, Yes It Is etc. he played the notes on piano that each Beatle should sing.
If they hadnt got George, who knows ?

[Normandie]

Those are all excellent points. I hadn't considered the George Martin factor because Goldman didn't mention him in that particular assertion.

[Moogmodule]

Yes them meeting George Martin was as important as Paul meeting John.


 

[Normandie]

Yes them meeting George Martin was as important as Paul meeting John.

Then I guess that settles it: George Martin is the much-debated Fifth Beatle. 

[Moogmodule]

To me he ties with Brian. Without Brian they might never have gone the next step. And he marketed them perfectly. But I digress from the topic…

[Moogmodule]

One question in this is what do we mean by formal music education. How much more theory or lessons would have made a difference? George and Paul both took guitar lessons and early on already knew and used more chords than the average guitarist. That was one of their strengths early on and helped the songwriting and early arrangements differentiate themselves. The fact that they might not have known all the technical names or the theory behind how they were formed doesn’t appear to have been a huge hindrance to them. But learning more on that front would have been useful and benefited them at some point. Frankly I can’t see any lessons doing much for John. Even in his art, which he did study, is there much sign he took much of that on? I’m no art expert so can’t say for sure but it doesn’t look it to me.

The second part of the question though is was John right that formal lessons would have been detrimental to their imaginations. That is a bit of a romantic notion but I think there is something to be said for that in some cases. It’s not unknown in all fields to have less tutored people take approaches that formally trained people wouldn’t think of or thought were dead ends or unacceptable.  Dylan Thomas left school at 16 but went on to be one of the worlds most acclaimed poets. Would studying poetry at university have helped him or influenced him away from the style for which he became known? Walt Whitman left school at eleven. I think for 99% percent of people they’re much better off learning as much as possible. But there are outliers, maybe John is one, that formal training wouldn’t help that much and might steer them away from their natural inclinations to a more conventional approach.

[nimrod]

Then I guess that settles it: George Martin is the much-debated Fifth Beatle. 

Id still say Brian was the 5th, if there was one. George the 6th (sounds like the Royal Family)

[Normandie]

The second part of the question though is was John right that formal lessons would have been detrimental to their imaginations. That is a bit of a romantic notion but I think there is something to be said for that in some cases. It’s not unknown in all fields to have less tutored people take approaches that formally trained people wouldn’t think of or thought were dead ends or unacceptable.  Dylan Thomas left school at 16 but went on to be one of the worlds most acclaimed poets. Would studying poetry at university have helped him or influenced him away from the style for which he became known? Walt Whitman left school at eleven. I think for 99% percent of people they’re much better off learning as much as possible. But there are outliers, maybe John is one, that formal training wouldn’t help that much and might steer them away from their natural inclinations to a more conventional approach.

You've accurately summed up my own thoughts on this.

[Loco Mo]

I think that throughout history many people have composed music without having access to formal instruction.  The educated degreed musician is much more common and prominent in today's world.  Think of the composers who "heard" entire symphonies in their heads.

Now, I have studied music to some degree.  I can read music for drums and I can read guitar music.  However, I can't simply read standard music sheets unless they're written for guitar.  The guitar notation is conveniently placed on the treble clef because it makes reading it much easier.  Otherwise, you'd have to go between the treble and bass clefs which would be a graphical pain in the butt.  I don't know how many guitar players can read both ways but I assume the ones who frequent a forum like this one probably have that facility.

But more to the point of this thread:  Does formal education help create a better musician?  Certainly, it can and it should, depending upon the student's proclivities.  I would think that they should have more technical dexterity.  Think of the process of learning how to play the same chord or a different succession of notes in various positions on the guitar.  Maybe a person could intuitively locate these positions but I think you'd have to be a genius.  I would like to ask this question:  Does anyone know of untutored geniuses who have demonstrated this ability?  Was Jimi Hendrix able to do it?  Also, think of muted notes and buzzing a note within a chord progression.

A possible downside of education (to my mind) is this:  Many times I've listened to drummers and I immediately knew they were playing exercises they were previously assigned in drum classes or from various drum books.  I recognized those patterns and realized they were trying to fit these exercises in the music they were playing or during solo time.  Also, there is the phenomenon of guitar players shredding musical scales.  Sorry, but this is not creative to me at all.  It's just them trying to show how fast they can play them forwards and backwards.  But this is not musical IMO and doesn't fit the overall song they're playing along to.  Again, re: drummers:  How many play rudiments when soloing?  Just because they're good at some of these doesn't mean it makes for a good solo.  But again, they're probably trying to impress the audience with their speed, loudness and endurance.

I also want to say that I've been shocked at how many drummers I've met who had no formal training but yet were in popular bands.  I could tell in just a very brief conversation that they didn't know what I was talking about when I referenced various rudiments.

