View Full Version : Deciding Your Life
Gary's "Wrecking Your Life" thread has gotten me thinking/rethinking about what I want to do with my life.
I just finished my third year of undergrad in a combined Arts/Science program. I can't do anything with this degree. The reason I chose it is because I knew I would be doing another degree after that anyways, so I might as well get a more generalized, well-rounded education while I still could.
Now I'm looking at career/degree options. I'm doing a fifth year for my current degree, so this decision isn't something that warrants immediate attention, but I certainly need to start thinking about it. I kind of enjoy law, I am a pretty good public speaker, and in high school I always won when it came to formal arguing (debates, mock trials, mock political elections, etc.). Law school is an option.
Another option is music. I have played guitar for 7 years, though I hardly practiced at all once I went off to college. In high school I won the Instrumental Music Award in grade 12, entirely because of my compositional skills and my grades on music theory tests (my oboe playing was pretty poor). A month and a half ago I started taking lessons with a wonderful jazz guitar teacher, and my playing has improved more in the past month than it has in the past three years. I have a pretty damn good ear, and if I keep practicing like I have been recently then I know I could do very well in a college/university music program (my guitar teacher commented that I'm better than some of the new first year music students at the college he went to, but I'm skeptical). This is an option as well.
So what do I do? If I go to law school I will miss out on the opportunity to go to school for something I have wanted to do for 5 years. But if I go to school for music, what can I do with my life? Be a professional musician that scrapes by on occasional gigs and overcharging for music lessons? Or I could finish a music degree and then go back to school for law, but then I won't be out of school until I'm 30. Or is that not such a bad thing? I don't really know. I originally wanted to be a doctor (in high school, when my average was in the high 80s), which would have meant I would be in school until I was 30 anyways...but this is obviously different.
Does anyone have any experience in these two fields, or in having to make the choice between something you love or something you could make money with? I realize this thread is similar to Gary's, but I'm coming from the other side - whichever one I pick, I don't have anything to fall back on.
TrackJunkie
06-08-2010, 01:24 PM
I'm a reasonably competent musician, but I never felt like I had a future where I could support myself, much less a family, as a professional musician. So, I still play music in my free time, but I'm studying to be an engineer.
I'm a reasonably competent musician, but I never felt like I had a future where I could support myself, much less a family, as a professional musician. So, I still play music in my free time, but I'm studying to be an engineer.
So you didn't go to school for music? Do you play with a band?
LondonTiger
06-08-2010, 01:34 PM
I found that if you go back to your past, and look at what you enjoyed doing as a kid, that will give you a lot of clues as to what type of career you will enjoy.
I have dabbled in a lot.
When I was 16, I designed a pokemon website and earnt myself $300 in affiliates which was even before I had a bank account, and I had no clue what to do with it.
Then when the website died away, and got a part time job in a shoe store, studied computing, economics and maths, when to uni to study database systems, got bored, and changed to accounting, graduated in accounting, worked as a accounts assitant for 1 year.. got bored out of my mind, and got depressed because I didn't know what the fuck I was doing with my life, and i didn't want to be like my boss (always whining about his lack of appreciation for his hard work, low pay, bitching about exploitative directors etc).. So I quit and worked in a bar in minimum wage for a while.. and then got back into websites and SEO.
By business makes £200 profit a day (7 days a week). And I don't really do anything with it. I got a bit depressed.. I don't have a desire to be rich, and my job doesn't require me to do any work.. Had a existential vaccum.. As I would wake up go to bed any time I want, sleep for 10 hours and do the absolute minium maintenance work.
Now things have changed.. I got in a very good partnership with a workaholic whose very very good with people, and I'm very good with the SEO side of things, were both working on a very exciting project riught now, we have our own office, we work hard 9-5, very strict with our routine, as we don't want to make things too casual.
Things are looking bright, he comes from money, so he's got a huge warehouse and a very nice office. We play loud music at work, we have very little stress, and we're currently working on a website which is on page 2 of google, and if we get it on the top half f page one it will make us very well off.
Bottom line is, I went back to what I enjoyed doing as a kid. SEO is like a game for me. Instead of playing GTAIV or Age of empires III, I like linkbuilding and trumping competition down. SEO is a lot like startegy games but it works in verrrryyy slowwww motion.
LimieJosh
06-08-2010, 01:42 PM
At the beginning of my career I was lucky enough to land into working as part of a multi center research group that contained some very influential people. The exposure I got from being part of their work, and simply from knowing them was very beneficial for me, but what I will remember most from this experience is the life lessons I learned from getting to know them as people.
The head of the group, who is one of the most heavily NIH funded molecular biologists in America and head of the molecular department at a major university, was a classically trained cellist and got his undergrad degree in music before finding his ultimate direction.
One dropped out of community college and spend the next 15 years of his life wondering the country as a professional musician. Ultimately he went back to uni, ended up in one of the premier research radiology units in the country, was an author on one of the preeminent articles on the role of ectopic fat storage in the development of insulin resistance and ultimately became faculty in Yale Medical school.
The man who brought me into the group came from a family of lawyers and so initially did his training in law. Upon graduating he realised he hated it, applied for a scholarship and left Europe to study medical physiology in America.
My point is not that I have anything relelvent to say about your decision, but to say that if you ultimately decide what you want to do is a change of direction, never let the fact your current training is not applicable stop you following a new path as long as you're willing to work through the neccessary steps to excell on your new path.
gamedog
06-08-2010, 01:54 PM
I just finished my third year of undergrad in a combined Arts/Science program. I can't do anything with this degree.
What the fuck are you talking about? Shit man, a co-worker of my father's has his degree in Forestry. And they're BOTH Software Engineers! Yeah. Forestry. And he makes 275K right now, and has been gainfully employed by the same firm for 20+ years. He learned how to program as a hobby, and he earned a hippie degree in college, and he STILL landed a kickass job.
The fact that you have the degree is what's important. You can pretty-much do whatever you'd like, so long as you're smart enough and are willing to work hard. Which I believe you are, from reading a lot of your posts.
