I was listening to "The Infinite Mind" radio program on public radio the other day http://www.lcmedia.com/mind310.htm]http://www.lcmedia.com/mind310.htm and the subject was "genius".
A study done by one of the guests showed that IQ wasn't necessarily the determining factor for genius. It was the persons innovative and unique accomplishments, like Thomas Edison (who had a low IQ, relatively) who invented hundreds of things.
But the shocking (to me) discovery of his study was the fact that most of the people who made the innovative changes did not go to school for as long as many scientists. They, the geniuses, had a certain amount of ignorance that helped them question things that the more educated "knew" were laws that didn't need further study. The host of the show talked about going into a research lab and , not knowing any better, tried a drug for something that the educated "knew" wouldn't work, lo and behold it did.
Another factor is that the amount of focus on specifics of a topic can blind you to the big picture.
I heard this and started thinking about the unschooled drummer thread and it make me think. ??? Gears grinding...
Does too much study of percussive arts limit us to what has already been done or does it help us see new possibilities that will let us create innovative sounds/rhythms etc.?
I sometimes wonder if knowing exactly how a drummer did something limits our imagination preventing us from trying other techniques to acheive the same or similar results.
Is too much school not cool? 8([url]
hmmm, this is an interesting topic. i think we had a similar thread a few days ago.
i tend to think that you don't know what you don't know. if you haven't seen it or experienced it before, you can't know what it is. so, if you learn new stuff, you learn new stuff. it's what you do with it that makes others decide that you're more talented, or smarter, than someone [drummer] else.
i think if a person is not naturally gifted, then it's possible all their knowledge is just going to sound like exercises. but a bad drummer with lots of knowledge will most likely sound better than a gifted drummer with no knowledge. maybe there will be something more inherently unique or interesting in the no-knowledge drummer's playing, but if he can't speak the language, then it's not going to mean a lot to drummers who know what to look for.
you know, there's knowledge and intelligence, and there's technique and application. i think what sets really great drummers apart is the latter two. they've done the book work, they've gotten the mechanics down, and they then apply this knowledge in meaningful ways.
there's an old chinese [maybe korean] saying that basically says too much knowledge is no good. i think the idea is that you can intellectualize things as much as you want, but at the end of the day, it's what you do that sets you apart. this is similar to this theory you mentioned about genius. it's the application of knowledge in productive ways that sets someone apart.
i know a dude who is a genuine idiot savant. he can't hang in any social situation, doesn't know how to meet women, is very loud and inappropriate, and is essentially a recluse who can't keep a job. however, you put this guy in front of a computer, and he can figure out code, troubleshoot any problem, and resolve any computer, network, or server problem in about 5 minutes. never took a computer course in his life. of course, he will stumble all over himself if you ask him what the problem was, but he will resolve the problem almost immediately. truly amazing.
i think knowledge is a stumbling block only when you can't figure it out, or you have more theory happening than execution. it shouldn't keep you from getting better at drums. the level of discipline and motivation you have is what's going to make you good. i waver in this department a lot!
if it makes you feel better, i think the best think about gaining knowledge about drums is that it demystifies everything. it's easy to put big-name drummers up on a pedestal when you don't know what they're doing. when you do understand, you can be more critical [or rather, more observant], of what they're doing.
ya know... my brain is feeling a little gooey today.
It's flawed logic to assume that because some geniuses are unschooled, then lack of schooling leads to genius.
These guys (and gals) were unschooled because they didn't NEED schooling. They had gifts that exceed what common institutions could teach them.
There's this intangible but real thing called TALENT, which has been doled out unevenly throughout the planet. Some people have more than others. Some people have LOTS more than others. People like Buddy Rich, Jimi Hendrix, Einstein, Michael Jordan, Picasso come to mind. They simply have more innate ability than most folks.
I think a smart musician (or artist or physicist or whatever) learns early to evaluate their own skills, and then base their decisions on what further information they should seek.
