To Learn, or to Copy?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Nailpicker

I can't help but disagree. It is not a false distinction. Nor does one automatically (or usually) learn by copying. When a student is taking a test, doesn't know the answer to a question, looks over the shoulder of the person in front of him and copies the answer to his test sheet he hasn't really learned anything.

You're missing my point - read the rest of my post. I was saying you need to ask questions about what you're copying, that's how you learn.

In terms of technique alone - which doesn't apply to your analogy - copying is OK because you're simply building technique by playing the guitar. Any kind of playing is good for that. The more you play anything, the better your hands get. But that's all.
To improve your ear, you need to listen as you do it.
To improve your understanding, you need to ask questions as you do it.
Of course, if you can't answer those questions yourself, you need to do some digging or asking elsewhere.

(more later...)

[Nailpicker]

Originally Posted by JonPR

You're missing my point - read the rest of my post.

I did read your entire post as evidenced by my quotes from toward the end of it. I could be missing your point. As I said, semantics can be quite oblique.
And seemingly you are missing my point, which is also o.k.

Originally Posted by JonPR

(more later...)

O.k., but please not for my sake. I'm fairly certain we are talking on oblique paths. As I said, I have no desire, time or intent to go tit for tat. It would be pointless. You, of course, are free to your opinions and way of expressing them.
And I, of course, mine. (gr?) Let's figuratively shake hands and agree to disagree

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JonPR

"To Learn or to Copy" is a false distincton! You learn by copying.

You just have to think about what (and why) you're copying.
Copying without thinking is still beneficial, because your technique will improve.
But thinking about what you're doing - asking (yourself) questions about it - will improve your understanding too.

Sample questions:
"Does this tab sound correct?" (If not, why not?)
"How does this tune resemble other tunes I've copied? What elements does it share?"
"How does it differ?"
"What are the names for those elements (the common ones and the different ones)?"
"What are the effects of these differences?"
"If I'm playing the right notes, why doesn't it sound right?"
"How can I make it sound better?"
"What key is this tune in? How can I tell?"
"If it's in that key, what's this chord doing there?" (I.e., literally what is it "doing" - what's its job, its function? why did the composer put it there?)
"Does this song change key, or is it the same key all the way?"
"How does the melody fit the chords?"
"Why did this improviser choose these notes for their solo?"

Music theory will obviously give you some of the answers, and it will give you some jargon to help frame more questions. It will open up the territory to some extent. But it won't really explain why things "work". You can learn a hell of a lot by just interrogating the music you currently play. Pin it down! Torture it! Make it talk!

When it comes to learning the guitar itself, that's much easier. Learn the notes on each fret for a start (that will answer many of the above questions!). Learn chord shapes all over the neck. This can be time-consuming, but you don't need books, just a little common sense, knowledge of the musical alphabet, and an average ear. Maybe some fretboard diagrams to record what you discover, help you remember.

To this end, you can add two more questions to the above:
"How can I play this tab in a different position, in the same key?"
"How can I play this tab in a different key (in any position)?"

Very nicely laid out. I agree 100%.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by TBman

Believe it or not, get a small keyboard and learn to read the notation of scales on the notes on the keyboard. The piano is the gateway.

^^^^ This^^^^.....

... And seek out a (live) teacher who specializes in teaching jazz guitar. Put your ego in your back pocket because you're going to have to learn to read real music. It will be slow AT FIRST, but honestly reading music isn't that hard. For the most part in terms of reading standard notation you have to learn which notes are represented on the staff and where they appear on the fingerboard. Then, perhaps a tad harder and totally unrelated to tablature are learning rhythms and how each measure is divided up into different note lengths. It's just a graphic representation of simple division.

A lot of folks talk about "learning theory". That's all well and good, but I'll tell you, learn a bunch of songs and you'll start to see repeating relationships. IMO most folks learn better with a point of musical experiential reference to absorb the theory. So I say forget the theory at the beginning and one you introduce after getting some playing under your belt theory will be a piece of cake. As a music ed major I did just fine in college music theory classes with only my guitar experience as my foundation.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Looburst]

I personally have learned everything I know about guitar from copying the originals. Nothing wrong with that if it helps you learn more up and down the fretboard. Copying something has always opened up something else on the guitar for me.

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

A lot of folks talk about "learning theory". That's all well and good, but I'll tell you, learn a bunch of songs and you'll start to see repeating relationships. IMO most folks learn better with a point of musical experiential reference to absorb the theory. So I say forget the theory at the beginning and one you introduce after getting some playing under your belt theory will be a piece of cake. As a music ed major I did just fine in college music theory classes with only my guitar experience as my foundation.

And that's all I have to say about that.

My personal theory is that a major factor in being naturally good at music is the ability to quickly recognize patterns. If you're not good at that, and I'm not, I think learning theory can point those patterns out to you and help you catch up.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Nailpicker

I did read your entire post as evidenced by my quotes from toward the end of it. I could be missing your point. As I said, semantics can be quite oblique.
And seemingly you are missing my point, which is also o.k.




