# Self-taught of formal training



## TudorMihai

What form of training you get/got on your instrument? Which one appealed to you most?


----------



## OboeKnight

Well, I've had both but I just went with formal training. I taught myself oboe, tenor sax, and clarinet, and just started taking oboe lessons a little over a year ago. Being self-taught is great, and its been enough for me to be quite a good clarinetist and saxophonist, but if you want to make a profession of your instrument, formal lessons are a necessity. There are so many little details that are specific to each instrument, and formal training is needed to master them. My oboe playing has improved monumentally since I began lessons.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Must admit to some formal training, but on the Banjo well that's a different story.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Formal training for instruments, for composition I do prefer the idea of self-teaching as being much for beneficial to budding composers finding their own path in the world of creating original music...


----------



## ptr

I believe that You need both, formal training to understand the might of the traditions and the drive of the self-education to understand what is intrinsically and specifically *YOU*. I believe that very few (if none) can only rely on either, how You get that formal education is less important!

/ptr


----------



## Taggart

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Must admit to some formal training, but on the Banjo well that's a different story.


Reminds one of Three Men in a Boat:

"George had a rather curious oil-skin-covered parcel in his hand. It was round and flat at one end, with a long straight handle sticking out of it.

"What's that?" said Harris - "a frying pan?"

"No." said George, with a strange, wild look glittering in his eyes; "they are all the rage this season; everybody has got them up the river. It's a banjo."

"I never knew you played the banjo!" cried Harris and I, in one breath.

"Not exactly," replied George; "but it's very easy, they tell me; and I've got the instruction book!"

:wave:


----------



## Ingélou

... and trot out the usual quote about how a gentleman is a man who knows how to play the banjo but doesn't...


----------



## RonP

I play double bass and not having formal training is a recipe for disaster. The bass is too large and physically demanding to try on your own. Any technique flaws can potentially lead to physical injury and a good instructor can save you lot of trouble in the long run.


----------



## kv466

I like your post, ObK, but I must strongly disagree as far as formal training being necessary to be a pro. I don't know what you consider that to be but playing bass, drums, guitar and singing pays my bills entirely and I learned them and many other instruments on my own. Of course, I have many teachers but that is because I listen to every player I've ever heard and use what I need. I have nothing against formal training but I strongly believe it is in no way necessary to play an instrument; let alone be great at one. Most of the finest musicians I have ever had the pleasure of playing with or hearing are self-taught. In the end, do what feels right to you.


----------



## OboeKnight

kv466 said:


> I like your post, ObK, but I must strongly disagree as far as formal training being necessary to be a pro. I don't know what you consider that to be but playing bass, drums, guitar and singing pays my bills entirely and I learned them and many other instruments on my own. Of course, I have many teachers but that is because I listen to every player I've ever heard and use what I need. I have nothing against formal training but I strongly believe it is in no way necessary to play an instrument; let alone be great at one. Most of the finest musicians I have ever had the pleasure of playing with or hearing are self-taught. In the end, do what feels right to you.


I was referring specifically to orchestral instruments. Sorry, should have specified. Not that you can't learn one on your own, but certainly with oboe you need the wisdom of a seasoned player. More so in the way of breath control, color changes, tone production, vibrato control, reed-making etc. You need this especially if you are training to be a professional orchestral musician. Certainly the best guitarists and drummers I have heard were self-taught.


----------



## Feathers

I was self-taught for flute and oboe (and music theory). For piano, I had on and off periods of formal training and self-teaching, and looking back now, I'm glad I got a combination of both, because (allow me to borrow these words):


ptr said:


> You need both, formal training to understand the might of the traditions and the drive of the self-education to understand what is intrinsically and specifically *YOU*. I believe that very few (if none) can only rely on either


Said it better than I would've. :lol:


----------



## ptr

Formal training is important not least because it teaches You what You are up against and it is the best way to beat you opponent (at any game) to know his tricks better than he does! 

/ptr


----------



## Novelette

I was trained formally in the piano and the violin for only the first few years. What they taught me was how best to approach new, difficult pieces: how to discover which passages need the most immediate work, etc.

I gained a very basic technique by my formal lessons which I have since improved substantially by my own effort. It's a labor of love for me. I'm glad that I had the benefit of both.

For music theory, I was trained for many years by a private tutor since I was 7. I ceased those lessons when I was about 17 and continued on my own. Also a good path for me to take.