For example, I have "an ear for music." I pick things up easily by hearing, and can figure out chords, harmonies, etc. by ear. BUT - I have absolutely no physical gift. In fact, I'm worse than average in that respect. Most drummers have better hands and feet than me - I know this from having taught so many of them. So in my case, I needed to overcompensate when it came to physical practice. My brain embraced drumming, but my limbs did not. So I had my work cut out for me.
People like Buddy Rich are an anomaly. It seems he was truly born to play drums, from his outrageous physical abilities, to his incredibly sharp mind and flawless memory. From most accounts I hear, he couldn't read music. But, he was so freakin' talented, he didn't need to.
Most of us don't share that talent. Most of us, handed an electric guitar and strapping it on upside down, will not become Jimi Hendrix. Most of us, handed a pencil and paper, will not theorize that E=MC2.
For us, there's lessons, and study, and theory, and practice - in other words, us normal folks can usually gain a lot from becoming "schooled."
Too often, people cling to the idea of being "natural" or "unschooled" mostly out of laziness. At least that's been my observation. None of the people I see so stridently defending the notion of being unschooled show anywhere near the genius of a Buddy or a Hendrix. YMMV.
Quote from: Mister Acrolite on February 27, 2004, 10:54 AM
E=MC2.
Okay, lets see if any of you genius drummers out there can figure out my new equation:
fd=f+pAnyone? ;D ;D
or how about this one:
(triangle + prism)$=7/8
;D
Anyone? C'mon!
I read somewhere that Alfred Einstein was a drummer. From what I remember they said he really could swing like a super-charged atom and really kept good time except when approaching the speed of light, then he tended to drag a little. ;D
But seriously folks...the term GENIUS is often overused in the context of performers. There are a lot of great musicians who are far above the rest BUT genius? I don't know. I know that in juggling there is a fellow named MICHAEL MOSCHEN who is so far beyond everyone else that he is considered a genius and won the 1990 MacArthur Fellowship(the genius grant). I'm not sure you could say that about anyone who drums--if so they would have been recognized in some undisputed manner.
Yes, I love the playing of Buddy Rich, but was he a genius? If so what about Joe Morello, Louie Bellson, Gene Krupa, ....(enter your favorite drummer's name here). Once we start calling many genius the true meaning of the term is lessened.
Quote from: xena on February 27, 2004, 11:14 AM
or how about this one:
(triangle + prism)$=7/8
;D
Anyone? C'mon!
Mr. A got it. :)
Pink Floyd's "Money" = 7/8 time signature
fd=f+pBut the above equation has yet to be deciphered! :D
i hit reply too fast... :)
the other thing i was gonna say [maybe i already did? hmmm. gooey brain.] was there's lots of different types of intelligence. one of them is kinesthetic ["touch"] knowledge. it probably wouldn't be classified as a type of intelligence, but there's something to be said for understanding your place in space; the relationship of your body to other objects, and to the space around you.
a quick example of this is people who don't maintain that healthy 2' of space around themselves when they're online at the bank. it might be a cultural thing, but in general, it's accepted that 2' of empty space around you is what people need to feel comfortable. some people have absolutely no awareness of this. other people are just very physically awkward or uncoordinated. it is a generalization, but i've noticed that these types of people don't make good drummers. i don't know what it is, but that lack of coordination/physical awareness seems to translate to the kit.
just my little, very unscientific observation. i think it relates to the buddy rich thing, though. he was considered the most natural drummer. i think this was in part due to his kinesthetic sensibility. it's not surprising he was a martial artist.
I think education CAN but not necessarily WILL stifle the creative energy that is necessary for real progress.
Ive seen it happen in music school, theory gets so ingrained that anything outside the conventional theory is ignored, deemed "wrong", and generally shunned. Thats one reason I dropped out. I was starting to think in terms of theory instead of interms of music (if you get the difference Im implying).
Thats not to say though that education will inherently stifle your creativity however. Depending on the education and type of person you are, it can expand it.
