A website with free "lessons" for players

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

The part of your post that I highlighted in bold was an interesting point about the guitar sounding like a ukulele way up high. I took a lesson once with David Qualey, and he commented on that same thing, saying that when arranging for guitar, it sounds best overall to try to stick to the middle areas of the fretboard. He also tries to incorporate open strings where possible because they help the overall sound to be more resonant and sustaining.

Tony

This is what my ear told me, too. About 3-8 is where all the good stuff happens. I simply don't like the sounds up there around 12. Reminds me how they used to tell us when we were teens, "nothing good happens after midnight".

That being said, I don't yet have an electric with a cutaway. I look forward to the exploration down the road.

[dkstott]

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."

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by dkstott

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."

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.

[Grinning Boy]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

This is what my ear told me, too. About 3-8 is where all the good stuff happens. I simply don't like the sounds up there around 12. Reminds me how they used to tell us when we were teens, "nothing good happens after midnight".

This is like telling the sopranos in the choir to stay home. You are not needed here

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by Grinning Boy

This is like telling the sopranos in the choir to stay home. You are not needed here

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.

[Grinning Boy]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

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.

I would never qualify as a soprano so I was not personally insulted

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!!

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Grinning Boy

I would never qualify as a soprano so I was not personally insulted

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!!

Well, to be more specific about what David Qualey was telling me...

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

[Grinning Boy]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

Well, to be more specific about what David Qualey was telling me...

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

Good point Tony. However, I don't think there's a poster in this "room" not ready to jump in and start typing when he/she reads something that they disagree with or have strong feelings about. Not that I'm referring to myself of course

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Grinning Boy

Good point Tony. However, I don't think there's a poster in this "room" not ready to jump in and start typing when he/she reads something that they disagree with or have strong feelings about. Not that I'm referring to myself of course

Folks can read what I said however they want to. I suppose I should just say it more straightforwardly.

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

[Pitar]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

I believe there are serious flaws with that argument. Saying that the best teacher is the student and that teachers are nothing more than ‘pass-throughs of information’ is completely devaluing the role of a qualified, experienced and competent instructor. If your theory was correct, then there would be absolutely no need for teachers of any kind, whether the subject is biology, medicine, history, or even auto-mechanics. Why, all a teacher of your description would need to do would be to point to which book a student would need, tell them which chapters would apply to them and that would be essentially it. Or to take it a step further, if the teacher were the coach on a baseball team, they would simply say ‘watch how I do it, because I really can’t explain the process of what I’m doing,’ or perhaps in your case, if the player still couldn’t learn from example your attitude might be ‘well, I can explain it in a step by step process, but I’d rather not.’ It seems that your definition of a student should be self-guided and self-taught, being automatically in possession of the gift of ‘watch and learn.’

This is assuming that all students are completely independent, which is absolutely false. It is only the exceptional, tremendously gifted student that is like that. I’m not sure how many students you’ve ‘taught’ with this method, but I can tell you that over 40 years of teaching, I have had literally thousands of students in that time period. Of that amount, only a small percentage were self-guided. The rest truly needed to shown not only which door to open, but how to choose which door would be right for them and how to proceed down that path. At this point some would need a structured map, while others needed a little less structure. In either case, on the smallest exception needed a lesson or two without proceeding on their own completely.

Please don’t assume that I do not value the need for a student to eventually learn HOW to fish, rather than just being given a fish. My role as a teacher is to first show them what they want to learn, and then teach them how they can go about learning on their own, using the foundation that is laid out for them.

I can’t begin to tell you how many students have come to me saying that they wound up wasting more time wading through those ‘free’ lessons on the internet in order to finally find one that addresses their personal, specific issue. And even if and when they find that, many of those lessons are not structured, nor do they provide any end game or guided path toward that students particular goal. Additionally, they provide zero feedback, as they are all canned.

A qualified, experienced instructor, regardless of the subject matter, provides a student with a time saving, structured path that is personalized to their specific needs. Not only that, the instructor provides invaluable feedback if that student may be making crucial mistakes during the learning process, which everyone, regardless of their natural ability, will be bound to make. To say that ‘teachers are usually nothing more that pass-throughs of information that the observers metabolize to the extent that they can teach themselves’ completely devalues the art, craft, dedication, genius and importance of the teacher.

Finally, in the case of those rare, exceptional students that only need to be show which door to go through, the value of the teacher to actually understand that student’s need and point them to the correct door cannot be by any means underestimated.

Yet, it is the truth.

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?

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Pitar

Yet, it is the truth.

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?

As I believe your response was directly aimed at myself and my teaching methods - of which unless you’ve personally have taken lessons from me you honestly have no idea what those methods are or what kind of a teacher I am. It appears that your concept of my methods may be derived from what you may or may not have seen on the internet, which hardly is a basis for judging the effectiveness of what I do. My lessons are not, as you say, just ‘cobbled together,’ but rather have been carefully thought out and crafted over the years to present a complete picture of the music I teach.

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.

[Gmountain]

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.

[Jusca]

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.