Music lessons are a waste of time for most kids

I'm currently reading a sociological paper that claims that art/music cannot actually be "consumed passively.

😂How did I know that you were going to reply this?! It was predictable.

the act of perception has to mirror the act of creation which means the audience has to make an active effort to be able to enjoy a work of art/music

Is that form the paper? It sounds pretentious and is rather inaccurate IMO, perhaps a level 7 dissertation?

So you can be middle class but secretly dislike complex art/music as it kind of imposes an imperative of mental/emotional effort you don't necessarily want to do

Why should middle class people be secretive about not liking classical? It sounds all so snobbish😴

Yes @MaidOfAle I understand what you mean as DC is learning both jazz and classical, and generally within Gypsy music tradition improvisation is one of the key skills. But my examples of great pop/rock musicians with hardly any training still stand. Though they probably "feel" it with some sixth sense without formal training...

Which actually takes me back to @LittleDarlingStar - decolonisation is a trendy topic, but actually I don't think classical training and folk tradition are mutually exclusive. At least it doesn't work like this in our case where DC's classical training has always been firmly rooted in our ethnic musical tradition.

You don't need to know music theory to play the notes literally written on the page in front of you, although it can help to know what your "job" is within the harmony. You need to know music theory to compose beyond an elementary level.

Jazz largely involves improvising over a preset chord sequence. If I'm playing over Take The A Train, the chords are the ones used for the tune. I have to understand those chords to improvise.

With a pop song, we see many of the same types of chord sequence that we see in jazz, like circles of fifths, altered plagal cadences, and ii-V-I (pronounced "two five one") progressions. To compose these songs, you need to understand these progressions.

The years of training for professional musicians is so that they have total control over their instruments, in any key, and can focus on playing emotively and balancing within the ensemble instead of thinking about what finger to put down next. Fundamentally, the point of music is to make the listener feel something, and professional classical musicians have to do that based on a piece of paper with some dots and lines on it, written by someone who is often long-dead. But, jazz musicians and pop musicians also need total control over their instruments, to invent the music as they go along, and they need to understand music theory to do that.

Carol Kaye, bass guitarist with the "wrecking crew", was jazz trained and contributed to hundreds of pop records including the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds", improvising many of her lines.

I find your post very interesting as I'm currently reading a sociological paper that claims that art/music cannot actually be "consumed passively", the act of perception has to mirror the act of creation which means the audience has to make an active effort to be able to enjoy a work of art/music. So you can be middle class but secretly dislike complex art/music as it kind of imposes an imperative of mental/emotional effort you don't necessarily want to do. Just another perspective on the current crisis - the author is not British so I guess the situation is not exclusive to us.

Dopamine triggers of SM are also a vast area of research of course. But this is a different topic though for me personally it's one of the most interesting things.

Hmmm, do you not have to know music theory to play classical music? That sounds very strange to me to be honest.

Jazz is not popular music either, but I see your point about improvisation. Pop is not about improvisation though, it's about "predictability" - so yes, in a way it has to be written along the most predictable chords and progressions for a "general listener" to enjoy familiar patterns. Unlike Stravinsky, for example, whose works are a pain for many. Or the horrors of Schoenberg 😁

Still it doesn't require years of training as an instrumentalist (or composer for that matter). If you listen to viral TikTok songs - Toxic for example - you'll see what I mean.

Few pop/rock songwriters had years of tedious classical training - look at Beatles, Queen, Pink Floyd, you name it. How did they write catchy pop songs without studying theory? Interestingly, many happened to have studied art instead - Barrett, Lennon, Mercury were art students. Some do have classical training, but it is by no means necessary. Whereas if you look at 1st violins at say NYO - with few exceptions, they have almost invariably started at 4-6, some are children of musicians so "started" before birth. This is no coincidence. BTW these are children whom previous posters called abnormal weirdos drilled from nappies.

Anyway, the thread has diverged too far from OP :)

OP was not talking about popular music as it doesn't need hard training anyway.

I'm currently taking jazz lessons and working my way through the Great American Songbook and your assertion that popular music doesn't need hard training couldn't be more wrong.

