|
View Poll Results: Do you support this idea and would you be willing to support it? | |||
Nope this idea sucks | 7 | 50.00% | |
Yes I love the idea and would support it and if it is developed help spread the word | 7 | 50.00% | |
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That being said, I don't yet have an electric with a cutaway. I look forward to the exploration down the road.
__________________
"Militantly left-handed." Lefty Acoustics Martin 00-15M Taylor 320e Baritone Cheap Righty Classical (played upside down ala Elizabeth Cotten) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
When they asked Earl Klugh why he doesn't play above the 12th fret. He replied " Everything I need is in within the 12 frets on the guitar."
__________________
2003 Froggy Bottom H-12 Deluxe 2019 Cordoba C-12 Cedar 2016 Godin acoustic archtop 2011 Godin Jazz model archtop |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yeah, I can imagine, physically, why shredders do it, because the fret space is finger width, it's very fast, and with amps and distortion sounds good.
__________________
"Militantly left-handed." Lefty Acoustics Martin 00-15M Taylor 320e Baritone Cheap Righty Classical (played upside down ala Elizabeth Cotten) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
This is like telling the sopranos in the choir to stay home. You are not needed here
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
No soprano insult intended. My own guitar doesn't sound good about the 12th or I'm not good enough to make it sound good. Certainly possible.
__________________
"Militantly left-handed." Lefty Acoustics Martin 00-15M Taylor 320e Baritone Cheap Righty Classical (played upside down ala Elizabeth Cotten) Last edited by SunnyDee; 04-21-2017 at 11:58 AM. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I was just responding to some of these generalities about higher notes on guitars don't lend much and how all the good stuff is in the fret 3-8 range. The instrument would get pretty boring, at least for instrumentals, if the whole spectrum of notes aren't used. One of its strengths is in its range. And the comment about Earl Klugh. He is one of may favorites, but he plays a 12-fret classical, so he does run out of road quickly. But if you listen to him he's reaching for those 14 and 15 frets quite often and they sound great!! |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
He mostly plays a high quality nylon string classical guitar. He prefers the sonorous sounds he can get from it, and therefore looks for any opportunity to utilize open strings where possible. He told me he prefers that most of an arrangement of his would be in the middle and lower areas of the fretboard. That does not mean that he never approaches the 12th fret, but that he prefers not to stay there very long. Qualey does an arrangement of "Jesu" in which he puts a capo somwhere up around the 7th fret. When he plays it up there, it has a nice ringing quality to it. However, most of his arrangements are in the mid and lower regions of the fretboard, occasionally going up to the 12th fret because that is simply how he likes the sound of his music. I think that when talking about something like this, interpreting or adapting an all-or-nothing stance is not going to be accurate and could cause completely unnecessary disagreement. Instead, looking at it as a matter of preference on the part of the arranger and musicians involved makes (at least to me) much more sense. So some of the comments in response to what was said about playing higher up on the fretboard seem a bit unnecessary in the big picture. Not everybody has the same ideas as to what sounds good, and that really shouldn't be offensive, nor interpreted as they have been here, to anybody. Tony
__________________
“The guitar is a wonderful thing which is understood by few.” — Franz Schubert "Alexa, where's my stuff?" - Anxiously waiting... |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When a person states something in the forums, it can be difficult to be sure we reading it, really know how the post was meant, the scope of the statement, the perspective, etc. If we keep that in mind and possibly look for more than one interpretation or take the statment in a broader scope than our initial sense of it, maybe that will help. Tony
__________________
“The guitar is a wonderful thing which is understood by few.” — Franz Schubert "Alexa, where's my stuff?" - Anxiously waiting... |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think the so-called teacher, who is a person who has developed himself to a certain level of achievement, possibly (hopefully) understands that same achievement has merely opened his eyes to what he doesn't know and, especially, why he lacks the knowledge he does: Self limitation through musical self-gratification. It's this latter thought that drives him less as a teacher and more as an errant student of his craft as time goes on. Ultimately, he might outwardly possess the stuff of a teacher but the rebellious student in him, the more professional persona, humbles that to a hard truth. I think that is the way of the web-based music instrument teachers so, even though they might wax a teaching role, the best they can do is present the material the student is interested in by a demonstrative method. This method, cobbled together and labeled a lesson, really isn't unless it is fully vested in a bonafide lesson plan with the necessary accompanying material such as standard notation and theory that supports it. That's the stuff of a fully rounded musical instrument teacher. Both my sons were exposed to this kind of teacher and now they play their instruments by sight-reading scores and can cite the theory beneath it. Without knowing a foreign language both can simply sit in an ensemble, band and/or orchestra situation, pick up a score and play along to their own contentment. That is not the stuff of web-based demonstrative methods, though it could very well be developed to that level provided the demonstrator is capable of it. Anything short of that is a demonstrative method of taking a person to a level of play that really isn't teaching them