So yeah, do what you like, and don't worry, your degree will still open a lot of doors!
I know a guy who did violin, found classical music too hard to cut as a pro, and then went to law school because he's brilliant. The jazz guitarist I know, well, I'm not sure exactly what formal training he has in guitar, but he has a PhD in philosophy that he used to get jobs after he got laid off from his regular gig. The singers I know, well, singers aren't really musicians, so I can't comment. Anyway. All I know for certain from my friends is that music takes long hours with hard work and gives little pay - terribly competitive in some venues with little to distinguish the 90 applicants for one position. Law takes long hours with hard work and much pay - rather competitive, but there are things that can be done to stand out slightly, but that may be changing with more people going back to school as a result of the bad economy and jobs drying up due to the bad economy (said brilliant violinist was like one of the only law students to get an internship this summer at his rather good law school). This may change in 3-5 years, when this becomes relevant to you. And law stuff, though competitive, is not "90 applicants for one position" competitive like classical music. I know a lot of people who have degrees in music or professional experience in music who work doing other things now. You can spin this positively: even if you don't stick it out as a professional in music for life, it still leaves other doors open.
I'm at the point where I'd think more about the lifestyle you want to have, and make sure you factor that in. For instance, it's only been pretty recently that my wife and I finally cottoned on that we'd much rather live in small towns than in big cities. By this time, I was established in a career that literally could only be pursued in what passes for big cities in Canada ... except for one place. And that's where I live now.
But I have skills and interests which could have let me work pretty much anywhere had I got certified as a teacher, social worker, lawyer, etc. ... I just didn't think hard enough about how and where I wanted to live before making some choices.
Music's a hard life for most musicians. Very little security, a whole lot of travel, making it hard on family life. If you can get work as a session player (or an orchestral musician) that's different ... but not easy to get. OTOH, music's a fabulous avocation, and one that's hugely transportable. So long as you don't have to make your rent and groceries from it, it's incredibly rewarding.
And law doesn't combine well with pretty much any extra-curricular activities ... at least for a few years. It's very portable, pays well, but the hours can suck. As can the clientele, depending on what kind of law you practice. As a criminal lawyer friend of mine says, he mostly gets to spend time with criminals. He's moved up to a better class of criminal now, that pays in cash.
I'd figure out the lifestyle you want, then try to match your interests and skills to that. Remembering that if you do want a family, that's going to mess with most plans.
But don't take advice from me. I have a degree in math (with honors) from what is arguably the best math program in the country. I have no idea how to use that to get from my mediocre job to a good one. The other people in my program mostly went to graduate programs or into consulting or into i-banking, or at least the ones who graduated with honors did. I only knew half of those because I was a year ahead, essentially, of the other half (and I hardly knew any of the ones who didn't graduate with honors). I realized I didn't want to go to grad school during my fourth year, but had done the things that prepare you for grad school rather than working until then (eg, summer research rather than internships with banks). But, frankly, I had an extreme loathing for the type of person who went into i-banking and had no desire to do it, nor was I particularly enamored with the idea of doing stupid consulting work. So I graduated and found a crappy job which I am still working. But I can still use the Radon-Nikodym theorem (which I learned in my freshman coursework, dammit). I've forgotten most of my Sanskrit, though (did I mention I learned Sanskrit, too?).
TrackJunkie
06-08-2010, 02:31 PM
So you didn't go to school for music? Do you play with a band?
Played with a band, but it broke up a while ago.
drlvegas
06-08-2010, 02:58 PM
How about working in entertainment law?
coldfire
06-08-2010, 03:00 PM
But don't take advice from me. I have a degree in math (with honors) from what is arguably the best math program in the country. I have no idea how to use that to get from my mediocre job to a good one. The other people in my program mostly went to graduate programs or into consulting or into i-banking, or at least the ones who graduated with honors did. I only knew half of those because I was a year ahead, essentially, of the other half (and I hardly knew any of the ones who didn't graduate with honors). I realized I didn't want to go to grad school during my fourth year, but had done the things that prepare you for grad school rather than working until then (eg, summer research rather than internships with banks). But, frankly, I had an extreme loathing for the type of person who went into i-banking and had no desire to do it, nor was I particularly enamored with the idea of doing stupid consulting work. So I graduated and found a crappy job which I am still working. But I can still use the Radon-Nikodym theorem (which I learned in my freshman coursework, dammit). I've forgotten most of my Sanskrit, though (did I mention I learned Sanskrit, too?).
But can you use it like he does? :D
ALPHA: (Interrupting) Ahem, excuse me. The candidate will please prove the hokus-locus theorem on uniform trivialities.
CANDIDATE: By the Heine-Borel Theorem we reduce the Hamilton-Cayley equation to the canonical Cauchy-Riemann form. The Bolzano-Weierstrass property then shows that the Radon-Nikodym derivative satisfies the Jordan-Holder relation. Hence by the Stone-Weierstrass approximation we can get the Schroeder-Bernstein map to be simply separable. The Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral then satisfies the Riemann-Roch result when extended by the Hahn-Banach method almost somewhere.
Seems that many if not most people in law school go because they don't know what they want to do with their lives and are bright enough to get in. Many go because they can't make money in their favorite field.
I'm not sure it's worth it unless you can get into a top law school, especially if you might want to get a prestigious job (big firm, US attorney, clerking) but it's possible I'm an elitest snob :D
Nice. I've forgotten a couple of those theorems.
As for law schools, yeah, not worth it unless you get into a good one. Again, I'm an elitist.
But don't take advice from me. I have a degree in math (with honors) from what is arguably the best math program in the country. I have no idea how to use that to get from my mediocre job to a good one. The other people in my program mostly went to graduate programs or into consulting or into i-banking, or at least the ones who graduated with honors did.
You might enjoy My Life As A Quant http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Quant-Reflections-Physics/dp/0471394203 i-banking and stupid consulting work can be *very* profitable and a few years can leave you with enough savings to last many years.
