I have always been a huge music fan. A few years ago I bought a guitar and I've had a blast learning the basics. One day I would love to play professionally but I'm not exactly sure how to get paid for my music. I'm considering paying $100,000 for someone to teach me how to play guitar.
Now you may be thinking that I must be really rich to be willing to spend so much to learn to play guitar but I'm not. In fact, I don't have any money saved at all. Luckily I can get a loan for $100,000 and that should cover my guitar classes. Once I finish learning how to play guitar I will slowly pay this loan back with interest for the majority of the rest of my life but at least I will know how to play guitar better.
You might also be thinking that for $100,000 I'm going to be learning from a really famous and successful musician, but that isn't the case. Although I'm sure there are many legitimate guitar teachers out there, I'm going to learn from someone locally who tried to become a professional musician but could never make enough money in the music industry so they decided to teach guitar lessons instead. Sure I could assist local musicians, pay for workshops with established guitar players, or teach myself with much cheaper online content but I would prefer to pay $100,000 because I will be more motivated to learn if I spend the money.
I'm going to spend 4 years of my life working on chords and scales. I'm going to go to class every day with students just like me who are artists and want to make music for a living. Recording and marketing an album or planning and negotiating live performances is a very complicated business and we won't be focusing on that aspect of guitar. For 4 years I will mainly focus on the technical side of playing guitar. 99% of all recordings are digital these days but my classes are going to teach me the more "pure" analog recording techniques which are much more artistic.
After I graduate with over $100,000 in debt I will probably be asked to play guitar at events like my friends weddings but I would never take those jobs, they would be below me. I'm an artist now right? Instead, I'm going to get a job and Starbucks while I work on my music. Over time I will join and leave a few bands and as I gain more hours at Starbucks, I will slowly lose the ability to play guitar even for fun because I will be too busy working. Eventually I will give up on my dream of playing music because I'll realize things like "the industry isn't what it used to be." At this point I will have more debt than the day I left guitar school but at least I would know how to play guitar better and I'll have my guitar school degree.
Now I realize that nobody in the music industry cares if I've been to school for guitar and I know that the majority of the professional musicians working today also didn't go to school for their craft but I still think this is my best option.
So basically that's my plan. Should I do it? I really do love playing guitar.
DAFUQ did I just read on Fstoppers?
Replace the words guitar lessons with the words photography school and it all makes a lot more sense.
I do realize that, but why the super long analogy for the entire op-ed?
He's wondering if going to art school for photography is like going to music school to play guitar. He's saying it's expensive and doesn't matter because in the end people don't care if you're a photo major or if you're a geography major. If you can take photos, you can take photos.
He didn't explain himself in the end, that's what's odd about this post.
He think he's clever by comparing those who get started in photography and think they'll be good with musicians. Except physically not everybody has the ability to play the strings on the guitars where as most people can press the shutter button so with enough hard work, anybody can become a photographer and it's not the case with music.
If you mean by photographer anyone that can press the shutter button, you are right. If you mean by photographer anyone that knows art and applies it to photography, you may be wrong.
Anyone picking up a guitar and practicing enough could be a guitarist, but again, just knowing how to fret and imitating some chords won't make a person a guitarist.
Did you seriously just write a passive-aggressive article dissing college? Really? You couldn't have brought forth the issue in a way that is actually helpful or at least in a more tactful way.
This is very Facebook rant-esque
That's not at all what this is. This may in fact be life changing for someone reading it.
I am a freshman in college, (a UW-Madison student,) and during the semester I have spent in higher education I have greatly struggled with what I plan on doing with my life even after being "completely sure" of what I wanted to do. After completely bailing on my original plan I have decided to seek a studio art degree so I can spend the next four years of my life, (at the very least,) doing what I love, which is art. I chose to get a degree from a university after a lot of thought and many conversations with family, friends, professors, and several creative professionals currently working in a few different fields. I chose to get a degree because I feel it will give me the the skills to make a living in the art world even if it may be in something besides photography or pottery. I feel as though taking the classes required to get my degree will truly strengthen me as an artist, which may not be the same for other people at other institutions. I have chosen to get a degree because I feel as though taking the steps to get the degree will have a real impact on my work, that is MY reason for MY choice.