Overall, I think there was a bias against formal education years ago.  Is this still true?  It's just that a lot of musicians wanted the ultimate compliment which was:  Look at him!  He's amazing and he's never taken any lessons!  I've witnessed this attitude among artists as well.  They won't brag about their schooling unless they know they can top you.  Also, some want you to think they're naturally gifted.  It's like:  "Hey, he's so special.  He has an innate talent and we are in awe of that.  We wouldn't be as impressed if we knew he had an art degree.  Then, we'd simply expect whatever he produced."

For my personal opinion, I like the naturally gifted people like Paul McCartney who create songs out of thin air.  I will always be amazed by that.  If he had studied formally, maybe his creativity would have been inhibited in his desire to "play by the book."  This leads to another question:  Are you more likely to break the rules if you know the rules??

[Moogmodule]

They’re all interesting points Loco. I go back to my original point. The vast majority of people are better off learning as much about their field of endeavour as possible. I think more knowledge can stimulate creativity. And as you say provide the technical facility to do more. I think knowing the rules of something thoroughly can also help you break them in a way that enhances your final product.

About the attitude to formal schooling, yes there’s definitely a reverence for the amazing gifted person. Every movie about a musician,  artist or athlete emphasises their unusual talent often at the expense of showing all the work it took them to hone it. It makes for better story I suppose and underlines who they’re talking about is special.  To me it undervalues the hard work every successful person puts in to achieve their goals. It’s a bit like the A student who “never studies” according to the student themselves. In reality they’re probably sweating themselves before each test. And does it discourage people who don’t pick up something as quickly? There’s lots of examples of late developers. People who couldn’t get picked for their team or choir or whatever in school going on to be champions. They don’t seem to get the same attention.

Nowadays if you want to be a musician you’ll almost certainly do lots of courses at school and after. And have access to lessons and good instruments from an early age.  I think this improves the overall competence of musicians. I don’t doubt that the average muso in a band now is more technically skilled than one from the early 60s. Whether it means increased creativity and those outlier geniuses is more debatable. Creativity is a harder thing to pin down then technical skill.

[Loco Mo]

Moogmodule:  The irony of people who claim not to have studied music is that they are lying.  You can't just place your fingers on the guitar and start playing songs.  You have to learn something about the guitar before you can do anything.  So, there are various ways to learn.  You will choose one of them.  By watching others play; by watching free YouTube videos; by going to school; by private lessons, etc.  Lots of self-taught people will refer to tablature to help them along.  They're not really learning anything magically and without instruction in some form.

That desire to be a "pure" self-taught learner is a delusion.  However, there may be an exception and that is the Savant.  I don't know how they do it.

[Moogmodule]

Moogmodule:  The irony of people who claim not to have studied music is that they are lying.  You can't just place your fingers on the guitar and start playing songs.  You have to learn something about the guitar before you can do anything.  So, there are various ways to learn.  You will choose one of them.  By watching others play; by watching free YouTube videos; by going to school; by private lessons, etc.  Lots of self-taught people will refer to tablature to help them along.  They're not really learning anything magically and without instruction in some form.

That desire to be a "pure" self-taught learner is a delusion.  However, there may be an exception and that is the Savant.  I don't know how they do it.

Yes. You asked about Jimi Hendrix. I don’t think he had much in the way of formal lessons but he learnt by watching other guitarists and picking things out by ear.  And as soon as you start playing with other people you learn from them as well. Obviously a guy like Hendrix was unusually talented and could progress with less formal ways of learning better than most of us could. The opposite are people who have guitar lessons and play for years but never get much past strumming the basic chords. For whatever reason they can’t progress.  Some people do seem to be wired to pick up musical things really easily and some who you couldn’t bash it into them with a bat. Most of us fall in a big middle ground I suppose where the relationship between effort and outcome are a bit more linear.

[nimrod]

Moogmodule:  The irony of people who claim not to have studied music is that they are lying.  You can't just place your fingers on the guitar and start playing songs.  You have to learn something about the guitar before you can do anything.  So, there are various ways to learn.  You will choose one of them.  By watching others play; by watching free YouTube videos; by going to school; by private lessons, etc.  Lots of self-taught people will refer to tablature to help them along.  They're not really learning anything magically and without instruction in some form.

That desire to be a "pure" self-taught learner is a delusion.  However, there may be an exception and that is the Savant.  I don't know how they do it.

Ahh yes, we know they learnt different chords etc from others and from records, but the OP question was lack of "formal" lessons. Meaning college or private tuition.

[Loco Mo]

but the OP question was lack of "formal" lessons. Meaning college or private tuition.

Thanks for the reminder, nimrod.  I've only known a few people with degrees in music.  One of them was a music instructor I had for a while.  He was a very intelligent guy but he seemed to have an ego about his education.  Other people who knew him told me that "he didn't swing."  So I took that as a criticism that suggested his education played an inhibiting role in his performance as a musician in a band.