I've spent my life playing classical music. Someone puts a page full of notes in front of me and I play them and tweak how I play them according to the conductor's whim. That's relatively easy.

Learning jazz, I suddenly have to know music theory. I have to understand chord extensions and song structure and harmonic progressions in order to improvise, where I make the music up as I play it. The whole of pop works in this way. You can't write a good pop song without understanding harmony and form.

@Reugny @LittleDarlingStar yes was tongue in cheek 😂. Explains why my knowledge of science is atrocious.

Actually the people I'm talking about like classical music, amongst the other genres of music they like, and they like learning to play it.

Tickets are cheap but people can't be bothered to go.

In the UK at least, you can blame the deeply ingrained class system for this.

But I wasn't referring to the OP. Tickets being cheap is good but there are so many barriers to people engaging with classical music. Anyhow, there are as many musical styles as there are cultures and sub cultures and classical music is one genre among many, not more worthy than lots of others.

Why should people be bothered to go to a classical concert? Classical concerts must have been the height of excitement during the classical period, after all, there wasn't a lot of opportunity to enjoy and mingle with others in an entertainment sense in the18th century, also it was intended for the upper classes to have a naice space for people watching, gossip and networking.

With instant digital gratification of digital media, most people are losing the ability to sit through any passive cultural experience for any length of time. That's also why movies are no longer as popular. People need a constant dopamine buzz from fast moving content.

Even your phone has the potential to be more entertaining, notifications send people's brains into overdrive and trigger the release of stress hormones like cortisol. Research suggests that a text message from your favourite brand can produce as much dopamine as an orgasm (or maybe a Bach concert?). Sitting through a 3 hour classical concert is not attainable for many. I love it as I can completely switch the world off, but it's not for everyone.

This is worth a read
swarthmorephoenix.com/2023/10/26/an-education-in-classical-music-decolonizing-the-mind-of-classical-concerts-goers/

People like beat as it is indeed a neuro-physiological thing, but most people are bored witless by classical music, otherwise we wouldn't have a massive problem with empty concert halls. Tickets are cheap but people can't be bothered to go.
OP was not talking about popular music as it doesn't need hard training anyway.

You will dislike some of my family, including my DD, and friends they like music AND science.

Not sure @tarquinskeys meant that all people who love music dislike science. She personally liked missing double science, probably tongue in cheek. Doubt people often like only one and not the other. Don't most people like music anyhow, it's not really something special, it's kinda a basic human thing?

You will dislike some of my family, including my DD, and friends they like music AND science. 😂

What is the point of doing any hobby then one could argue? I mean most will cost something, right? I think it is to build enjoyment and progress in something outside school and work to have something you can own and progress at your pace. Some kids/adults try lots of different things, others stick with a couple and get to a high level.
I actually think in this day and age with the passivity of screens and constant entertainment actual real life hobbies are more important than ever.

Strange view. I have two boys and the younger has just started life as a Cathedral chorister and taken up piano and clarinet. He's previous done singing, theory and bit of sax. We have absolutely no expectations as regard his career - never imagined for a second he'd become a career musician! It's about the experience and enjoyment and how it enhances the rest of his education.

Not everything is about the end result. It's about the process and the journey along the way. Without arts education, especially music and and drama, there is no ensemble for the next soloist to be supported or actor to begin to stand on a stage to discover they have a talent. Just like sport. Doing these activities provides vital skills and a place of belonging for many kids in the same way that a chess club does for others. It's about so much more. But one thing it should never be about is the parents pushing the kids. That leads to breakdowns. We should just support, help them find what they enjoy and feel good at. Nothing wrong with doing grades. It provides a goal and a marker, but let them want to do the next one. If they're going to be the next David Beckham, or Meryl Steep, or Itzak Pearlman, they will need to develop their own fire within and their own drive. It certainly doesn't come from parents pushing them. They're their own little person inside from a very young age. Don't stomp on that.