I will never say that education has any definte 100% effect across the board though. It totally varies according to the person being educated. We all learn differently, and use what we learn differently.
------------------------------------------------------------
Side note about xena's equation: A prism is the object, in this case the triangle of which you speak. So maybe youre equation should read:
(light + prism)$ = 7/8
Quote from: smoggrocks on February 27, 2004, 11:29 AM
some people have absolutely no awareness of this.
BAHAHA ;D Exactly! ;D
You know what I do? (I'm such a b@#*& ;D)
I literally extend my arms out like I'm stretching and do these waist twists to define my perimeter. They have no choice but to get out of my space or they're going to get hit with the swinging motion. ;D
Quote from: xena on February 27, 2004, 11:36 AM
BAHAHA ;D Exactly! ;D
You know what I do? (I'm such a b@#*& ;D)
I literally extend my arms out like I'm stretching and do these waist twists to define my perimeter. They have no choice but to get out of my space or they're going to get hit with the swinging motion. ;D
i'm even ruder: i say, "i can smell your breath from here, man. move it!" ;D
i can't handle space invaders. it makes me loony, really loony!
and to follow up 563's post -- here is an interesting tale on the education front:
my boyfriend attended berklee as a composition major. i guess for their big-deal final project, they had to write some piece of music for a full orchestra. the students had to play it back.
at the end, when they played it, they told him what an awesome piece it was, and how much they loved it.
the teacher, on the other hand, gave him a C, because he said, "it breaks all convention and shows nothing of what you've been taught here."
go figure!
Wow, great responses the my question.
The researcher found in his study that people with a phd and higher were less likely to be innovative. He said that he found out too late and had his phd when he made the study.
I think that the way we react to the information we receive will determine how innovative we will be.
What we have inside us (talent motivation) like Mr. A and kohei and others have said will determine how we react to teaching. Some will get basic information and take off in some new way others haven't tried. They drop out of school and make a career in music or whatever. Other people will need more of a basis before finding their "genius".
When I started learning with books I did exactly as the book said and didn't experiment with the material at all. This limited my abilities to those that the drummer was specifically teaching and no more.
Since getting on DC I am more likely to try the exercises in different ways that made them more my own.
I'm not great yet but I am expanding my horizons. Is genius out there? ;D
Quote from: nudrum on February 27, 2004, 03:41 PM
The researcher found in his study that people with a phd and higher were less likely to be innovative.
this is very interesting.
the past few years, we were put in the path of some very successful people [long story]. they were financial successes, but i guess they would also be viewed as highly intelligent by the rest of the world.
what surprised me greatly in talking with these folks [most of whom were big into investing] was their myopic reasoning on certain issues, and their lack of entrepreneurial ability [though most all of them claimed to be entrepreneurial].
two conversations that really stand out were a discussion on the whole dot com thing, when that was raging, and another on rehearsal studios. i tried to express my doubts on the whole dot com phenomena, in clear and rational terms, and they thought i was off my rocker. they just couldn't understand my reasoning that what good was 'building it' if you didn't really have a solid business plan and revenue stream to begin with? these were finance people, and they couldn't see my standpoint, maybe coz they were caught up in the moment, or programmed into thinking that anything could be made profitable. bad logic!
the other discussion was someone [a non-musician doctor who loved music, and had a killer guitar collection, even though he couldn't play a note] who said, "We should finance a chain of places that let musicians pay a certain amount of money in exchange for being able to play there. I mean, wouldn't it be great to have a place where you could jam and not have to bring your own instruments?"
we just looked at him and said, 'you mean-- a rehearsal studio? um, those already exist!'
it just goes to show the influence that your milieu can have on your ability to think.
just remembered another dude i went to school with, elementary through high. this guy was the classic school geek: thick dark-rimmed glasses, pocket protector, the whole nine yards. if it wasn't for him, i would've failed math and science [no, he didn't tutor me; i just copied his answers ;)] leon was tremendously intelligent, a person i knew would go on to do great things in the fields of physics and math.
well, he got his PhD alright.
in music therapy and performance! [flute]
maybe musicians really
are genuises [geniuii??]