Math theory courses were some of the hardest courses I took in college. I'd walk around in a daze for hours or more trying to figure out some proof. It was a real joy when the answer came to me. Alas, it's very hard to sustain that for long.
Some very interesting points here.
I won't be able to cut it as a professional musician. Realistically there is very little chance I will ever be a session player, and I'm not willing to live paycheck to paycheck my whole life for a career that doesn't get me anywhere.
That being said, going to school to study music for a few years would just be fucking awesome. It's what I wanted to do in high school. But is it worth it to dedicate three years of my life to something that I will only be pursuing as a hobby after that time?
Someone like my dad would say no. He doesn't really listen to music at all, doesn't particularly understand my obsessions with music and would call it a waste of time to study something for three years that I'm never going to use. But, it's my dream, you know?
Then again, it wouldn't be fun to graduate with a music degree at 25 years old with no money or job prospects, and to head back to school again to pursue a law degree. I think.
Not interested. Good book, though. Also, they're not too interested in me, the markets for that type of job have changed a bit so the path into quant jobs is a bit different from when the book was written.
I was suggesting it more for the general descriptions of the sociology and emotional experience of i-banking. And it was a fun read.
But is it worth it to dedicate three years of my life to something that I will only be pursuing as a hobby after that time?
Some people travel for a year or two between college and graduate school.
Law schools might view doing something interesting as a plus, leading to a more diverse student body, etc.
If you don't do it now, when will you? OTOH, will you be able to pay for all this education?
I've never regretted spending a year at a conservatory of music right out of high school, and extending my bachelor's degree by continuing to study at the conservatory while I got a degree in something else. I also took some music theory and history courses as electives within my existing degree program. In effect, I did an inter-faculty double major ... but did the practical music study (i.e. the lessons) privately, because the Arts and Science faculty wouldn't give credit for those.
If it's possible, give that a try even if it extends your program for a year ... at least if by doing so you don't go dramatically into debt. You'll never have an opportunity like this again, when you've got an opportunity to study what really turns your crank, and you're not bound by God only knows how many external commitments.
Yeah, I know a university student doesn't see his life as free of external commitments - but my wife and I have said often that we're appalled now by the time we wasted back then ... while truly believing we were absolutely going flat out. Life is different juggling career, kids, spouse, and also some extra-curriculars!
skadefryd
06-08-2010, 03:50 PM
Do not go to law school.
Here are a few reasons.
With the economy as shitty as it is now, lots of people are returning to school to bubble themselves until things blow over. This means law school admissions are more competitive than ever. To stand a chance at a good law school, you will probably need a killer GPA (at least 3.6) and a rockin' LSAT (165 at least). These two numbers are more important than the rest of your admissions package put together.
The law job market has changed, and this is probably a permanent change due to a bubble bursting rather than merely a temporary lull due to the bad economy. Before, law graduates who couldn't find a first-year associate position could at least count on ending up in a basement on a temporary position reading shitpaper for days on end. Today, many of these shitpaper jobs are being outsourced to India. Worse yet, first-year associate positions and salaries are dropping, as big clients have finally grown wise to the fact that they've been overpaying for law services. You'll need a T14 law degree or to be top 10% of your class to feel relatively secure in getting a stable position somewhere.
Law schools are notorious for outright lying about their employment statistics. A low-tier law school will frequently tout the fact that 80% of its students find employment within a year of graduation, but this includes graduates who are kept on for temporary research positions by the school in order to boost their employment rate, as well as law grads who end up in a "job" like table waiting or gardening. (When I applied for a census enumerator position, there was a lady also applying who had a law degree. No joke.) Mean salaries are often inflated, as well; they are based on students who self-reported their salaries (many unemployed or underpaid grads do not report), and the mean doesn't capture the fact that salaries for recent law grads are bimodal. You could end up shoving shitpaper for $30k/year, or you could end up starting out at Skadden for six figures. The former is far more likely, and to boot, you'll be $100k or so in debt, if not more.
In short, if you really, really want to be a lawyer and can get into a top 14 law school or a tier 1 with lots of scholarship money, go. If not, don't.
Patrick
06-08-2010, 04:03 PM
A lot of this thread is focused on explaining how music can enrich your life and how it's okay to follow your strongest impulses. I agree but that's beside the point.
My best advice: make yourself useful. Whether you're expendable or indispensable, make it so you have skills that make your employ a benefit to other folks. You do this with sustained, hard work.
I've changed fields about five times now and I'm not even 30 yet -- I imagine I'll dip my toe in a couple more ponds before I die. I've found a home in every lab I've worked in, not because I'm particularly intelligent or knowledgeable, but because I work harder and longer than anyone else. This is what makes me a good lifter -- a stubborn fucking idiocy that lets me imagine I'm able to do whatever it is I set out to do, and the myopic persistence to do it.
If you want to study music, do it. Wake up to Brahms on your alarm clock, practice your ass off while the sun shines, and perform in the evenings. Play for free in shitty dive bars or recitals at public libraries. Live your shit, one hundred percent. No distractions. And then, in a year decide whether that life is okay with you. If the answer is yes, then repeat it for another year and take stock then. If you wake up one morning and decide that it's not enough, take the LSAT and write a really compelling essay. Yale would be lucky to have folks like that.
EDIT - Couldn't resist: Choose life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koP4O6QAzx4)
If you want to study music, do it. Wake up to Brahms on your alarm clock, practice your ass off while the sun shines, and perform in the evenings. Play for free in shitty dive bars or recitals at public libraries. Live your shit, one hundred percent. No distractions. And then, in a year decide whether that life is okay with you. If the answer is yes, then repeat it for another year and take stock then. If you wake up one morning and decide that it's not enough, take the LSAT and write a really compelling essay. Yale would be lucky to have folks like that.
