From watching the 'Brits' awards the other day.... WTF is 'Brit School'. apparently there were loads of people in the audience down the front from 'Brit School'. even the guy from Arctic Monkeys said something like "I recognise a few of you from Brit School", and they got a couple of other shout-outs. I think Kate Nash said something like "Big up all my westside niggaz down wit the mudhafuckin Brit School", or whatever.

Please don't tell me there's some kind of academy where pretentious indie snots can go and 'study' indie, in order to form some new random shitty indie band, wandering round the campus wearing tweed jackets and a copy of Aldus Huxley's 'Doors Of Perception' in their pocket for added cool points, and some foppy white boy hairstyle going on...

send in the Taliban IMO

Oh sweet Jesus Lord of Mercy...

http://www.brit.croydon.sch.uk/

meh..I hate it. bands aren't supposed to be institutionalised little boxes that come off some convayer-belt marked 'indie'...kurt cobain would be twisting in his grave at this shit. (he was a very fucked up individual so he is probably twisting in his grave anyway. this would make him do a 360 or something, but that's not the point). no need for this...

I don't see the problem, really. It's just a performing art school and plenty of people have gone to them and become successful. The only difference I can see is that it happens to be sponsored by the Brits, giving its pupils an advantage, as evidenced by the success of Kate Nash.

bwheuhuhh. yeh. totally. right on.

If you don't like any of their music, don't listen to it. I can't stand any of the mainstream stuff these days, but there's no shortage of stuff I do like. I don't see why it's anything to get worked up about.

It's a just a free performing arts school, the only one in the country. Applicants are selected based on talent, not whether they can pay the fees. Nowt wrong with vocational education based on merit.

I think it's largely there for talented kids at schools that can't afford to focus on the creative arts. It's not really different from any other stage school, other than that you don't have to pay to go there, thanks to the Brits (who sponsor them) and the great British taxpayer.

It's not an indie conveyor belt, if it was they wouldn't have spawned Katie Melua.

They have to do their GCSEs and that too.

I imagine it to be exactly like the TV series 'The Biz', except with Amy Winehouse instead of Paul Nicholls.

There's the problem. Producers and labels seem more intent on pooling 'talent' from places like this than actually finding talented people these days. More cost-effective, I should imagine.

Who are these indie bands coming off the conveyer-belt? What has Kurt Cobain got to do with "indie" music (he was quite happy to sign up for Geffen when he got the chance)?

Can't see what the problem is. No complaints about a school for acting, art or classical music. It's not exactly a school just for "pop" music either.

I think people's problems with the place arise mainly just from its name.

I think it's because pop (in most forms) is traditionally (in the post-war period) seen as an area where 'training' and 'learning a craft' aren't done at a school, they're done by playing the clubs, and the dives, and so on.

Pop has been about rebellion a lot of the time, so whenever something comes along to make it 'mainstream' or conform it in some way, people don't like it. I certainly don't. The pop that's coming out of the Brit school is similar to the Stock/Aitken/Waterman music of the 80's; it feels 'branded' to me somehow, it has aboslutely no heart or soul whatsoever.

It's just a stage school. Understandable if you object to all stage schools, but surely the Brit School is the best, rather than the worst, example as it's free and entry is based on talent not money.

They still have to do regular lessons, there's just a focus on the performing arts. I'm sure they don't get favourable treatment from the Brits, because they're sponsored by them, the kids get free tickets to the show - but if anything that seems like a punishment.

The Artic Monkeys certainly gave them 'what for' with their hilarious satirising - they so cool.

But it's NOT a Pop school. It's a performing arts school "dedicated to education and vocational training for the performing arts, media, art and design and the technologies" - courses that really have been taught in normal colleges around the country.

The acts may still be playing clubs and dives. Learning your craft in a class is as valid as doing it in your bedroom, and once they leave the school I don't exactly think the school becomes their booking agent or pays for their tour!

And what is the pop that is coming out of the Brit School? Over it's 16 years how many acts can you think that have come from there. Personally I can think of three, but only name 2.

Given that Adele got an award for turning up the other night, I think some of the do get special treatment.

Although sending the snotty little bastards to the Brits is quite an evil punishment, tis true.