;D
"Money" is really considered in 7/4 due to the equal emphasis of the pulse. Pluse you won't find many 7/8 tunes where the 8th=100bpm. :P
Education IS an exercise in conformist thinking. "Repeat after me until PhD."
The rudiments do hurt until they become part of you.
The knowledge will eventually set you free. It's a path to better express whats inside, be it genius or not.
::)
Oh man, this topic is giving me a headache. :-[
I think 'genius' is a much overused term.
The words 'genius' and 'drummer' are never likely to appear in any sentence I construct. ;)
i was very confused as i read this thread until i re-read the title and noticed it didn't say-Genesis Drummers.
;)
Right on Mr. A.
Nudrum asked, "is too much school not cool." Clearly, increasing ones knowledge does not limit. Attitudes can limit. Whether music, math, or manufacturing, major innovations are often made by severely gifted persons. Schools are designed for the masses. Severely gifted persons are not part of the masses. They often "drop out" of school. So we can expect major innovations by relatively uneducated person, though not always.
Nudrum wrote. "A study done by one of the guests showed that IQ wasn't necessarily the determining factor for genius." This should not surprise folks. IQ tests are just one way to measure intelligence. And not a very good way ...me thinks. Extraordinary real world accomplishments ARE particularly good indicators for identifying severely gifted persons (e.g., a genius such as Buddy Rich). Standard IQ tests are NOT good for quantifying extrem giftedness. Standardized IQ tests are based on statistically significant samples. Severe giftedness is, by definition, like one person in a million. Hard to find a sample. Psychologists need specialized tests when trying to measure extreme IQs. But none of this IQ stuff matters in the Arts.
We only need to watch Buddy Rich to understand the beauty of his extreme gifts.
The lack of real world accomplishment does not indicate anything about intelligence or giftedness as there are many other factors. Having said that. Given funding, a study could be designed and conducted to support pretty much anything you want. Remember the studies showing that smoking tobacco was safe? Studies show that three out of four PhDs could "prove" whatever you like. ;D
I believe DESIRE and DRIVE are crucial elements involved in one rising above the masses to become the best at there chosen vocation. Mr. A used Michael Jordan as an example... He was cut by his high school basketball team but went on to become the greatest basketball player in history.. The God given gifts were always there but it took something inside him to unlock that ability. Would Buddy have been the greatest bricklayer in history??? We will never know ... If sticks were never put into his hand and he went on to become a bricklayer, would he have had the drive and competitiveness to achieve similar excellence in that hypothetical profession??? Its very interesting to think about, I for one am glad he picked up the sticks.........
I'll bet Buddy would have made one heck of a brick layer. But who knows? He may have been a big goof off if he was not inspired.
Almost all scientific, engineering, medical, and mathematical innovation comes from highly educated men and women.
It is likely if Edison had understood more about material science and physics he would not have spent so much time in trial and error to discover something that would work for the element of a light bulb.
Newton said that if he had seen further than others, it was because he "stood on the shoulders of giants".
I believe if one wants to push the limits, it is most helpful to have a solid foundation in what has been done before.
Buddy knew his fundamentals, excelled at them. Just watch his hands, you can see he is rudimental.
Quote from: huffnpuff on February 27, 2004, 10:04 PM
"Money" is really considered in 7/4 due to the equal emphasis of the pulse. Pluse you won't find many 7/8 tunes where the 8th=100bpm. :P
Thanks, you beat me to the punch!
OK. I've gotta add my two cents.
Some of those "unschooled" people, such as Thomas Edison were homeschooled by a parent who believed in them when traditional education had given up on them.
BTW, the thought that has gone into this thread is incredible. I think the drummercafe has a lock on all the Genius Drummers!!