This is an inspirational, and very useful, post. I'm thinking that, were I to choose a career in music, this is the only way I'd be able to make a living. So I guess the question is: am I willing to do this? Am I willing to fully dedicate a year of my life to practicing music, playing shitty gigs and trying desperately to get my name out there so that I have the opportunity to play slightly less shitty gigs?
That's a thinker right there.
Then again, it wouldn't be fun to graduate with a music degree at 25 years old with no money or job prospects, and to head back to school again to pursue a law degree. I think.
Back in the day, I knew a guy with a music degree.
He flew FA-18 Hornets.
A long time ago, a very wise woman told me to do what I wanted, the money would take care of itself. If your goal isn't to get rich, she was right. A music degree doesn't mean that playing music isn't the only thing you can do. Learn the business inside and out, and you will do just fine.
I'm on the other end of the scale, 3 years from a government retirement. The worst things in in life are "I wish I had... " Some will happen no matter what, but avoid letting them pile up.
Make up your mind to know by the time you're 27 what you're going to be at 35.
hatmanii
06-08-2010, 07:10 PM
Back in the day, I knew a guy with a music degree.
He flew FA-18 Hornets.
A long time ago, a very wise woman told me to do what I wanted, the money would take care of itself. If your goal isn't to get rich, she was right. A music degree doesn't mean that playing music isn't the only thing you can do. Learn the business inside and out, and you will do just fine.
I'm on the other end of the scale, 3 years from a government retirement. The worst things in in life are "I wish I had... " Some will happen no matter what, but avoid letting them pile up.
Make up your mind to know by the time you're 27 what you're going to be at 35.
Words of wisdom right here. Quoted for truth.
I'm very glad I was told similar things years ago. Life is literally what you make of it. If you have the drive to succeed and persevere there is nothing that can stop you.
-Hat
Words of wisdom right here. Quoted for truth.
I'm very glad I was told similar things years ago. Life is literally what you make of it. If you have the drive to succeed and persevere there is nothing that can stop you.
-Hat
That's the problem with a career in art. In the vast majority of professions, your success will be directly proportional to how hard you work. In music, you could be the hardest working person in the world and still not go too far, simply because your natural musical talent isn't great enough. Sure, I can iron out a solid paycheck if I work hard enough, but I will never be the next Wes Montgomery. Just like how no one on these forums will be the next Konstantin Konstantinovs, even with the work ethic of a draft horse. Except no one here is planning on getting paid for their lifting.
Much appreciated wisdom, fellas.
Just had dinner with law school friend who used to be a musician. Do not go to law school. He was one of, like, very very few to get a summer gig. Everybody else is screwed.
Also, even with natural talent and hard work, music is a tough business. Market's flooded.
Joe #11
06-09-2010, 12:18 AM
But don't take advice from me. I have a degree in math (with honors) from what is arguably the best math program in the country. I have no idea how to use that to get from my mediocre job to a good one.
I hear you. I'd even settle for a mediocre job. As of now, the only apparent application of my master's in mathematics is in applying elementary row operations to a matrix of hamburgers.
That's the problem with a career in art. ... Sure, I can iron out a solid paycheck if I work hard enough, but I will never be the next Wes Montgomery.
You're getting the two things confused--art and a paycheck. Steve Martin makes a valuable point to remember--if you set out to create great art, you're probably just going to create garbage. If you set out to entertain people, and work very hard at it, you just might create some art along the way.
Ever heard the old country music saying, radio doesn't exist to sell records, it exists to sell tires? The music is just there to get listeners to hear the ads. 90% (if not 99%) of pop music exists to serve some other purpose than itself. That's the BUSINESS of music. Jeebus, musicians are the most unprofessional jabbers, guitarists the worst of the lot. The biggest key to getting your foot in the door is showing up on time, chops ready and gear working. It's that simple. Show up on time and don't cause trouble for the producer. Don't approach it as art, approach it as a serious job, and you know what? Some art might show up along the way as well.
I keep trying to think what I'm going to do once I'm "retired." At my age, it's hard to break into a new biz, so the tendency is to take my credentials into yet another government job. But a friend of mine, now gone, used to say that the coolest job he could imagine was to be the Wurlitzer organ guy who goes from store to store and just plays the organ, one old tune after another. Along the same lines, getting my sight-reading chops back and being a guitarist on a cruise line--easy money (if not much), regular work to get sharper and the chance to travel around a little. Nothing else I can think of appeals as much as that.
Just had dinner with law school friend who used to be a musician. Do not go to law school. He was one of, like, very very few to get a summer gig. Everybody else is screwed.
Which law school?
The firms that hire from law schools tend to be firms whose business is very much tied to the economy (e.g, corporate law). The economy sucks at the moment and law firm business generally sucks at least as bad. With luck the economy will be better in 3-4 years, which should lead to more law hiring.
http://abovethelaw.com/ is worth browsing.
I am a musician and I went to law school. I played in various bands through college and after college for a few years I played in a bluegrass band that ended up doing some pretty sweet gigs. It was a lot of fun.
If you go to music school, the best job you'll probably get is teaching somewhere. You would make decent money and get benefits and summers off. I have a few musician friends who took this route and are pretty pleased. I have other friends who scrap by working odd jobs at Whole Foods and giving private lessons and such. Most of them are pretty happy too, but most of them don't have music degrees.
I question the usefulness of a degree of music, unless you want to teach, in which case you need the credentials. Most of the best jazz and pop artists never went to school.
Also, I think that Gary's thread about making a choice to do your "dream" job is useful. I still like playing music in my spare time, because I don't have to listen to kids play shitty music all day, or stay up late in clubs surrounded by drunk assholes. But those things don't bother some people.
Law school worked out well for me. I graduated last year, did a clerkship this year, and have a state job for next year lined up that interests me. I went to a school ranked about 50, did fairly well there. I think everyone I was friends with in school have jobs, many of them like their jobs.
The law job market is shit right now and I did have a tough time getting both my jobs. I do think it is starting to bounce back and if you went now, in four years the market will probably be doing pretty good. Or the whole country will have gone to shit, who knows.
