Rock musicians with musical education.

The school of hard knocks will always be relevant.  Actual performance experience is necessary no matter how much innate talent a musician has.  Having said that, while it has become almost "in vogue" to suggest that a formal music education somehow diminishes a player's potential, even a liability, as a true artist nothing could be further from the truth.  Of course, there have been great players who, for a variety of reasons, became successful and reached a level that can rightfully be called artistic without attending a conservatory, a formal education can add immeasurably to a player's potential.  Also, keep in mind that a "formal" education can be pursued without attending a conservatory.  Many great players have studied privately and extensively outside of a "school" setting.  

Since mention has been made of Jazz guitarists, guess what all of the following have in common?  All attended music conservatory.  A small sampling:

Pat Metheny

Jim Hall

Stanley Jordan

Ben Munder

Emily Remler

Bill Frisell

John Scofield

Kenny Burrell

Herb Ellis

Kurt Rosenwinkel

Mike Stern

Al DiMeola

Julian Lage

Larry Corryel

John Abercrombie

Peter Bernstein

Larry Carlton

All that you write is true, but there is much more to it all than that. Of course, technical ability does not necessarily mean good taste. HOWEVER, extraordinary technical ability opens many doors (musical possibilities) to the player with innate, or developing good taste/musicality. There’s no getting around that. A very innately musical player with limited technical ability may be able to make great use of that limited technical ability in great service to the music, but he will still be.......limited; and, eventually those limitations will be obvious if he ventures outside of his musical comfort zone.

One of the other things to consider in all this is that the genre in question comes into play. This is obviously not at all a comment on or criticism of one genre vs another, but let’s get real. Grasp of advanced harmonic theory, for instance, which is something that requires serious study (formal or otherwise) is not required for the vast majority of Pop and R&R music. Likewise, the kind of incredible technical command necessary for much Classical, particularly modern Classical, and much of Jazz is simply not required for other genres. A Rock drummer may have a fantastic pocket, but most will fall apart playing a Don Ellis chart.

Control, finesse and good taste are not genre specific and are hallmarks of good musicianship regardless of genre. Add tasteful use of a boundless technique to the mix and you have something really special.

As I see it, it is really pointless to insinuate that great chops are anything but a plus for a musician and lack of it is sometimes becomes an excuse for one’s limitations.

**** Now, name any formally-educated songwriter you care to cite, and compare his or her compostions with those of, say, Brian Wilson, Paul McCartney, or John Lennon. Whose songs do you prefer?.... ****

Since we are mixing genres, just one of several that come to mind:

George Gershwin

**** Education cannot transform modest talent into genius.... ****

Absolutely true, but it can and has elevated modest talent to, if not genius, much higher levels than what some considered "modest" at one time in that musician’s career. Many established and revered players considered John Coltrane a hack early in his career.

**** Studying J.S. Bach’s compositions will help one understand them, but not necessarily how to write like he ****

True....mostly. If, of course, one thinks Bach was the greatest composer to ever live. A subjective call. Moreover, if one considers the inevitable stylistic evolution of the genre it becomes difficult to make that call. Perhaps not quite on the same exalted level of the Baroque style as Bach himself, but most of the great composers that followed Bach studied his works extensively and part of their training (formal or otherwise) was precisely to compose works in the style of Bach. Mozart, who I think most would agree was also a genius, studied privately with Bach himself. Genius and all, one has to wonder what Mozart’s music would be like had there been no Bach. By the same token, Bach studied the works of composers that predated such as Telemann and Palestrina very diligently.

We tend to like to put the answers to these questions into neat and tidy boxes. They are usually anything but.

stuartk, thanks for responding to what I wrote. Please tell me exactly what it was I wrote that might give that impression. I wrote nothing remotely like that. What you quote doesn’t suggest that in the least in the context of the totality of what I wrote.

I think some of you miss the point. No one has claimed that being a virtuoso guarantees that they will produce memorable music. The point is simply that having a larger, more diverse musical arsenal opens up a lot more musical possibilities to the player and can elevate the playing of a tasteful player to a higher level. That is a simple reality.

On the subject of "complexity" in a musician’s playing, or in music in general. Open minded listeners who like a "simpler" style should consider that SOMETIMES it is simply a personal preference for that particular style, or can be a negative reaction to a style that is outside his/her comfort zone as a listener and not necessarily a reflection of the player’s talent; or depth of the music in absolute terms.  It is usually a good idea as a listener to keep an open mind toward expanding that comfort zone; just as it is for musicians.

**** Who gave you permission to root around in my brain? ****
😊