Quote from: Mister Acrolite on February 27, 2004, 10:54 AM
Too often, people cling to the idea of being "natural" or "unschooled" mostly out of laziness. At least that's been my observation. None of the people I see so stridently defending the notion of being unschooled show anywhere near the genius of a Buddy or a Hendrix. YMMV.
This is so true. I'm so sick of New Age philosophies, particularly the hokey positive thinking stuff that encourages people to ignore some honest introspective study. Jimi Hendrix didn't need to convince himself he was a genius. He just did it, and the world confirmed him ... and from what I know of him, he didn't have a clue what he was doing was groundbreaking until much later in his career.
There you go you see....
Jimi Hendrix was not a genius. He was a very good guitarist, a brilliant songwriter and visionary. Beethoven and Mozart may have been geniuses.
How anyone can compare a rock guitarist or any drummer for that matter to a guy who can make great art and simultaneously invent the aeroplane hundreds of years before it became actuality is beyond me.
As for innovation...there's much written on it since it's a field all unto its own. It's late and I don't feel like pulling my book or notes out, but most innovation comes from necessity.....the need to make things that work better.
And, it's true most innovations do not come from highly educated people, but rather from the lower ranks. You might be surprised to learn that a fair number of innovations come about serendipitously, as well.
As for education being an exercise in conformist thinking.....lol, some people do believe this is true, especially during the K-12 grades. There are pros & cons to this approach, though. Attending college is when things rapidly change in this regard. And adult education, for the most part, is exactly opposite to conformist thinking.
QuoteThe knowledge will eventually set you free.
I prefer,
The truth will set you free. ;D
Quote from: chrisso on February 29, 2004, 02:38 AM
There you go you see....
Jimi Hendrix was not a genius. He was a very good guitarist, a brilliant songwriter and visionary. Beethoven and Mozart may have been geniuses.
How anyone can compare a rock guitarist or any drummer for that matter to a guy who can make great art and simultaneously invent the aeroplane hundreds of years before it became actuality is beyond me.
I think we're getting hung up on semantics. My point was that Jimi had a gift when it came to playing guitar - a VERY conspicuous gift. People like Jimi, Buddy, Michael Jordan, Mozart, Jaco Pastorius, etc. - they all had gifts (or
talent, or
genius, or whatever you want to call it) that FAR exceed those of the "average" person.
So the point I was trying to make was that unless you have as much talent as say, Hendrix, Buddy, etc., the argument that you don't need schooling because
they didn't need schooling just doesn't hold water.
It seems you take umbrage at applying the term
genius to an artist or entertainer, and that's fair enough. I don't claim Jimi's contributions to society rival those of Michelangelo or Einstein. But they
have made a lasting impression on the arts, and that's the area we were discussing. In my eyes, somebody like Mozart
was a genius. But I probably use the term much more loosely than you.
Now Rikki Rockett -
there's a genius.
NOT. :)
Quote from: chrisso on February 29, 2004, 02:38 AM
There you go you see....
Jimi Hendrix was not a genius. He was a very good guitarist, a brilliant songwriter and visionary. Beethoven and Mozart may have been geniuses.
It seems to me the difference between Hendrix and Beethoven and Mozart is a lot of time and culture. I wish we could hold this argument for another 200 years to see how Jimi's remembered. :P
Quote from: chrisso on February 29, 2004, 02:38 AMHow anyone can compare a rock guitarist or any drummer for that matter to a guy who can make great art and simultaneously invent the aeroplane hundreds of years before it became actuality is beyond me.
So you have to be stellar at more than one thing to be a genius? I don't know if Einstein would be considered a genius, then, and I don't know how you can't include him.
There are some people I cringe at when people annoint them genius. Prince, for example. I do think there are some musicians doing things so awesome -- technically far advanced, aestethically pleasing to the ear, emotive -- it's hard NOT to put that label on them. I could practice for 100 years, but I do not think I would even begin to sound or play like Vinnie. The way he thinks and computes music, it's revolutionary IMO. He and a handful of other drummers from the 20th Century might qualify for that title.