O.k., but please not for my sake. I'm fairly certain we are talking on oblique paths. As I said, I have no desire, time or intent to go tit for tat. It would be pointless. You, of course, are free to your opinions and way of expressing them.
And I, of course, mine. (gr?) Let's figuratively shake hands and agree to disagree

OK, you're right this is mostly semantics! (Disregard my previous post, which I didn't have time to think over properly.)

When I think of "copying", I don't think of your analogy of cheating in an exam - of copying in order to merely get a right answer, while getting out of having to understand something. I think of listening to recordings to learn them by ear. That's the most valuable kind of musical "copying" and is - after all - how most non-classical musicians learn their craft. It's how (eg) Wes Montgomery learned, by copying Charlie Christian records. I'm sure you wouldn't call that "cheating"!

I extend that to copying from any other resource. The point is always in order to understand, to learn. Not to just parrot what another musician has done.

IOW, it's not that copying is always the same as learning - clearly it isn't - but that copying (in some form) is an essential part of the learning process.

How do we learn to speak? By copying our parents. Trying to make the same sounds. Music is hardly any different, in many cultures. It's an aural language that is learned by copying those already skilled in it.

I taught myself through various kinds of copying: (1) copying notation in high school; (2) copying chords from a tutor book; (3) copying melodies and chord sequences from songbooks; (4) copying other songs and guitar parts (fingerstyle patterns, solos etc) by transcribing from records; (5) copying ideas and licks from other people in the band I was in.
If I'd had a teacher, than I would have copied what he was showing me.
(Oh yes, I also copied some ideas from music theory books...)

How else does one learn anything? (Yes, semantics, right? )

Of course, I agree that simply parroting (as if one is nothing but a mindless recording machine) is not creative in any way, and has a dead hand effect on music in general. If we want to hear a copy of a great tune, we can just play the original recording again. That's the beauty of audio recording!

The point of copying is to amass a whole load of raw material that we then use in whatever way we want, to make the sounds we want to make. We can't create without first acquiring a vocabulary.

We can still cover someone else's song, but we do it our way. It might not be as good, but at least it's honestly different, an expression of our own.
Only a tribute band (IMO) should consciously attempt to mimic an original as close as possible - and that's only so that they can perform it live because the original band either no longer exists or would charge too much for tickets!

I know there are different schools of thought on whether (in an average covers band) one should copy original guitar solos or improvise one's own. I lean to the latter, but where the solo is iconic (one of the hooks of the original) I do like to at least take original phrases from it, to honour it in that way.
I.e., I could easily improvise my own solo, but I recognise that people often like to hear the original reproduced live, because it's an essentially different experience from listening to a CD or MP3.

So, I "copy" the original solo - I transcribe it and "learn" it. I won't struggle to play it note for note - because nobody is paying me to do that. I understand (from my previous learning) how and why it works, and can easily adapt it - improvise on it - if I want.

[RustyAxe]

I didn't read the thread ... but did anyone suggest an instructor? You know, a real live human person who can assess where one is now, get a feel for where one wants to be in the next year (or more), and set one on a path to success. Tabs, books, internet tutorials are useful, but as the OP knows, there's a big difference between "learning" songs by rote and having an understand of the music behind it, and being able to apply that knowledge to new things. It's one thing to read a book on theory, but another to learn theory by learning songs in which the principle is applied and is heard.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by RustyAxe

It's one thing to read a book on theory, but another to learn theory by learning songs in which the principle is applied and is heard.

Right on!

[raggedymike]

I struggled with this same question early in my life. Unfortunately, as life got in the way I put the question aside and simply continued learning other people's pieces. Now that I am retired I am trying to fill some of the holes in my understanding of the guitar and of music in general. One tool that I have found to be invaluable (and eye opening) is Howard Morgen's video course "Fingerboard Breakthrough". The course is available on Truefire, although some of the videos are available on Youtube.

Early on in this thread someone suggested using a keyboard to aid in learning theory. This makes sense as the notes are laid out in a much more logical fashion than they are on the guitar. What you really want, imho, is an understanding of the guitar fingerboard that will yield those same insights and I believe Howard's course can give you this understanding (assuming you give it the work it requires - you will not internalize this understanding simply by watching the videos).

Once you understand how to construct chords and their inversions anywhere on the fretboard you are much more likely to understand what other folks are doing when you learn their pieces and perhaps be able to apply it yourself in your own arrangements.

He also talks about "finding the moving line" in a song. Indeed, he says that he considers that it is his essential job as a musician to find and express that moving line.

Even if you don't manage to internalize his lessons (I am still struggling), the course is well worth it simply to hear a master talk about his instrument.

[Nailpicker]

Originally Posted by JonPR

OK, you're right this is mostly semantics! (Disregard my previous post, which I didn't have time to think over properly.)

