This is only partially true. In the major studios back in the "golden age" -- when there was a
business model to sustain truly professional operations -- one didn't walk in with a bunch of talent
and bright eyes and get behind a board. One usually started by sweeping floors and doing
setups/take-downs. After years of slow progress, one would finally get to run a session if he had
paid close attention and shown progress. Many didn't get that far. It was the same with disk-cutting
and any other skill-trade related to audio. There was a defined apprentice/mentor system. Plus, at
the biggest places, union rules requires a series of job steps. The quality level went way down when
this business model died off. Nowadays, anyone with a Mac computer and some microphones can call
himself a "studio." The general level of sound quality with top-selling music today reflects this
sad fact.
To Mal's greater point, that talent and creativity trumps a pile of degrees, I say this is again
partially true. Many jobs today require a certain baseline of facts and learned tasks/skills that
are best acquired through formal education. But, you can acquire all those tasks/skills in spades
and still not be qualified for a job that requires street smarts and thinking on your feet, which
would be most decent-paying jobs today. Also, there seems to be an inverse relationship in some
fields between higher learning levels and people skills. I would suggest that people skills trump
everything else in the job world today. Leadership and motivational/cajoling/convincing skills are
paramount.
One man's opinions, etc.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Rockwell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] PT Audio Archivist
> David Breneman wrote:
>> --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Daniel Lopatin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> My father survived 25+ years in the high tech industry with
>>> no more than an
>>> electrical engineering degree earned in 1971 because he was
>>> open minded,
>>> eager to learn, embraced change and exhibited super
>>> creativity. Are these
>>> not also fundamental "requirements" needed to get mostly
>>> ~any~ job?
>>
>>
>> I've worked for 20+ years as a Unix systems engineer (and
>> have done so mostly for Fortune 500 companies) and my
>> degree is in economics, with a minor in Asian studies.
>> You don't need formal education in a subject to be
>> proficient; but whether unfortunately or not, today it
>> seems to matter more and more. The Fortran programming
>> I learned on the school's VAX 11/780 has been of little
>> use to me (beyinf learning good programming practices)
>> since things change so fast. When I started *most*
>> sysadmins fell into the work from doing something else.
>> Now they're trained to do it in college. I'm glad
>> I have liberal arts degree instead.
>>
>> *******
>>
> Indeed. "Back in the day" Recording Engineers had little or no formal audio education and used
> their ears and talent to determine and develop what they felt sounded good. In the 1960s some
> studios offered courses in how to be an engineer and somewhat later the universities picked up on
> it and began cranking out accredited engineers like cookies from a cookie cutter. The result? A
> large generation of mediocre engineers who all tended to sound alike and had little creativity
> behind the board.
> I've heard the same is true of "method" trained guitarists. They mostly end up sounding like their
> teacher, at least initially. Most quit playing shortly after graduation and those that survive
> really have to be on top of their talent to do any better than lounge acts.
> Point is that talent will almost always have more creativity then "schooled," whether we're
> talking about audio librarians, recording engineers or musicians, and rising above and surpassing
> one's limitations is necessary before one can get really good at what one does.
> Even the untalented can do it, but it's harder!
> Mal Rockwell
>
|