Also, as you are still in college, you might want to consider just working where you can for a year or two and playing as much music and lifting as much weight as possible. This will give you some life experience before law school and distinguish you from a lot of the people who go straight through.
My best advice: make yourself useful. Whether you're expendable or indispensable, make it so you have skills that make your employ a benefit to other folks. You do this with sustained, hard work.
^^This. Applies no matter what field you go into.
Sort of along those lines, I highly recommend Seth Godin's most recent book, Linchpin: Are You Indispensable (http://www.amazon.com/Linchpin-Are-Indispensable-Seth-Godin/dp/1591843162/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1)?. Thought-provoking book.
LondonTiger
06-09-2010, 12:47 PM
Just had dinner with law school friend who used to be a musician. Do not go to law school. He was one of, like, very very few to get a summer gig. Everybody else is screwed.
Also, even with natural talent and hard work, music is a tough business. Market's flooded.
This statement is almost as retarded as the poster.
How can you generalise the whole law profession based on the experiences of one bum recounting his experiences with another bum over dinner.
You're getting the two things confused--art and a paycheck. Steve Martin makes a valuable point to remember--if you set out to create great art, you're probably just going to create garbage. If you set out to entertain people, and work very hard at it, you just might create some art along the way.
Actually it's YOU who is confused.
First of all, what I meant by my statement was this: if I work hard enough I could make a solid paycheck as a musician; however, regardless of how hard I work I will never be a fantastic musician. Which implies the question, is it worth dedicating my entire life to art when my art isn't fantastic?
Second, I vehemently disagree with the bolded statement. Do you honestly think that music can "accidentally" be great? Do you think the Beatles were just trying to entertain people when they made Abbey Road, and its musical awesomeness is pure happenstance? Do you think things like this are the rule, as opposed to the exception?
90% (if not 99%) of pop music exists to serve some other purpose than itself. That's the BUSINESS of music.
And pretty much the only great music is going to be contained within that 1% that doesn't exist for some other purpose.
I question the usefulness of a degree of music, unless you want to teach, in which case you need the credentials. Most of the best jazz and pop artists never went to school.
Most of the best jazz artists have immense natural musical talent and didn't need to go to school to study music in order to be great players. That's like saying that most of the best lifters didn't drink GOMAD and do linear progression. It's because most of the best lifters didn't need to.
Also, as you are still in college, you might want to consider just working where you can for a year or two and playing as much music and lifting as much weight as possible. This will give you some life experience before law school and distinguish you from a lot of the people who go straight through.
The problem with this is that it's very easy to get derailed. Having a curriculum to follow would be much more productive. Plus, if I were to spend a couple of years studying music, I might as well have something tangible to show for it, right? Musical talent + a music degree opens up more doors than just musical talent. Teaching, as you mentioned, is an example.
I'm not characterizing the profession of law, I'm characterizing the state of the job market for people with law degrees - which is a terribly expensive degree you have to pay for somehow.
Actually it's YOU who is confused.
First of all, what I meant by my statement was this: if I work hard enough I could make a solid paycheck as a musician; however, regardless of how hard I work I will never be a fantastic musician. Which implies the question, is it worth dedicating my entire life to art when my art isn't fantastic?
Okay, so if i'm confused, are you saying that only the fantastic counts? That whatever you do, if it isn't great or fantastic, isn't worth doing? Because in something like music, you'll never know how good you can be if you don't spend a long time going down that road. And to be any good at anything, you will have to work hard, anyway. Hard work is inevitable.
Second, I vehemently disagree with the bolded statement. Do you honestly think that music can "accidentally" be great? Do you think the Beatles were just trying to entertain people when they made Abbey Road, and its musical awesomeness is pure happenstance? Do you think things like this are the rule, as opposed to the exception?
And pretty much the only great music is going to be contained within that 1% that doesn't exist for some other purpose.
Did I say art was produced by accident? The Beatles set out to make great pop songs, and through talent and a lot of hard work (no hemming and hawing about what to do, just playing eight hours a day for years) became extremely skilled at their craft. Did they do it because they wanted to create great art, or because they wanted to be rich, famous and have lots of girls? I don't know, but I can take a guess. Likewise, they didn't go into those final sessions that became Abbey Road with the intent of creating "great art," they went in with the intention of making the best music they knew how to make--well-crafted pop songs. Did they do it so well that it transcended that 99%? Perhaps. But when they made it, they were part of that 99%. They wanted to write and perform good songs that entertained people and made them very popular, and that popularity was the single largest measure of how well they succeeded with their songs. People don't talk about Beatles "art" like "Revolution No. 9," which obviously wasn't made to entertain anybody (and succeeded!).
As for the 1%, I'm speaking about the pretentious crap that music scholars write for each other, or the crap that people make only to show they deserve to be despised (I'm the worst death metaler around--no, my puke metal is worse!).
The problem with this is that it's very easy to get derailed. Having a curriculum to follow would be much more productive. Plus, if I were to spend a couple of years studying music, I might as well have something tangible to show for it, right? Musical talent + a music degree opens up more doors than just musical talent. Teaching, as you mentioned, is an example.
The point of mentioning the fighter pilot is to emphasize that a music degree doesn't limit you to musical jobs. You are young, and can afford to be derailed so long as you aren't taking out loans for it. Instead of going for a four year degree, do a year at one of the guitar institutes--intense as it gets, and when it's over you'll have as good a guage of your abilities as you'll ever have, plus chops to last a lifetime even if you decide it's not for you.
ColoWayno
06-10-2010, 07:25 AM
I miss my piano... sob :(
I miss my piano... sob :(
I heard there was one on every corner in Trashcanistan?
strengthstarter
06-10-2010, 10:03 AM
Find something you are passionate about it, and do it. The money will follow. Maybe not as much as if you were top of your field in some other profession, but if you are not passionate about something, you are not likely to be at the top of your field. And even if you end up pulling in a decent paycheck, you will be amazed at how much doing the same damn thing day in and day out that you are not passionate about 40 hours a week can drain your spirit.
and even if you end up pulling in a decent paycheck, you will be amazed at how much doing the same damn thing day in and day out that you are not passionate about 40 hours a week can drain your spirit.
amen, brother, amen!