as a musical instrument teacher. They are more demonstrators than teachers, and they know it. The flip side of this is an acceptance of a demonstrative guide, in place of a real teacher, in a new world order that disdains the arduous task of learning and welcomes the manifold abbreviated methods that better satisfy instant gratification. That is the new student/teacher combination of today and so glaringly representative of a dumbed down society on a downward spiral technology has us on. Why struggle with learning it when it can be demonstrated or otherwise go-ogled? So, even though you have assembled much of your material and presented it as lessons, and it has been accepted as such, are we really calling that teaching or demonstrating? |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You pose an interesting question and by your own definition, I absolutely do believe that my method is that of teaching, and not merely demonstrating, although the latter is a part of the lesson plan. Each and every one of the students that I have personally taught and currently teach has at my request, given me a detailed description of what they have learned so far and more importantly, what their individual goals are. From that criteria I devise what you have called a ‘bonafide lesson plan.’ Of course, any teacher worth their salt will realize that the plan must be flexible as to accommodate both the students learning abilities and method of learning, along with their desire to add or change those initial goals based on the new material they are being exposed to. Your other definition of a qualified teacher is one who presents supportive musical theory. This is something that I encourage my students to understand, as it can further illuminate the reasons as to how the music is shaped, is related to other forms of music, performed, and equally as important can be improvised upon. One of the examples of where we part ways is in notation. As 100% of the students I teach are adults who are interested in traditional, roots based music such as blues, and how ragtime, rock, jazz, country, old-time, and even bluegrass is uniquely intertwined, sight reading isn’t at all required, and I've yet to see a guitarist of those genres perform with sheet music in front of them. Besides, most, if not all of my students have no desire to spend a few years learning how to read music in preparation to start studying these genres, nor in my opinion do they even need to. What I use is tab, and while not as comprehensive as musical notation can be, it is, along with the musical theory, quite adequate in conveying the music. Rest assured, that while I don’t teach my students to sit in with a formal ensemble such as an orchestra, they are fully taught how to participate with others in a jam session, if of course that is one of their desired goals. It is abundantly clear that our definitions of what a musical instructor differ. It appears your definition of a music teacher is the type that taught your sons how to sight- read standard notation, thus enabling them to sit in with any given ensemble, band, or orchestra, and understand the theory behind it all, and yes, that is one definition. Aside from the theory, my students on the other hand have no desire to do that. What they want instead is to learn how to fingerpick acoustic roots music and as I said in my previous post, I not only TEACH them how to do that, but also TEACH them the concepts behind the music, the theory, how to add ideas of their own to the music, improvise and if they want, how to perform and play with others who also enjoy that music. That, Pitar, is the difference between a teacher who just shows someone how to play a song by rote (demonstrative) and the one who teaches them how to make that song a part of their DNA. Finally, I believe that there is room for qualified instructors in both the 'formal' camps of orchestral musicians and the 'informal' camps of musicians. As long as the method of TEACHING is complete and comprehensive, students of both studies will most certainly benefit.
__________________
Fingerpicking Acoustic Blues/Rag/Folk/Slide Lessons https://www.tobywalkerslessons.com/ Last edited by Toby Walker; 04-22-2017 at 06:52 AM. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
I can understand why someone would consider teaching on the internet demonstrative, as opposed to true teaching. I think that's true.
I think true teaching involves real time give and take, questions, answers, immediate corrections, prodding, urging, and help. I don't think any of that can take place with remote connections, recorded lessons and internet access. I don't think it can happen with music, or college, or any kind of real learning. It's nothing more than watching. Now, there may not be anything wrong with it, but it's not teaching in my book. It's showing. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
I think this concept is explored somewhat by Jamplay already with the teachers available through live chat and webcam. Personally I do like the idea of being able to connect with a live teacher on Skype or whatever else medium is used to get some guidance however they need to be paid. Nobody should work for free. Personally I'm sick of one way sites and videos. They rarely deviate from showing the same concepts in a non-musical fashion, especially what I've seen in regards to learning scales. I am working on barre chords now in the Learn & Master Guitar series. The next lesson in the series is pentatonics. I'm definitely getting private lessons again for that concept. None of the free resources have answered my questions on scales and musical application. A live teacher has shown me ways of application in the past that many vireos just didn't explore or couldn't address my needs.
So, overall, the concept is sort cool but do work in a paid system. It's enough of the race to the bottom everything should be free mindset out there. Aim to be more structured and thorough in anticipating what a student needs to know and how to apply concepts musically with examples to practice and encouragement to be creative with the new information. Last edited by Jusca; 04-24-2017 at 07:31 AM. |