Again, IMO ...
Of course it's all a matter of opinion and as Mr A rightly points out I'm getting into 'semantics' and probably diverting the topic away from an interesting discussion on whether it takes schooling to be a genius or not.
By the way, I'm a huge Hendrix fan, I do think it's possible for an entertainer to be a genius and I don't think you have to be good at more than one thing.
Gaddabout,
Maybe you could name the handful of drummers who warrant the title 'genius'? I can't think of any.
I agree with you though, it would be interesting to have this debate in 200 years time. If past history is anything to go by we'd most likely be celebrating someone none of us today have even heard of.
A friend in television is making a documentary, with a popular-music academic, about the three musical entities he guesses will make the most impact on future generations.
The three are:
The Beatles (no surprise there),
Bernard Herrman (slightly surprising)
and Leonard Bernstein (great though West Side Story is, I'm shocked at that).
By the way, McCartney is very anti musical education. Although I think it's quite obvious at least three of the Fab Four were studying other forms of music (like avant garde classical and ethnic music) during their latter period.
Quote from: chrisso on February 29, 2004, 12:19 PM
Maybe you could name the handful of drummers who warrant the title 'genius'? I can't think of any.
Chick Webb
Papa Jo Jones
Benny Benjamin
Just for fun I decided to see who the genius drummers are as declared by those who use the internet. So I googled 'genius drummer'.
You'll be pleased to know just about every band that has a website declare their drummer to be a 'genius'.
But here's a list of the first ten to come up (gleaned from 10 google pages and with the part time 'genius' drummers removed).
Ginger Baker
Les DeMerle
Paco Sery (Zawinul Syndicate)
Johnny Vidacovich
John McEntire (Tortoise)
Dave Grohl
Brock Avery (some LA dude)
John Bonham
Buddy Rich
Mike Portnoy
So there you have it....the net has spoke.....pretty much the 'usual suspects' too.
Funnily enough, there is a band called 'Super Genius'. Their drummer is described as a 'journeyman'. Some insult, especially as the guy in question is UK session maestro Dave Mattacks. 8)
Quote from: chrisso on February 29, 2004, 12:19 PM
Gaddabout,
Maybe you could name the handful of drummers who warrant the title 'genius'? I can't think of any.
First, allow to me suggest you don't have to have your name recorded in a World History book to be a genius or be remembered. Les Paul won't be in one in 200 years, but if there are guitarists in the future, I don't doubt they will be crediting his accomplishments to their craft.
My suggestions for "genius" label? I'd guess Tony Williams, Vinnie Colaiuta and Trilok Gurtu. They are/were technically superior drummers who offered groundbreaking *music* in a wide variety of genres. I believe they will be considered mandatory study topics well into the future. Of course, that's just my opinion and time is the true test, but I don't feel the least bit bashful in my consideration of them as true geniuses of their profession.
Sorry to disagree.
I guess it comes down to personal opinion.
I hope I'd be impartial enough though to label a certain drummer a genius even if I didn't like his style or music he played on.
I'm a big fan of Tony and Trilok. I also admire the accomplishments of Vinnie.
But genius? Maybe Tony....but honestly I just think he was a very, very good drummer.
I think guys like Buddy, Tony, Gadd, Vinnie, and maybe Elvin would qualify for my unofficial "genuis" label - they all made literally transcendent steps forward with their playing.
Buddy was simply a freak of nature. I saw him live several times, and have never seen anybody match his taste, speed, power, or sheer aggressiveness.
Tony did stuff at 17 and 18 that I can only barely get my head around now - and that's my head, not my chops. I'll NEVER be able to play some of Tony's stuff.
Gadd's approach found a new way to marry groove with technique. His playing literally changed the face of drumming.