Can i get an amen? Can i get an amen?
Say it again, brother!
Okay, so if i'm confused, are you saying that only the fantastic counts? That whatever you do, if it isn't great or fantastic, isn't worth doing?
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I don't want to dedicate my entire life to music if I'm not great. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't play, it just means that I'd have a day job.
to be any good at anything, you will have to work hard, anyway. Hard work is inevitable.
Yes. Understood.
[The Beatles] didn't go into those final sessions that became Abbey Road with the intent of creating "great art," they went in with the intention of making the best music they knew how to make--well-crafted pop songs.
Explain to me how the intention of creating great music is different from the intention of creating great art.
You are young, and can afford to be derailed so long as you aren't taking out loans for it. Instead of going for a four year degree, do a year at one of the guitar institutes--intense as it gets, and when it's over you'll have as good a guage of your abilities as you'll ever have, plus chops to last a lifetime even if you decide it's not for you.
Hmmm. I'll have to look into this.
If you're saying that if all your hard work won't result in great musicianship, you don't want to do it, that's okay. Choose your priorities. But I guess I'm trying to caution you that 99% of what the greats do isn't great in itself, but just part of the craft and getting there. If you aren't absolutely obsessed and driven to be great, you won't be. So if you're hesitating now, then prioritize away from the guitar.
As for Abbey Road, maybe I should present it differently. I do not think Abbey Road is great "art," but it is outstanding craftmanship. The Beatles knew how to make songs that people liked--how to make a product. They defined their success that way--will it please the audience and sell a lot of records? And that's what they set out to do, to make an album that would please their audience and sell a lot of records. In my judgement it did not transcend that, in yours the final product did transcend that and become art. But they didn't set out to produce art, and even if it is art, they would never have been able to produce Abbey Road if they hadn't preceded it with a long apprenticeship in which they mastered their craft. Nor, should I add, could they have done it without Jeff Lynn's engineering, or George Martin's production. No matter how great the album, it is a group effort and the musicians are only a part of it.
Maybe short hand for the above is, don't set out to produce great art, set out to master your craft. You'll never achieve the first without achieving the second first.
If you're saying that if all your hard work won't result in great musicianship, you don't want to do it, that's okay. Choose your priorities. But I guess I'm trying to caution you that 99% of what the greats do isn't great in itself, but just part of the craft and getting there. If you aren't absolutely obsessed and driven to be great, you won't be. So if you're hesitating now, then prioritize away from the guitar.
See, the thing is, I am fully willing to put the work in. It's just that I've been playing the guitar for a number of years, and if I were going to be the next Barney Kessel I would probably know it by know. Right?
That doesn't mean I don't want to study guitar. Actually, going to school for music for a couple of years and then living as a musician for a year would be an incredible experience for me. However, at that point I'd have to reevaluate where my life was going.
The Beatles knew how to make songs that people liked--how to make a product. They defined their success that way--will it please the audience and sell a lot of records? And that's what they set out to do, to make an album that would please their audience and sell a lot of records.
I doubt that was their goal. I am under the impression that they set out to make great music, and that any goals for selling records and making money were secondary. But it sounds like I hold the Beatles in much higher regard than you do.
You don't have to be the next Barney Kessel. Neither to be a genuine musician, or to have a good career.
My cello teacher at the conservatory was astonishing, and had a wonderful career first as a performer and then as a teacher. He's had a massive impact on a helluva lot of lives - including lives of performing musicians.
He said once that if as a cellist you walk 'round remembering that, for instance, Janos Starker did a solo recital of the Bach cello suites at age 6, you'd be too intimidated to ever get up on the stage. Your job is to serve the music, and do it as honestly and humbly as you can - to enable an experience for the audience. Your job isn't to be Janos Starker.
Or Barney Kessel.
To be an artist, you have to let go of the goal of being "an artist" ... and immerse yourself in making art.
Barney Kessel
Man, the names you drop. When I was a kid every issue of Guitar Player had an article on how to be like Barney Kessel. I was wondering the other day if anyone even remembered him anymore. On the other hand, there's not much demand for Barney Kessels anymore, so why do you set him as a benchmark? Be as good as you can be at what you want to do, and be happy. A lifetime spent working toward being the best at what moves you is never a loss, even if you never achieve the highest heights.
I am under the impression that they set out to make great music, and that any goals for selling records and making money were secondary. But it sounds like I hold the Beatles in much higher regard than you do.
What amazes me about the Beatles is how effectively four players became 7 parts. This is clearly scene in Let It Be, in the rehearsal scene for the title track. They wanted to be the best at writing and performing popular songs. So why did they hire Brian Epstein? Why did they ditch the leather jackets and stovepipe jeans, and Pete Best, too? Why did they adopt the suits and uniform mop-top haircuts? Because they wanted to make money/be popular, and that was what it took. What did making A Hard Day's Night, Help and Yellow Submarine have to do with their art? Not much, but they made a lot of money. What were Taxman and A Northern Song but bitches that someone was taking all their money? Money is a big way (if not the only way) of demonstrating success in pop music--you don't get it unless you're popular. I don't think it's incompatible with being the best at your craft/trade/art, either.
Nothing to do with wisdom, but this drummer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E) is pretty great. Enjoy, musicians!
Ian Kovtunovich
06-11-2010, 01:54 PM
You don't have to be the next Barney Kessel. Neither to be a genuine musician, or to have a good career.
My cello teacher at the conservatory was astonishing, and had a wonderful career first as a performer and then as a teacher. He's had a massive impact on a helluva lot of lives - including lives of performing musicians.
He said once that if as a cellist you walk 'round remembering that, for instance, Janos Starker did a solo recital of the Bach cello suites at age 6, you'd be too intimidated to ever get up on the stage. Your job is to serve the music, and do it as honestly and humbly as you can - to enable an experience for the audience. Your job isn't to be Janos Starker.
