Learning the Guitar - is there a right way?

[Kh1967]

I have been playing guitar on and off for awhile and very much enjoy it. At its foundation, I love music and I love wood instruments and guitar has captured me at a musical and at a design and building level. I am a happy person with guitars in my life.

However, I am very concerned about my learning and development from a playing perspective. I am partially self taught and have also taken some lessons from a couple of instructors. At the instructor level, I had one that was a pretty good fit for me and a couple that were not. The ones who were not, taught me some basic chords and because I learned them quickly, wanted to drive song playing and while it was fun, it did not help me with what I might consider "foundational" skills.

On my own, I have tried Justin.com and the box set of Learn and Master Guitar. The approaches feel very different to me. Justin feels more playful and I do like the message board aspect when I might have additional questions, but Learn and Master Guitar seems heavier on the fundamentals. Hence, my dilemma. Is there a right way to learn? Not for the short term, but for the long term?

I would love to take lessons from an instructor, but my travel schedule for work interferes with that plan. So, until things slow with work, I am content with online/DVD learning while on the road.

Admittedly, I am bothered by how I have learned. I used to be a tennis instructor and strongly believed then and now, that fundamentals (proper technique, drills, court visualization, footwork, etc) were the basis of all development and that thought haunts me with guitar. I feel there are things I don't know that I should and things I do know that I shouldn't, just yet. It almost seems that in my early learning, because it went fast, I got "pushed" into an advanced lesson group (tennis analogy) before I was ready.

So...I am having thoughts of just starting from scratch. What I mean is returning (or in my case, possibly visiting for the first time) to the fundamental; theory, reading music, etc and all the painful lesson plans and exercises that come with it. That is what my gut tells me to do, as does my overly analytical mind. But, is that overkill?

Can I really learn from Justin.com? Or, do I "Learn and Master Guitar"? Or, is there another program that someone feels strongly about? For me, I do know that I cannot learn "all over the place". I need a strategy, a laid out plan. I can't take from here and there.

What might you recommend? I am willing to go way back to go forward. Again, I love this thing called a guitar. I am in my mid-forties and feel like I have years ahead of me to enjoy the guitar. So, I want to make sure I continue to enjoy it and that is why this learning strategy is so important to me.

Help me Obiwan.....

[BrianMcG]

The right way is the one that keeps you motivated and keeps you progressing.

I was like you in that just learning some songs here and there wasn't doing it for me. I wanted more theory and skills work. The L&M program was great for me. However, I can see how some people just want to learn songs and they may be bored with a program like that.

[mr. beaumont]

I think a balanced approach that combines knowledge with playing songs is key. I haven't seen an online course that can tailor this to the student, but I know plenty of teachers who can.

[HHP]

Reading your post, I guess I am struck by the fact that you talked about guitar more than music. Is there a musical genre that really appeals to you or that drove you to want to play guitar?

Most of my own advances in ability or technique were a result of my wanting to play specific music that required me to have some proficiency in certain techniques. Basically, technique is a means to and end and not an end in itself. By the same token, my own musical interests make learning some technique fairly useless so by basing leaning on music, it allows me to narrow it down to what I need and will use regularly.

[Bob1131]

Learning the Guitar - is there a right way? In short, yes, whatever way satisfies your motivation and goals. A lot of people want to learn to play guitar as an accompaniment to their vocals. For them, learning techniques within the context of a song makes sense, and proper hand position and fingering is of little consequence. I'm one of those...I learn only what is needed to play the song and I am happy with that. For others, they want to master the instrument. For them, learning technique, scales, theory and classical fingering is paramount. Then there is every combination of desire and aptitude between those perspectives. There are plenty of successful performers who know very little theory and others who have university degrees in music theory! Only you know what is right for you.

[Kh1967]

Originally Posted by HHP

Reading your post, I guess I am struck by the fact that you talked about guitar more than music. Is there a musical genre that really appeals to you or that drove you to want to play guitar?