When I read this article I found it ludicrous for the short period before I realized what he was getting at. It made me take a step back and think about my choice. If I were simply going through the motions of getting a degree because I felt as though I had to, I would be seriously reconsidering. This article sounds ridiculous because, well, frankly, it is, and so is getting a photography degree for the most part. Many people, especially photographers, think a degree is necessary to get a job when it is truly not. You need real world and business experience, as well as photography skills and connections. (One of the reasons I made my decision is because I can take business and economic classes while getting my art degree.)
How he went about writing this article really hit me in the face. It gets your attention and makes you think. I think that it gets his point across much better than if he had just tried to explain why it isn't the best idea. Obviously it should be taken with a grain of salt and be applied to your own situation, but for many this could be extremely helpful in making a very important (and expensive) live decision.
/rant.
Also, if you'd like some work to back up that I know a tad bit about what I'm talking about, you can look though my portfolio at www.sammerkel.com
I fear this is a little sad, and a little short-sighted; here are some thoughts to help guide you, though.
As a professional musician with a penchant for gadgetry and technology (hence an interest in photography), I have met many countless musicians as my profession allows. Most of us work extremely hard and MUST go through conservatory/university in order to obtain just some semblance of exposure to excellent art making from our teachers and other, say, more prodigious colleagues? Yes, you're shown the analog side, but (caveat: cliche) it's what YOU DO with that knowledge that matters.
I know many people who went to the TOP conservatories, Curtis, Juilliard, Colburn (and many others here and abroad), who now chose a different profession. But then I know many who went to middle-of-nowhere schools miles from a full-time orchestra that are now playing in the major symphonies.
You don't go to college to learn a trade, that's what trade school is for. You go to college to learn how to educate yourself and keep learning for the rest of your life. You can do just that at guitar college, photography school, or wherever you plant yourself.
Excellent post, Brian
What I found was that people who are self-taught usually get "stuck in a rut." In other words, there are gaps in their learning process that prevent them from moving forward. Then, in order to move forward they must un-learn accumulated bad habits (which rarely happens) Meanwhile, the people that are formally educated usually have less gaps and tend to advance more because they have less bad habits holding them back. This is rarely noticed in the short term, but manifests itself in the long term. For example, the difference between a self-taught musician and a formally taught musician might not really make itself noticeable until 20-30 years have passed. By then, the difference becomes very obvious and it's one of the main reasons why so many pop musicians have short careers.
I believe you are referring to "pop stars" as opposed to "pop musicians".
The musicians who play for the biggest pop stars' tours are some of the best musicians in the industry.
If someone has lasted in professional music for 20 to 30 years having been self-taught, you would not be able to see a difference.
We owe a lot to some who are self taught. we would not have the wah pedal or fuzz box of Jimmy Hendrix was formally educated and stayed inside the forms of guitar playing at that time. Nor would we have guys like Erik Mongrain playing guitar the way he does if he played the way they would have been educated by anyone who is qualified to teach the guitar.
Certain musical styles like classical music can only thrive inside the formally educated box. But other styles like jazz, and most indigenous music around the world are great because they are not constrained to fit in the form.
Thank you..
Now I don't need to reply.
:D
I majored in graphic design in college. It wasn't until I reached the real world that I realized how worthless my degree was. I worked at an advertising agency with students from the local community college which cost about 15% of my schools tuition. These community college students were far more knowledgeable than I was and they were simply better graphic designers.
My father always told me that college isn't about learning a craft, it's about growing up and learning to interact with other people which will help me far more than book knowledge in the long run.
Being that things ended up turning out alright I can't really say that I would take it all back if I could but spending over $100,000 to "grow up" for 4 years is absurd and I could have learned the same, if not way more at a cheaper school, or simply by assisting people in the industry I looked up to.
I agree with this assessment. It's not that college is bad, it's just that in almost all cases it's not necessary to spend a ton of money on it.