When I think of "copying", I don't think of your analogy of cheating in an exam - of copying in order to merely get a right answer, while getting out of having to understand something. I think of listening to recordings to learn them by ear. That's the most valuable kind of musical "copying" and is - after all - how most non-classical musicians learn their craft. It's how (eg) Wes Montgomery learned, by copying Charlie Christian records. I'm sure you wouldn't call that "cheating"!

I extend that to copying from any other resource. The point is always in order to understand, to learn. Not to just parrot what another musician has done.

IOW, it's not that copying is always the same as learning - clearly it isn't - but that copying (in some form) is an essential part of the learning process.

How do we learn to speak? By copying our parents. Trying to make the same sounds. Music is hardly any different, in many cultures. It's an aural language that is learned by copying those already skilled in it.

I taught myself through various kinds of copying: (1) copying notation in high school; (2) copying chords from a tutor book; (3) copying melodies and chord sequences from songbooks; (4) copying other songs and guitar parts (fingerstyle patterns, solos etc) by transcribing from records; (5) copying ideas and licks from other people in the band I was in.
If I'd had a teacher, than I would have copied what he was showing me.
(Oh yes, I also copied some ideas from music theory books...)

How else does one learn anything? (Yes, semantics, right? )

Of course, I agree that simply parroting (as if one is nothing but a mindless recording machine) is not creative in any way, and has a dead hand effect on music in general. If we want to hear a copy of a great tune, we can just play the original recording again. That's the beauty of audio recording!

The point of copying is to amass a whole load of raw material that we then use in whatever way we want, to make the sounds we want to make. We can't create without first acquiring a vocabulary.

We can still cover someone else's song, but we do it our way. It might not be as good, but at least it's honestly different, an expression of our own.
Only a tribute band (IMO) should consciously attempt to mimic an original as close as possible - and that's only so that they can perform it live because the original band either no longer exists or would charge too much for tickets!

I know there are different schools of thought on whether (in an average covers band) one should copy original guitar solos or improvise one's own. I lean to the latter, but where the solo is iconic (one of the hooks of the original) I do like to at least take original phrases from it, to honour it in that way.
I.e., I could easily improvise my own solo, but I recognise that people often like to hear the original reproduced live, because it's an essentially different experience from listening to a CD or MP3.

So, I "copy" the original solo - I transcribe it and "learn" it. I won't struggle to play it note for note - because nobody is paying me to do that. I understand (from my previous learning) how and why it works, and can easily adapt it - improvise on it - if I want.

This post helps me better understand your thinking/views and I agree with many if still not all of them.

Note to self: I've gotta learn not to post in these sorts of threads. The prospects of miscommunication is too great. They're all about opinions, which are usually based mostly upon ones personal experiences. That's o.k. of course, but no ones opinions are better or worse than mine and mine are no better or worse than another's. Just kinda seems like a waste of time.

Regardless, thank you for taking the time to better clarify your opinions.

[Mr. Jelly]

This might not be the best way but I used and still use the shot gun approach to learning guitar. So of coarse learn the major and minor pentatonic scales in all keys. The major scale will just be there and you stumble onto it. That isn't that hard. While doing that start learning some music theory. When your head hearts switch over to learning figures or licks in the different keys. A little schooling in playing bass helps also. Do that on your guitar. You can do all this while getting into ragtime blues, the different blues as in country and Chicago etc. Work in some jazz chords and changes. Plus don't forget Bluegrass and old time country. Somewhere along the line the guitar will just be there to ramble on however you wish and allot of the mystery will be gone. You can't go wrong with this approach as you will be having fun the whole time. And that is the reason for playing guitar.

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by raggedymike

I struggled with this same question early in my life. Unfortunately, as life got in the way I put the question aside and simply continued learning other people's pieces. Now that I am retired I am trying to fill some of the holes in my understanding of the guitar and of music in general. One tool that I have found to be invaluable (and eye opening) is Howard Morgen's video course "Fingerboard Breakthrough". The course is available on Truefire, although some of the videos are available on Youtube.

Early on in this thread someone suggested using a keyboard to aid in learning theory. This makes sense as the notes are laid out in a much more logical fashion than they are on the guitar. What you really want, imho, is an understanding of the guitar fingerboard that will yield those same insights and I believe Howard's course can give you this understanding (assuming you give it the work it requires - you will not internalize this understanding simply by watching the videos).

Once you understand how to construct chords and their inversions anywhere on the fretboard you are much more likely to understand what other folks are doing when you learn their pieces and perhaps be able to apply it yourself in your own arrangements.

He also talks about "finding the moving line" in a song. Indeed, he says that he considers that it is his essential job as a musician to find and express that moving line.

Even if you don't manage to internalize his lessons (I am still struggling), the course is well worth it simply to hear a master talk about his instrument.

I looked him up since you mentioned him. A lot of interesting info there. The moving line, is, as far as I can tell, voice leading? I think he'd be a lot easier to understand if a person already has some fundamental understanding of harmony (theory), but a good resource all the same, and, absolutely, we need to really understand the patterns on the fretboard. Thanks for posting this.