Most of my own advances in ability or technique were a result of my wanting to play specific music that required me to have some proficiency in certain techniques. Basically, technique is a means to and end and not an end in itself. By the same token, my own musical interests make learning some technique fairly useless so by basing leaning on music, it allows me to narrow it down to what I need and will use regularly.

I think you may have taken something away that was not intended. I think I appreciate all things guitar; music, technique, construction. I have never known anyone to be really proficient at something (whatever that something is) who does not have a basic understanding of all things that make up the end result. If that end result is guitar playing, or tennis playing, I think it is all encompassing.

Put differently, I never met a good tennis player who said to me, "I only want to serve and volley." Yes, that might be the end goal, as to say...I really want to play blues, but in tennis, you still would have to learn, ground strokes, approach shots, develop stamina, touch, etc. Maybe this is not applicable in learning guitar, but it certainly was when I learned to play the piano and the sax.

I hope that makes sense - not at all trying to be confrontational. Just painting a picture of how my mind is wired. Maybe, you can say, "I just want to serve and volley" and have it be a perfect strategy for guitar playing. I don't really know.....

[Kh1967]

Originally Posted by Bob1131

Learning the Guitar - is there a right way? In short, yes, whatever way satisfies your motivation and goals. A lot of people want to learn to play guitar as an accompaniment to their vocals. For them, learning techniques within the context of a song makes sense, and proper hand position and fingering is of little consequence. I'm one of those...I learn only what is needed to play the song and I am happy with that. For others, they want to master the instrument. For them, learning technique, scales, theory and classical fingering is paramount. Then there is every combination of desire and aptitude between those perspectives. There are plenty of successful performers who know very little theory and others who have university degrees in music theory! Only you know what is right for you.

Is that really possible? Yes, theory might not be as important, but what about basics like the circle of fifths, or knowing the notes on the fretboard? Are those basics (just examples) you can skip and still be proficient?

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Kh1967

I think you may have taken something away that was not intended. I think I appreciate all things guitar; music, technique, construction. I have never known anyone to be really proficient at something (whatever that something is) who does not have a basic understanding of all things that make up the end result. If that end result is guitar playing, or tennis playing, I think it is all encompassing.

Put differently, I never met a good tennis player who said to me, "I only want to serve and volley." Yes, that might be the end goal, as to say...I really want to play blues, but in tennis, you still would have to learn, ground strokes, approach shots, develop stamina, touch, etc. Maybe this is not applicable in learning guitar, but it certainly was when I learned to play the piano and the sax.

I hope that makes sense - not at all trying to be confrontational. Just painting a picture of how my mind is wired. Maybe, you can say, "I just want to serve and volley" and have it be a perfect strategy for guitar playing. I don't really know.....

Tennis is an end in itself, guitar playing is not. Tennis has set rules that everyone follows and agrees to. While individual expression may enter into it, pretty much everybody plays tennis more or less the same way. If someone set out to be "excellent at sports" and did not have a desire to focus efforts on a single sport, they are likely to get bogged down and find themselves not excelling at anything in particular.

[Kh1967]

Originally Posted by HHP

Tennis is an end in itself, guitar playing is not. Tennis has set rules that everyone follows and agrees to. While individual expression may enter into it, pretty much everybody plays tennis more or less the same way. If someone set out to be "excellent at sports" and did not have a desire to focus efforts on a single sport, they are likely to get bogged down and find themselves not excelling at anything in particular.

As someone who played college and pro tennis for awhile, I assure you there are a thousand ways to play the sport. Again, not being confrontational, but wondering if true proficiency and not average playing is rooted in some basic framework?

Here is a quote from another post; "I am learning the fretboard now. Never realized til now how much not knowing the notes has held me back."

