So if you wanted to practice law you'd go to law school and learn a million different case studies and precedents and legal codes and you'd debate and you'd write briefs and it'd take you three years after you got your bachelor's.

But if you wanted to learn how to dig a hole, you'd buy a shovel.

I'm not saying mixing is as simple as digging a hole. But I am saying it's not as hard as practicing law. It's not about difficulty or ease - I mean, I'd much rather practice law than dig holes. It takes a lot more knowledge and expertise. But there's an art to digging holes that you won't learn by sitting in a classroom learning about shovels.

Here's a great set of tools for working on medium to heavy engines and equipment.

Here's a great set of tools for working on bicycles.

Places like Berklee try real hard to convince you that if you have the former, you'll be good at fixing bicycles... when in fact you need the latter but you need to know how to use them.

And the only way to know what you're doing is to fix bicycles. Berklee will not give you hands-on experience fixing bicycles - they'll charge you a shit ton to work on like three bicycles in the most overstuffed bike shop on the planet and then you'll venture forth and discover that the guys who are actually making money at this can fix the shit out of a bicycle with a Leatherman and a ball peen hammer while there you are, with your 800lbs of Snap-Ons, unsure of what to do with a leaky inner tube.

That was a really tortured analogy. I'm rambling and hungry. But the bottom line is there are avocations heavy on theory and there are avocations heavy on practice and mixing sound is a practice-heavy avocation.

Does that make sense?