Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Moustache
Don't really understand why this is a "thing".
|
Because a lot of people still seem to be in awe of a combination of three things: celebrity culture, successful musicians, and music education. The "talent myth" is part of that too.
Out culture likes to regard music as an activity that is only worth pursuing if one is "talented" and/or is making a living from it. It's similar with other arts, but music seems to be the most tainted with this view.
If one is pursuing music as a hobby, as recreation - not
making any money from it (or very little) - one is often accused of "wasting time", because "you'll never be famous", or "you're too old to make it". We don't say such things to amateur footballers or golfers, or amateur watercolourists.
It seems to be a hangover from classical culture, where it's quite clear that musicians have to be trained to an exceedingly high standard - in a full-time academic environment - just to sit in an orchestra and play someone else's music. And the composers whose music they are playing are regarded as "geniuses" with a hotline to God.
In comparison, "vernacular" music (pop, rock, folk, blues, country, soul, R&B, hip hop, rap etc etc) is often dismissed as unworthy of consideration by serious critics. That's fair enough really - vernacular music gets by perfectly without critical attention! That's because the purpose of a critic is to explain complicated music (classical or jazz) to lesser mortals, to act as mediators between the geniuses and the "common folk". The common folk already understand and appreciate vernacular music perfectly well.
Even so, every now and then, a vernacular musician achieves significant and long-lasting success, seeming to rise above that level to (maybe) approach the "genius" level of the classical composer. How do they do that?? Without any "proper education"?
It's a mystery! (Not.) We just see the graceful swan gliding on the surface; not the furious paddling going on beneath.