Exactly. But the time you lose factors in as well. I could have been working for myself freelancing, or doing something more productive during those years; it was the prime of my life, really. All lost to endless tests, homework, and late night cram sessions.
I don't for a moment feel like I wasted that time. I have an art degree and I feel like it's been extremely helpful.
The one thing I'm glad about is having a Bachelor's degree in general. It's always something to fall back on that you can apply to any given field. Let's face it, very few people retire from the same industry niche they start out in when they're 23 years old. That's just not how the world is anymore. It's not 1950. I wish I could say I felt otherwise, but the act of being a constant chameleon and adapting to the different colors of your career backdrop is necessary.
Awesome post. I did the same thing Lee... had the same major, too. Graphic Design. Learned after being in the corporate world for 4 years after graduating that I was just yet another corporate peon. Lost my job in 08 when everything went haywire, morphed into a stock image slinger/designer and never looked back. Would I do it all over again? Possibly, not. I wasted a lot of good years and a lot of money on an expensive State University. Getting my BA was a stepping stone, and it did get me into the field I'm in now. I did learn a lot, especially about how the business world works (marketing classes FTW) but other than that, if I had to take it or leave it, I would leave it.
I won't be pushing my kids to go to college. If they want to, they can pay for it themselves, just like I did. Some fields require it. I would have never landed my graphic design jobs without the stupid little piece of paper. And I would have never really learned about the stock photography business, or even knew that selling stock photos was even a thing, unless I became a designer. But who knows... maybe I would have? I don't know. I can't go back in time. All I know is I haven't been using my graphic design degree in the last 7 years, and while I lack a 401k, dental benefits and health insurance, my overall gross income has increased. So to all the kids with talent AND business sense who are about to get out of high school and seriously think they need a college degree... they might want to take a 1 year trial period off after high school, and see if they can just jump right into the field - freelancing at least.
What I learned in college from the design standpoint, are basic things like color/composition/projection lines. Principles I still use to this day. Things you can also learn on youtube. What I learned about the software you need to know, was laughable. Next to nothing. Colleges teach you right out of a book anyway, and very briefly brush on the technical side of things. You need to be the type of person who can teach yourself a piece of software, and develop the techniques on your own. The same way you need to when you're a self-taught photographer. It's no different.
Thankfully I only lost around $20,000 on my college tuition, and not $100,000. Lee, I'm sure you've earned it back by now. Hopefully this post can save some of your readers a lot of future debt, time, and bitterness.
I don't disagree with you. However, I went to one of the top colleges in the United States for Business. Does it guarantee that I'll run a successful business? Absolutely not. College isn't meant to be a fail safe into a career, its meant to be higher learning. I'm positive that a photography or graphic design major knows more about color and composition than I do. That doesn't mean that they'll be a better photographer than me. But under that same regard, it doesn't mean I'll be a better business man than them either.
Photography is about the hustle. But a lot of careers are the same way. Did you know you do not need to go to law school to become a lawyer? You can go to the library, study your ass off, take the BAR and become a lawyer. Same goes for a lot of other careers. Photography is just one of them that is always under the limelight with it all...
Schooling is just evidence of curiosity...I think the issue we have is that we're programmed to think that higher learning is to ensure we have a great job and success in our lives. We need to stop thinking of it like that and start thinking of it in terms of feeding your love for learning. Sure, photography doesn't have any accreditation, and maybe that is something that should change. But there isn't any accreditation for art. Picasso wasn't successful because he attended college, he was successful because he spent his whole life focused on his craft. BB King isn't successful because he had some fantastic understudy; he is successful because he busted his ass off.
If you follow your passion, and give it 100% (And truly...100% you slacker), you cannot fail.
"Schooling is just evidence of curiosity...I think the issue we have is that we're programmed to think that higher learning is to ensure we have a great job and success in our lives"
If this is true then college should be only for the wealthiest 1%. Who the hell has a hundred grand to spend because they are "curious" especially when all of your questions can be answered online instantly.
Learning and knowing are entirely different things though. Sure, I can do a quick Google search to find the answers to my questions, but it's not going to help me with deductive reasoning. The idea of higher learning is to understand how to learn and to problem solve...something that quick internet searches isn't going to teach you.