Or Barney Kessel.
To be an artist, you have to let go of the goal of being "an artist" ... and immerse yourself in making art.
That's good shit right there! Seems like a pretty Eastern outlook; journey over destination; focus on the process and be present in what you are doing, etc.
I find it easy to get bogged down thinking about how I'll probably never be as strong as whoever, or climb as hard as whoever, or be able to get my shit together as well as most adults, but I find I'm a lot happier when I just get under the bar and try, or keep trying and persisting at climbing, or just get through my days, without the baggage keeping me from even trying.
Now who wants a group hug? :P
To be an artist, you have to let go of the goal of being "an artist" ... and immerse yourself in making art.
Good point.
Man, the names you drop. When I was a kid every issue of Guitar Player had an article on how to be like Barney Kessel. I was wondering the other day if anyone even remembered him anymore. On the other hand, there's not much demand for Barney Kessels anymore, so why do you set him as a benchmark?
He's not a benchmark per se, he's just an example I was using. He's a "jazz" guitarist, but he can do anything. Except swing. :D
A lifetime spent working toward being the best at what moves you is never a loss, even if you never achieve the highest heights.
I agree with this...somewhat. For example, if from now until the day I die my entire career is as a musician, and I don't achieve some pretty high heights, I'd feel like I wasted a lot of time. However, if music is something I do as a hobby, and my career is in law or something, and I don't achieve some pretty high heights, I'd be okay with that. You know? It's like, imagine if I dropped everything and decided to spend the next 20 years with powerlifting as my absolute #1 priority. If in those 20 years I didn't set some records, I'd feel like I had wasted 20 years. But if I lift as a hobby, with other aspects of my life coming first (like I do now), then if I don't set any records within the next 20 years I'll be okay with that. The difference is that I would like to focus a few years of my life on music. I'm very passionate about music, just not passionate enough to give up my entire life for it if I'm not going to be great. I would gladly give up 3-4 years though.
What amazes me about the Beatles is how effectively four players became 7 parts. This is clearly scene in Let It Be, in the rehearsal scene for the title track. They wanted to be the best at writing and performing popular songs. So why did they hire Brian Epstein? Why did they ditch the leather jackets and stovepipe jeans, and Pete Best, too? Why did they adopt the suits and uniform mop-top haircuts? Because they wanted to make money/be popular, and that was what it took.
Yeah, in their early days. You'll never hear me claim that "Love Me Do" is anything other than a nice pop song.
What did making A Hard Day's Night, Help and Yellow Submarine have to do with their art? Not much, but they made a lot of money.[/QUOTE]
Nothing. Those movies literally had nothing to do with their art, which is why it's a moot point. Yeah, they did it to make money. So? This is different from them making an album that appeals to the lowest common denominator. If people want to pay money to see good musicians do something that they're not good at, it's their prerogative.
As well, what about how the Beatles stopped touring altogether in '66? What a way to LOSE money! Back then bands made most of their money from touring; in fact, most of the time bands would only LOSE money from making records because their profit form record sales wouldn't surpass their debt to the record company. Surely this lends credence to the idea that the Beatles were primarily about the music, at least in the second half of their existence.
Nothing to do with wisdom, but this drummer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E) is pretty great. Enjoy, musicians!
That drummer is hilarious! And yet people always think it's up to the guitarist or lead singer to do ridiculous antics.
I find it easy to get bogged down thinking about how I'll probably never be as strong as whoever, or climb as hard as whoever, or be able to get my shit together as well as most adults, but I find I'm a lot happier when I just get under the bar and try, or keep trying and persisting at climbing, or just get through my days, without the baggage keeping me from even trying.
Again, this train of thought works well if these things are hobbies as opposed to careers.
A musician cant do anything but play- if you are trying to decide the decision has been made. If your not willing to dedicate your life to music if your'e not great at it- then it should be self evident that you arent great at it- you dont negotiate with art- as other posters point out - you serve art.
Worrying about the money youll make in music is like worrying about shortened muscles and washboard abs while you lift. We dont do music for the money- we figure out the money piece so we can play. Again- you are likely deluding yourself if you think it's open to discussion. Musicians play. Hobbyists just hang out wondering if they should play or make bank at the law firm.
The Beatles wrote a song a day when they first got together- no matter what- they just wrote every day and thats how they got their craft solid. slog slog slog-- its not about greatness as a precursor to jumping in- it's about compulsion.
Shed, apprentice and go get work.
Know the business- and know what kind of day job to get while you grow your music business. The music business is a broad spectrum- and if youre worried about having enough money there are definately options that can enable you to earn and still be in the profession. I like my dayjob because I control the hours and get paid as much as possible without a degree- and It saves me from having to teach people without talent or play in variety bands to make my rent. I play what I want and take gigs I like because of the music only.
The best jazz guitarists I ever worked with have been self taught- the worst have had music degrees- and the worst of the worst have had advanced music degrees. I play a style that isnt commonly taught in school - so maybe thats why- but they all swing kind of the same,,, like they learned how to swing in class or something. Going to school for jazz is highly overated - dont believe me? Ask, Coltrane. Parker, Dizzy, Armstrong, Nina Simone- any of them what degree they have. Music is about developing the ear and muscles around your instrument.
Ian just handed you the same piece of advice that any professional musician I know would agree with- dont dismiss what he said as the perspective of the hobbyist- it is the bedrock attitude that musicians rely on to get them through tough times- and a career in music has many tough times. That was gold and you just blew it off. Every successful musician I know has exactly that attitude.
You simply cant be a pussy and be a musician.... youll end up in some law firm somewhere.
The best jazz guitarists I ever worked with have been self taught- the worst have had music degrees- and the worst of the worst have had advanced music degrees. I play a style that isnt commonly taught in school - so maybe thats why- but they all swing kind of the same,,, like they learned how to swing in class or something. Going to school for jazz is highly overated - dont believe me? Ask, Coltrane. Parker, Dizzy, Armstrong, Nina Simone- any of them what degree they have. Music is about developing the ear and muscles around your instrument.