----------



## Novelette

Novelette said:


> I was trained formally in the piano and the violin for only the first few years. What they taught me was how best to approach new, difficult pieces: how to discover which passages need the most immediate work, etc.
> 
> I gained a very basic technique by my formal lessons which I have since improved substantially by my own effort. It's a labor of love for me. I'm glad that I had the benefit of both.
> 
> For music theory, I was trained for many years by a private tutor since I was 7. I ceased those lessons when I was about 17 and continued on my own. Also a good path for me to take.


So on the whole, I voted "self-taught", although reality isn't often so binary.


----------



## Trumpetcat

Uh I first just taught myself and practiced every little thing having to do with trumpet for hours on end simply because I was in love with the instrument. (all of that effort kinda went when I got braces) I took advantage of the school band programs and everything, but it still wasn't that good of a program and we had no theory or lit whatsoever. I taught myself theory. Then I went to university before moving and got lessons from my professor, then I moved and now am taking prep classes for this really good music school here (won't say!) and am getting lessons currently from one of the teachers. Kinda sad I didn't take lessons when I probably needed them the most, in the earliest stages of playing.  I was still good though!! Thank goodness I have them now.


----------



## PetrB

To me it is not a matter of (what seems to me rather self-indulgent)which appeals to me most... but knowing flat-out that formal training gets you further and faster, by such a ratio of difference that "self-teaching" sounds like the oxymoron it really is.

Self-teaching. Dwell on that a second. You are "studying" under someone who knows _nothing_ about the instrument, _nothing_ about theory, etc. and compare that to studying with someone who not only knows all that, but also knows _how to teach_ (another skill apart) and which is better, appeal or not, is obvious.


----------



## Kat

I had formal training, and I loved it because it gave me a chance to really learn from my instructor and watch them play. I've always been good at imitating people, and I have ADD, so it would be really hard for me to teach myself anything...


----------



## PetrB

.................................


----------



## Jaredpi

I don't know if playing cello in my schools orchestra counts, but it's the closest I've been to formal training. Other than that, self taught piano and guitar (and some recorder).


----------



## GreyEclipse

Self taught unless you consider jamming out with amazing people and learning from each others guidance formal well then...


----------



## Ingélou

It seems big headed to think you can make better progress on your own, from self-help books etc, rather than take instruction and get demonstrations from a good music teacher. (If you can't afford it, that's another matter.)

There have been many fine musicians who were self-taught in the sphere of folk music, but even here, training works wonders. I think of Niel Gow, the 18th century Scots fiddler. The son of a weaver, he took up the fiddle of his own volition as a boy and made a lot of progress - but when, in his teens, he took lessons from a fiddle master, John Cameron of Grandtully, he improved exponentially, establishing a reputation for himself by winning an open competition in Perth in 1745 when he was only 18.


----------



## Jaws

Both. I went to the lessons, asked questions and then learned how to do it on my own.


----------



## PetrB

There are very few indeed, professional classical players who do not have a fair amount of formal training and perhaps only a few more but still very few classical composers who do not have some formal training.

The self-taught success stories are more often found in the non-classical music genres.

My spiel on self-teaching, especially for beginners: "You are studying with someone who knows nothing about the instrument, nothing about composition, and they can not answer any of your questions." 
Can you teach yourself? Sure, if you want to take twenty times more time to get to the same level as someone who is working with a good teacher. There is a horrible lack of efficiency in that approach

Is formal training an end-all and be-all? NO. This is like what a good psychotherapist tells a patient, "If we are successful, you won't need me any more." The same is true of formal training, and how long and how much one relies upon their teachers.


----------



## Dustin

PetrB said:


> To me it is not a matter of (what seems to me rather self-indulgent)which appeals to me most... but knowing flat-out that formal training gets you further and faster, by such a ratio of difference that "self-teaching" sounds like the oxymoron it really is.
> 
> Self-teaching. Dwell on that a second. You are "studying" under someone who knows _nothing_ about the instrument, _nothing_ about theory, etc. and compare that to studying with someone who not only knows all that, but also knows _how to teach_ (another skill apart) and which is better, appeal or not, is obvious.


That's funny. The legendary comic Mitch Hedberg said something similar.

"I play the guitar. I taught myself how to play the guitar, which was a bad decision because I didn't know how to play it. So I was a s*itty teacher. I would never have went to me."


----------



## PetrB

Dustin said:


> That's funny. The legendary comic Mitch Hedberg said something similar.
> 
> "I play the guitar. I taught myself how to play the guitar, which was a bad decision because I didn't know how to play it. So I was a s*itty teacher. I would never have went to me."


Well, he got what he paid for, didn't he?


----------