I agree with the learning how to learn thing. My college really didn't do a good job of that though.
Then your school failed you, like it has failed so many others. :-
I suggest you pick up Imagine by Jonah Lehrer. It got a bit of controversy for having some misleading quotes about Bob Dylan in it, but it is still a pretty fascinating read. It's all about how to think creatively...but more importantly, how to deduct blocks in your life. I think the book taught me more about being significant and successful than schooling ever has.
Maybe they should sell it for a hundred grand :)
Very well said.
hahahaha this was awesome! Puts it into perspective doesn't it? =) Go to a community college for business and spend money on some gear to learn it on your own.
I see what you did there.
I think going to the right formal educational institution and studying the RIGHT subjects is what matters the most.
I spent 5 years of my life and gained a degree in Finance, because I thought that was what would guarantee a decent salary and a decent life... Well, some years later I quit that decent life and well-paid job and went to study Photography for 2 years.
It took me a year and some to make that decision, so I KNEW I wanted to be a professional photographer.
When I walked out of my college after the 2-year Photography course:
1. I knew how to shoot film and digital, DSLR, medium format, large format, with studio lighting, natural lighting, shoot fashion, portrait, cars, food, product, weddings, with one strobe, with five strobes, with no strobes, etc... you get the idea.
2. I had the necessary knowledge to run my own photography business.
3. I didn't have any "gray areas" or "gaps" in my knowledge, because the course was well-structured and super detailed (it's TWO years, of course it was detailed).
4. I had made dozens of friends in my college and many of them led to jobs and even many years later good things come my way from those I studied with and from.
5. I personally take people with formal education in their profession more seriously because I know HOW it is, and what it gives.
6. The wealth of knowledge I possess and share now did not come from websites and youtube videos (although, of course I continue my self-education too), it came from 2 years (= 18 months = 72 weeks = 360 days = 2160 hours + homework, assignments, gallery visits, field trips) of formal education.
If your choice of formal education wasn't right, than of course it was a mistake and wasted money (like my Financial degree, although it is still helping me with my current businesses). Yes, my 2 years cost me over $80K, but I have always worked hard and never thought it wasn't worth the investment.
That's great to hear. I'm sure you went to a very good school.
Julia, I think this is very rare. I know at my school (which wasn't a photo school but rather just had a photography program), they did not have digital cameras at all, no photoshop classes, no major lighting classes beyond "put both lights 45 degrees to your subject", and definitely no business course. I've seen this time and time again with many other technical or arts schools. I think you are very lucky to have attended a school where you actually learned all of those points...although luck may not have had a thing to do with it, it was more your own investigating.
I now think I actually was lucky after reading your comment, Patrick. I didn't have a chance to research a lot about my school, I enrolled from Moscow, so I relied solely on the info that was on their website. Our school wasn't one of the most expensive or prestigious in Melbourne (far from it), but we had great, dedicated and motivating teachers, a good studio and a great media lab.
But, yeah, I know what you're saying, not every school offers that much. That's the sad true. I think a good research and talking to alumni would be very helpful if someone is considering going to an art school.
Julia, I was planning to go to Melbourne, to study Photography.
Which College did you go to if I may ask?
I went to ICPP, but it no longer functions, unfortunately. RMIT is considered the best uni for photography in Melbourne, or was when I was there.
Yeah, I am considering to go there. It sounds like it has your vote, i'll look into it a bit more. Thanks! :)
Yes, Melbourne is a great place to study arts - the number of galleries and artists in that city is amazing. Very inspiring place. State Victoria is overall a very special place!
Julia, looking at the big picture I don't think you wasted your money at all with the Finance degree. I know that industry(I work in it on the IT side) and the discipline and regimented work ethic that is necessary to work even at a moderately good level. When I see people leaving finance for other things I just know they're going to knock the pants off the competition.
The point I'm making is that I feel you would have been successful either way because A) you had formal education in *something* and B) you're naturally driven.
That being said I don't always hire the guy that has the best formal education...I will often take the person who is simply hungry to want to succeed and will find the motivation within themselves to help get our team there.