JM3, thanks for your advice, but I would like to address this point you have made here since people keep posting variations of it. To be frank, the paragraph quoted above is rubbish. CORRELATION != CAUSATION. This is very important. You have deduced that, since the players with degrees are typically worse than the players without degrees, therefore getting a degree in music makes you a bad player. I shouldn't even have to point out how wrong this is. You're approaching the conclusion from the wrong direction; what's really happening is that the players with the most musical talent, with enough hard work, simply don't NEED to go to school to study music, since their talents render them fully capable of studying it on their own. The players with less musical talent don't get very far by studying music on their own, and they require a structured program that will guide them through the world of music. I fall into the latter category. I have some musical talent, but not enough to get very far by studying music on my own. Case in point: I've been studying music on my own for 3 years now, and I've been taking guitar lessons with a great teacher for less than two months. I've progressed more in these two months than I have in the past 3 years.
To show you specifically that going to school for music doesn't make you a worse musician, here is a short list of phenomenally talented musicians that attended Berklee College of Music:
Al Di Meola
Jan Hammer
Bill Frisell
Susan Tedeschi
Roy Hargrove
Keith Jarrett
Quincy Jones
Steve Vai
John Scofield
Joe Satriani
John Petrucci
Miles Davis
And these are only the artists that I have heard of and that I know went to school. And even then, this list is only of artists that went to Berklee; there are many other schools of music. Go tell Keith Jarrett that he would be a better player if he hadn't gone to school, see what he thinks.
" You have deduced that, since the players with degrees are typically worse than the players without degrees, therefore getting a degree in music makes you a bad player. I shouldn't even have to point out how wrong this is. You're approaching the conclusion from the wrong direction; "
whoa here fella- no one is deducing- I am simply reporting immutable life experience- I didnt draw any grand "conclusion" Im just telling you what was.
I work with degreed musicians all the time who are great and Im often the only one on the stand without a degree- no biggie to me either way. Im really not approaching this intellectually - and In the case of music the rules of logic are superseded by the rules of vibe.
Go tell Keith Jarrett that he would be a better player if he hadn't gone to school, see what he thinks.[/QUOTE]
Thats just stupid - I dont need to talk to Keith Jarrett about his musical education- if anyone does it would be you since you havent made up your mind about it. But, if you want to sound all cocky about it, I would submit that his answer might, just might, surprise you. Having gotten a degree is not the same as an endorsement of getting degrees. Ask him and let me know what he says- he will probably write back. I was accepted to Berklee and ended up not going - mostly because I was already working and it was hell expensive. But that is a good school for teaching you how to make money- we used to fuck with recent grads on the bandstand, because we knew what they were going to play before they did and it was fun to confuse them- you may not know it, but jazz by nature is competitive-it started as pure competition between bands (nola) then between solo players (ny) - but thats been lost with the institutionalization of it. Now we are all "working together" and falling all over ourselves to build others music up- instead of kicking ass and blowing guys under the table who cant cut. I like the competitive model- makes for better music, better friendships and better parties.
Also - note that I said apprenticeship is a positive thing- Your experiences with your teacher are invaluable and I said as much in my post. I have teachers and get lessons all the time- but you were asking about school. The difference is - you can choose teachers and put your own program together- with school you have an expensive, albeit complete, menu and some of the teachers you want may not be available to you- and some you dont want will end up having a large role in your life for three to 24 months.
It all comes down to this - presumably you are in your 20s-
Are you spending 4 hours a day playing your ax regardless of how you sound or what you need?
If not, and your'e not a savant- then your question is effectively answered.
Because thats what we do- and If your'e not doing it now, theres no way youll be able to figure out how to do it once you have kids and gigs and serious bills. Im down to 2 hours a day because I have a family- but also gigs and Ive got spend time selling... and theres my weightlifting habit- but thats to counterbalance the party atmosphere Im always in and keep me sane and grounded.
Ive got no dog in your fight- but Ive spent a lot of time listening to players and had my own struggles and triumphs in music- and being professional musician is a choice you have to make with zero doubt.
BTW- Miles didnt go to school at Berklee- he went to Julliard - but dropped out to play music... the story of how he got to Julliard is a perfect example of what I am saying to you about those 2 to 4 hours a day you are presumably shedding. Oh - and Quincy Jones, Steve Vai, Roy Hargrove- most of those guys dropped out or were already well into their careers and probably went to berklee because it was free and they were picking up skill sets and getting paid(?) for endorsing the school. hell- I even worked for Berklee for a minute back in the 80s... like I said- Berklee will teach you how to monetize music for sure.
FWIW, there's no substitute for putting your time in ... and having your head engaged while you're putting your time in. Better to spend 30 minutes completely, entirely focused on what you're doing ... and what piece of it all this practice session is trying to achieve, than spend 4 hours in unfocused diddling 'round. Break up your practice sessions, to keep your head and your ears fresh.
But that said, I remember as a senior cello student needing to practice about 1.5 hours/day simply to stand still, to keep my technique from slipping. It took 4 hours daily to make decent progress, but 4 hours with perfectly relaxed technique so I didn't get tendonitis or other over-use injuries. It was much harder to progress as a singer, because your throat simply can't withstand that much practice time ... it takes more years to add up the same number of practice hours.
The pianists were the worst for over-use injuries; I can think of a bunch who fried their forearms with tendonitis by practicing far too much, without enough relaxation.
There's a helluva lot to be said for formal music education, especially re forms, harmony and composition etc. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all, and ultimately it's about what you sound like ... not what degrees you've got. But some incredibly inventive stuff is possible if you've taken the time to learn the trial-and-error of centuries before, and adapt it. Listen to Ozzy Osborne closely, and you'll find the Sonata form, counterpoint ... which is why his stuff was miles ahead of the unthinking wannabees.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.0 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.