Method learning vs. learning pieces

[gfsark]

My guitar teacher's approach is all about learning to play songs. "Bring in the piece you want to learn (any style, any level of difficulty) and I will show you how to play that piece." As part of learning the piece we segway into theory and technique, but the lesson is built around the piece.

I suspect he is responding to students who want to learn say 'Stairway to Heaven' and he'll lose the student if he doesn't start there. I'm looking for a more methodical approach that says, hey, if you want to learn to learn a certain style, this is a method that will take you there. This is what to listen to, this is your assignment, this is the piece we'll learn and why etc...

A method has these advantages: 1. the challenges are reduced to bite size nibbles. 2. Progress can be monitored. 3. Practice can be simplified. 4. I don't have to think up of what the lesson is going to be about. 5. the balance between technique, musicianship, theory, is already established.

Anyone have experience with going through a method to learn say fingerpicking or improvising along a certain style?

[hovishead]

I use a combination of both approaches with my teaching. A strict method approach can be pretty boring and unmusical. Listening/analyzing/imitating the music that you enjoy is pretty crucial IMO.

Learning to use your own ears (and not just his) should be one of your goals.

[RustyZombie]

I can only speak about my experience. I took some lessons to start with, learned some chords and strumming patterns and the like. But beyond that I am completely self-taught. I have discipline, but I have never been able to make myself do method exercises. The best approach for me has been to learn the songs or pieces that I want, and if a segment calls for a technique I'm not proficient at, then that segment gets more time and attention in practice.

[EoE]

Even in college you have to learn tunes and perform them.. a teacher in a music store has to try and condense several classes into a hr. and yea teaching songs is his bread and butter. College may be what you are looking for.

[rick-slo]

You can learn mainly just by playing pieces but if you want to advance and broaden your skills you need to pick the right pieces and in some sort of order, i.e. moving from easier to more advanced pieces. You also need not be lazy and learn stuff half-baked, playing sloppy and skipping altogether the tougher parts of pieces. You may need to work on new techniques separately from time to time.

[_zedagive]

I took classical guitar in college which was obviously very structured. Later, trying to learn strumming, I tried several teachers, but none really were very good at teaching guitar method/theory. Never found any books that really kept my interest very long either.

It was not until I tried Gibson's "Learn and Master Guitar" and "Learn and Master Fingerstyle Guitar" DVD/CD and lesson book sets that I felt I could set down and really learn again. It takes about 6-12 months to go through each series if you only allow yourself to advance to the next lesson after mastering the previous ones. The songs you learn along the way may not be ones you might choose, but learning to play them will give you the skills to play those of your choice more easily. There's also a fair amount of guitar theory and the CDs have tunes to play accompaniment.

The price you'll pay on ebay is about or less than you'd pay for just 2-3 private lessons. And the good thing is you can set your own pace and schedule.

[TBman]

I think learning "by the song" is a good way to learn to play as long as the song is a little over your head and you have to practice sections of it over and over again to gain the skill of the technique.

[HHP]

The whole point is to playa tune. I have run into people who have played for a couple of years, ask them to play a tune, they can't. The technique needed to play he music you want is contained in the music. Might be useful to know the B flat scale but I will never need it in the music I want to play. I let the music tell me what techniques I need to learn rather than learn techniques in case I need them,

[EoE]

I would have never made it through college if I did not know the Bb scale. yea you need to learn tunes but there comes a point you do not need to memorize them just need to know how to comp a style.. there have been times you could ask me to play a song and I could not.. but I can follow any thing you can play.. or read anything... you learn to comp and read you do not have to memorize. right now I could only play a couple of my originals the rest of my originals I need to read. closer to time for rehearsals for the show I will have them memorized....

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by gfsark

My guitar teacher's approach is all about learning to play songs. "Bring in the piece you want to learn (any style, any level of difficulty) and I will show you how to play that piece." As part of learning the piece we segway into theory and technique, but the lesson is built around the piece.

I suspect he is responding to students who want to learn say 'Stairway to Heaven' and he'll lose the student if he doesn't start there. I'm looking for a more methodical approach that says, hey, if you want to learn to learn a certain style, this is a method that will take you there. This is what to listen to, this is your assignment, this is the piece we'll learn and why etc...

A method has these advantages: 1. the challenges are reduced to bite size nibbles. 2. Progress can be monitored. 3. Practice can be simplified. 4. I don't have to think up of what the lesson is going to be about. 5. the balance between technique, musicianship, theory, is already established.

Anyone have experience with going through a method to learn say fingerpicking or improvising along a certain style?

Methods are all geared to playing pieces of music in the end.

There's no reason why your teacher's own "method" can't satisfy all those 5 points you mention.

1. Any song can be reduced to bite size nibbles (how else do we learn it?)
2. Obviously progress can be monitored
3. Practice can be simplified (you can work with small parts of the song, or particular techniques required)
4. OK, maybe not this one. But is it really a problem to think of songs you'd like to play? Why not suggest a style (if that's what you want) and the teacher can bring a song in that style? (You don't have to know what it is beforehand.)
5. "the balance between technique, musicianship, theory, is already established" - perfectly, in any song you care to choose!

IOW, one advantage of learning through songs is exactly that organic marriage of technique and theory that creates musicianship. Any song displays it all in action.

I'm not saying more general exercises are not worthwhile. And your teacher should certainly be adaptable to the way you want to learn, and the material you want to learn. (And I'm a little surprised he's not limiting the choice of songs in terms of difficulty - I don't know your skill level, but there may be some tunes you like that would be way above your level, and would take so long to learn you'd get bored or frustrated.)

With any style or genre, there will be techniques, licks or changes common to many songs, which you can learn without reference to any particular tune.
Even then, however, I'd say you have to know how to apply those. And knowing which songs use those techniques (and how) is important.

After all, what is a "style" or "genre", but the sum total of songs in that style?
Everything starts from the songs (and how they are played), not from the techniques, the elements that make them up. People don't invent genres and then write the music. The music comes first, and get defined as genres or styles later.
We learn by breaking down existing music into its component parts. Not by beginning with those parts and seeing what we can make with them - that comes later.

Having said all that, the crucial thing is that you have good working relationship with your teacher. You're the client; you respect his professionalism, trust his knowledge, but you're paying him for a service. You have to believe - even if you don't quite get why he's doing what he's doing - that it will get you there in the end.
He's like a cab driver. You know where you want to go, but you have to trust him to know the best route - but he should also be willing to explain and justify that route if it's not going where you expect. And maybe you don't know exactly where you want to go, if you've never been there before?
As we often say here, it's about the journey, not the destination...

[SprintBob]

In my own experience, I am probably dedicating 40% of my practice time to method or woodshed work and 60% to playing songs I enjoy. My method or woodshed time does include songs that are part of the course work I have chosen. Currently I am using the Don Ross fingerstyle course on Jamplay and I am working through Mark Hansons Contemporary Travis Picking course (book/CD). Hanson's course includes playing a lot of traditional songs that teach the technique which is very enjoyable to me.

There's so much out there that I think you have to choose something that fits for you and then stick with it for awhile. As an example, my first foray into fingerstyle was Mark Hansons Beyond Basics - Fingerstyle and I have completed 2/3rd's of that book. I am taking a break from it because I want some more work on basic Travis fingerstyle technique and the Travis picking course referenced above is working well for me at this time. On Jamplay, I love Don Ross' music and his teaching compliments the Hanson material well.

Fun stuff.