Yes, I agree with you on all points!
Formal education is great, but there are of course other important things such as motivation and hunger for success, natural talents just like you said.
Out of 44 people in my photography class, only a handful are still full-time photographers. To the rest our 2-year course was a waste of time and money. And if you ask them, they probably won't sound like they think of our college as highly as I do.
I went to college for photography. Waste of my time and money. On the other hand, my friend went to RIT, and he is now a very successful photojournalist working for many national publications, and he would tell you that it was worth the money. Me, on the other hand, I would photo assist at any opportunity, and have gotten to work for some big photographers, Got to assist for Joe Mcnally a few times, I learned more in a day watching him then I did in two months of college. Working in professional studio environments gave me an amazing education, blew college out of the water. But, everyone is different.
I think you should play piano instead..
I see where this is coming from but equally you argue this point for almost anything anyone studies. It seems to miss the point that 3 or more years in a school is a space and time to learn and shape your craft. To spend time with like minded people and have unrestricted time to practice. Would you suggest John Mayer wasted his time going to Berkley? He skipped loads of classes and just spent time practising an instrument he could play before he went.
And what makes the author believe, that in music or performance arts things are any different than in photography?
Those private conservatories and music colleges are making good money from mostly people who'll never make a reasonable careers and most likely end up being married or working some mind-numbing other job not related to music.
Even the gear-heads are the same, investing thousands of dollar a piece for instruments which they will hope give them just the right sound or timbre. And on the top end, companies like Bösendorfer or Steinway are probably making more business with rich amateurs than professional musicians for their top of the line pianos.
Same with workshops and private lessons from the stars. I would go as far as saying that music workshops have longer tradition than workshops related to photography.
As to the career perspectives, musicians have a solid reputation of living at the edge of poverty working thankless jobs like bar pianists, commercial jingles, children's parties or in the marching band doing five parades a day in Disney World. Quite a few are even busking in the city centre or the subway to get a few dimes in their hat.
As to the costs of education, most people won't ever make back the money they invested into their art education. Some will even spend the rest of their lives working off that debt. Is that clever? Probably not, but not really less clever than getting a MBA to work later as drone in the marketing or human resources department. People going for the art degree at least have a bigger chance of having fun during their studies and they tried to live their dream. They also learned something useful for their personal life instead of just training to become a corporate drone.
You have clearly not heard of institutions such as Academy of Contemporary Music near London… People are spending $100,000 to learn to play guitar, or bass, or drums, or music production.
But that aside, you have to remember the one thing everyone overlooks in these arguments. At no point do these courses claim they are teaching you how to run a business, only to learn how to take pictures.
So its a bit harsh to criticise a course for not achieving what they never said they were setting out to achieve.
Sure… learning general photography at college, and upon leaving attempting the wedding market is never a sure thing. But going to college cannot be measured on that alone.
Instead think of the photographic students at London College of Fashion. Although learning the camera and studio techniques is what from the surface you would state happens during the term, its the other more important things that seem to be forgotten. There is the portfolio build, by using industry standard studios. But most importantly, its the networking.
Being in a building that is packed with the next up and coming makeup & hair artists, wardrobe stylists and designers is what helps prepare you for life. You get to easily build and create your teams, in which you will use at your disposal as you grow.
Where did my comment on Coursera go? It was completely relevant.
CENSORED I guess....
Thanks FStoppers!
We have some issues with the commenting system. I highly doubt it was censored.
What a great article. Love the comparison between music & photography :)
I think this is my favorite line in this article
"You might also be thinking that for $100,000 I’m going to be learning from a really famous and successful musician, but that isn’t the case. Although I’m sure there are many legitimate guitar teachers out there, I’m going to learn from someone locally who tried to become a professional musician but could never make enough money in the music industry so they decided to teach guitar lessons instead."
THAT is so incredibly true! haha
I see what you did there
good writing (Y)
This is the worst article I've ever read. You can learn guitar for way less than $100,000. What a waste of money!!
What is happening to this website?
It's not about the guitar LOL