This highlights the problem with many attitudes today. Why can't a kid just do something purely for enjoyment? Do we sign them up for football with the hope there's a budding Ronaldo inside? Or for Drama in the hope they'll be the next best thing in the west end? I understand your point about parents because kids don't usually express this feeling, they do something because they enjoy it, but it can be the attitude of parents who can't wait to tell everyone what their DC has achieved. I learnt the guitar at primary and all the way into high school and performed. It never led to anything after that. I am disappointed my DCs aren't interested in playing an instrument, not because I want them to be a musician but because I think learning to read music is a beautiful skill and it was a fantastic part of my education. It really broadened my learning skills - plus I got to miss half an hour of double science every week.

My 8yr old has just started piano lessons. I don't expect him to become a classical pianist, in fact until this thread I didn't even consider the grades and exams etc.
He's just a very sensitive and anxious boy, who doesn't enjoy sports clubs or beavers etc, but loves Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran and I just felt he might enjoy a solo hobby where he can learn to play his favourite songs.
Sometimes, you can just do things for the enjoyment of them

Yes, TikTok etc have changed music landscape and business, but the average Joe online is not a classical affictionado and seems to be perfectly happy with AI generated muzak. You don't have to work hard for over 10 years to be able to write or play this stuff.

Or the Cellist Hauser who has an online presence - there seems to be an element of creating a persona to it these days. If anything, I think there is more scope now with the opportunity to self publish online.

Also I have a friend who is a conductor and quite famous and he certainly seems to have done very well financially. So I guess the money is in conducting and film composing, if successful.

My 4 DC all did 2-3 instruments and grades quite early. The ABRSM exams are quite demanding and I am convinced one of the reasons they passed the 11 plus for superselective grammars is because they could perform on the day, which they learnt to do in ABRSM exams, which are often unpredictable and require focus. Couple that with more and more successful comps and a few grammars offering music scholarships, music lessons are good.
I would also add that pretty much all their friends in their high level orchestras achieved all 9s or almost at GCSE and all A stars or almost at A level. And in their state primary a lot of the most academic kids also did music lessons, some for free as we had a scheme from the local music trust.

So you think every parent that is paying for music lessons want their child to be a professional musician? And every parent that pays for sports lessons wants their child to be an Olympian? That’s a bit weird OP.

We pay for music lessons because we want our child to play an instrument because I think the ability to read music and play an instrument is a lovely thing and i think there’s some evidence to show it helps with concentration and co-ordination skills.

I pay for sports lessons because it helps with my children’s fitness, team-working skills and ability to bounce back from disappointment do builds resilience.

Thats it.

Statistically, you're probably right. There are a lot of good violinists out there and age-wise he's behind a fair few of them. He'd have a better chance if he played something uncommon like the bassoon or double bass.
DC2 plays/played in NCO/JD and would be hitting that level at a younger age. We are perfectly aware of the realities of a classical music career and will be encouraging them strongly to consider other careers.
On the other hand, we know another kid, mid-teens, who has done grade 8, has perfect pitch to a high degree and is set on doing music. They know they're probably going to end up as a music teacher / accompanist but they're happy with that. It's what they want to do.
I'd still say there is a point to kids taking music lessons even if they've neither the ability or inclination to do it professionally, in the same way that there's a point in the general public doing sports even if few of them make it to the olympics.

I don't think anyone has said that kids should be forced to learn an instrument. What we've said is that they should have the chance to and that doing so isn't pointless.

What a cynical way to look at the arts and arts education.

1. You don't need to be grade 8 age 8 to end up being a professional musician. In fact some kids who are pushed through grades at a rapid pace miss the nuances of creative expression. You can have two kids the same age on the same instrument and one is grade 3 and the other is grade 7 and the child who is grade 3 could be a better musician. Grades mean nothing in the end, they're just markers.
2. Equally, like sport, it so depends on size of the their hands for some, or when they get their adult teeth for others, etc.
3. Just because you don't become a concert soloist, doesn't mean you won't have great job opportunities in the arts and learning an instrument or singing in a choir will enhance your knowledge in many ways.
4. Arts education teaches much more than just becoming a concert soloist and those skills are transferable to many professions. Creativity, collaboration, teamwork, discipline are needed in nearly every job.