ETA: Amy Winehouse, Katie Melua, Kate Nash, Adele, The Kooks, The Feeling, and Athlete are all acts who have attended. And my previous statement stands. They all have the same branded, homogenized feel to them, ther's no substance to any of their music. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

I'm from Croydon where Brit school is, and while of course it's full of kids singing 'Fame' and all that, it's a really good place. They don't just teach things like dance, music, theatre, etc, but also teach behind the scenes things like lighting, sound, and things like that.

I can't see what the problem is with people going to college to learn a trade in the performing arts? I study Film and Television, and while I may do this at a University, surely there's very little difference apart from me paying thousands upon thousands of pounds to do it?

EDIT: Also, I notice people have been saying that producers and agents favour people who have gone to Brit school. Is that a wrong thing to do? It's just like favouring people who have got a degree or had lots of work experience over those who haven't. It shows that they've worked hard and got a lot of ambition.

So 7 big acts in 16 years! OK the Kooks really are one of shittiest acts in world.
But whether you think they all have the same "feel" is a personal thing. I like some of those acts, I hate some, I wouldn't think they are all that comparable.

The "normal" music scene churns out just as much, if not more, shit.

It feels wrong, somehow. Sure, getting a qualification in Applied Pop may be all nice and stuff, but it's hardly in the spirit of rebellion and whatnot. I don't think I'd get the same excitement out of watching a performing arts student setting fire to a guitar as I would Jimi Hendrix.

I know I'm nit-picking, but surely someone out there knows what I'm getting at?

I feels right to me. At least in one major area.

Schools such as Sylvia Young or Italia Conti have churned out youngsters that have ended up in "manufactured" bands for years. But there is little criticism for them.

Unlike those schools, Brit School offers a FREE education to those that would otherwise not have their talents nurtured in a school enviroment, if they wanted to.

If you have some ability/talent on guitar, piano, singing etc and want to improve yourself what would you choose - normal school and graft away in the eveing? A paid school full of precocious kids? Or a free education that allows you time and tution to improve yourself in your chosen field?

You may not like the results (though it seems many others do), but you can't deny the place offers opportunities to those that may not otherwise get them in a good way.

No I agree in that the majority of bands that have 'made it' and went to Brit school aren't exciting musically, but that's not to say that everyone who's studied there is exactly the same. I know a certain somebody on this forum studies there (the production side rather than the performance side), and they're having a great time from what I've heard. It's just another way of getting your foot on the ladder.

I'm sure many do, and are far less patronising about it.

And yes, it's good that the education is free.

I wanted to go to one of these stage school when little wee girl so I could be a Pink Windmill kid or on telly shows. I thought it would be the best things ever. But alas, we were too poor and northern or else I would be up there in the chorus of We Will Rock You like the best of them.

I have nothing against these schools per se. Talent is obvious to us all and for every Winehouse and Piper (from Sylvia's), there are 12 dozen Meluas. The public will not be hoodwinked for long.

When i was at school the whole LIPA Paul McCartney school thing was being 'pushed' but then it went quiet since they take mostly foreign students due to the fee prices needed to sustain the place. I think things are better now although the alumni rates 2 actors from Hollyoaks at best. My bro's good mate's daughter was also in that show (i only recently realised who she was) with no formal training and got TV award nominations to boot so it shows - training can help but things can vary so much.

I see where you're coming from but disagree with your terminology. Pop stopped being about rebellion when it came of age sometime in the late '60s/early '70s. That's when it first went 'mainstream', hence the evolution of punk, New Romantics, indie, urban, grunge, etc etc. These are the forms rebellion takes, and they too evolve as they either run their course or become mainstream themselves.

Pop music is meant to be some kind of escapism. As the name suggests, it's fizzy and frothy. Individual songs and artistes are plastic and throwaway and ultimately dispensible because there'll always be someone else coming along behind. Which is why very few performers stand the test of time and those that do are usually scorned and admired in equal doses (Cliff Richard, Abba, Beatles/Paul McCartney).

The danger of a city academy like the BRIT school - and it's NOT a stage school - is that it appears to manufacture one 'brand' of contemporary music, and that (I believe) is to everyone's loss. If the school taught a wider music curriculum - including teaching some of these singers to actually SING properly - I'd look on it a lot more favourably.

I know exactly what you're getting at.

But go watch 'Amadeus' again to remind yourself that this is not a new phenomenon but has been going on for hundreds of years in the music industry.