Elvin found some mystical forward motion with his playing that I don't think anybody has matched, before or since. His drumming truly warrants the word "hypnotic." Dave Liebman told me that every major musician who has ever played with Elvin went on to buy themselves a drumkit to experiment with - that's how much he inspired them. You should hear Liebman play drums - he's VERY cool, and obviously influenced by Elvin.
And Vinnie has a complex rhythmic grasp and and spontaneous improvisational ability that I think exceeds any other drummer I've heard, although Trilok Gurtu and Steve Smith come close.
Are they geniuses? Who knows? But are they FAR beyond the concepts and abilities of the average really good professional drumer? I'd say definitely.
You can't say that just any drummer with good training and a good work ethic will become as good as Steve Gadd, or Vinnie Colaiuta, etc. It's just not true.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people gots more of da cereal than the rest of us. ;D
Quote from: Mister Acrolite on February 29, 2004, 03:22 PM
I think guys like Buddy, Tony, Gadd, Vinnie, and maybe Elvin would qualify for my unofficial "genuis" label - they all made literally transcendent steps forward with their playing.
Buddy was simply a freak of nature. I saw him live several times, and have never seen anybody match his taste, speed, power, or sheer aggressiveness.
Tony did stuff at 17 and 18 that I can only barely get my head around now - and that's my head, not my chops. I'll NEVER be able to play some of Tony's stuff.
Gadd's approach found a new way to marry groove with technique. His playing literally changed the face of drumming.
Elvin found some mystical forward motion with his playing that I don't think anybody has matched, before or since. His drumming truly warrants the word "hypnotic." Dave Liebman told me that every major musician who has ever played with Elvin went on to buy themselves a drumkit to experiment with - that's how much he inspired them. You should hear Liebman play drums - he's VERY cool, and obviously influenced by Elvin.
And Vinnie has a complex rhythmic grasp and and spontaneous improvisational ability that I think exceeds any other drummer I've heard, although Trilok Gurtu and Steve Smith come close.
I don't claim to be a drum historian but if we look at who changed drumming as we know it; did Krupa set the stage for Buddy making Krupa the "genius" of those 2?
And Gadd seems to have reinvented the groove the way Mr. A describes.
I don't know who gets credit for all this polyrhythm that is happening (Vinnie?), but I bet somebody here does. :)
Anyway I am thinking of the innovators.
who else fits this description?
Quote from: smoggrocks on February 27, 2004, 11:59 AM
i'm even ruder: i say, "i can smell your breath from here, man. move it!" ;D
i can't handle space invaders. it makes me loony, really loony!
and to follow up 563's post -- here is an interesting tale on the education front:
my boyfriend attended berklee as a composition major. i guess for their big-deal final project, they had to write some piece of music for a full orchestra. the students had to play it back.
at the end, when they played it, they told him what an awesome piece it was, and how much they loved it.
the teacher, on the other hand, gave him a C, because he said, "it breaks all convention and shows nothing of what you've been taught here."
go figure!
elvis got given an F for music once
Bill Bruford
Quote from: Gaddabout on February 29, 2004, 02:23 AM
This is so true. I'm so sick of New Age philosophies, particularly the hokey positive thinking stuff that encourages people to ignore some honest introspective study.
this has been one reason why i've avoided "drum circles."
i'm sure there are some genuinely excellent ones, but the ones i encountered were run by a bunch of space cases who just liked to make noise. there was nothing academic at all in what they were doing.
i can rattle my tambourine at home for that.
Quote from: smoggrocks on February 27, 2004, 11:29 AM
i don't know what it is, but that lack of coordination/physical awareness seems to translate to the kit.
heh.. i kind of wreck your theory. i didn't really notice it until high school but i'm always really close to people when i talk to them. when communicating, i don't connect without being physically close to someone. now, i don't communicate like that all the time, because i'm not very social. it kind of translates into my playing, i like to be close to my instrument. music is just another way of expressing myself (my favorite.) every piece of my setup is right under my nose, and when i play a note, i try to really connect with the instrument.