That is the ultimate question for me. I know I can just learn songs, but at some point does it limit someone who is not truly, "gifted." Gifted people are the exception to the rule. Most of us hackers have to practice and practice. I am just trying to vet out the practice and learning techniques that will not hold me back down the road.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Kh1967

Is that really possible? Yes, theory might not be as important, but what about basics like the circle of fifths, or knowing the notes on the fretboard? Are those basics (just examples) you can skip and still be proficient?

Not "proficient" in the full sense of the word.
It depends on how good you are at assimilating and making use of that kind of information. A lot of guitar players just want to strum a few chords, play some recognisable riffs, and impress a few chicks. And why not? They don't want to bother their pretty little heads with "schoolwork" like theory. Man... They could be quite good players, but wouldn't know the circle of 5ths if it ran them down on the freeway...

But you sound like someone interested in foundations, connections, underpinnings. No one is trying to discourage you from learning anything, it's just a question of your taste, priorities, preferred styles of music, etc.

You're absolutely right (or rather, I agree ) that any musician should be curious about all aspects of music. The guitar is simply a tool; it's not the "job" itself.
A balanced approach (as mr beaumont recommends) is obviously the way to go. Work with songs, or with whatever pieces of music you want to play, and are within your level (or challenging enough to get you to the next level). And be curious about what theoretical principles underly the music. What are the names for those sounds you're making? What do the names mean, and what connections do they reveal?
The point of theory - as I always say - is always to make music simpler. It's like the picture on the front of the jigsaw box. (Without theory you have a pile of pieces, and trial and error.) Or it's like a map of a strange country. Without the map, you can still find your way around, but it's slower, and you can't see what's over the horizon. But there's no point in studying the further reaches of the map when you are still miles away; work with your immediate area, to clarify where you are right now and orient yourself. And remember the place is the thing; a map is only a map - limited pieces of information about the place.
IOW, I don't think you'll gain anything by studying theory unless you can see how it applies to any piece of music you're working on now. Or - alternatively - you can see how it might apply to some other piece of (imagined) music.

Of course, that depends on your level of curiosity. Personally I enjoy studying theory (and music history) in ways that will never affect my playing. It's a fascinating subject in its own right (up to a point...).

What would be a mistake would be to imagine that increased theoretical knowledge means greater instrumental skills. The latter only come from actually playing the instrument. I don't even believe that one's creativity is much enhanced by theoretical knowledge (I mean the kind of knowledge one gets from books). Musical creativity - the understanding of the sounds and how they work - only comes, again, from actual playing. You can't train your ear by reading a book.
While I've learned a lot of theory over the years, I can't honestly say it's had much, if any, effect on my playing. It's had some impact on my compositions, but even there I try to forget theory when writing, because I want my ear to lead me. My theory means I know the names of what I'm playing; but it doesn't help me play it any better. And - paradoxically - it can sometimes get in the way, because one is tempted to judge by theory instead of the ear.
Theory can keep you on the straight and narrow - which is useful of course - but often the music might benefit from you straying from the path occasionally. Explore, but keep the map in your back pocket .

To pursue the tennis analogy: it may interesting in its own right to study the physics of ball trajectory, the elasticity of the racket, the biology of muscles, the effects of exercise... But will it actually help you play better? You need to know the rules of the game, sure; but the rest comes from just doing it. You understand much more about the biology and physics through the activity itself: the effects of racket angle, or spin, etc.
Music is more of an art, to be sure, but there are similar subtleties in how, in sport, you learn to direct a ball in a certain way, almost instinctively, through practice and trial and error. It's about physical objects moving in space, visual judgement, weight and energy. Music is about pitched sounds in time. (I guess the idea of "pitching" is shared between both activities!)

[Kh1967]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Not "proficient" in the full sense of the word.
It depends on how good you are at assimilating and making use of that kind of information. A lot of guitar players just want to strum a few chords, play some recognisable riffs, and impress a few chicks. And why not? They don't want to bother their pretty little heads with "schoolwork" like theory. Man... They could be quite good players, but wouldn't know the circle of 5ths if it ran them down on the freeway...

But you sound like someone interested in foundations, connections, underpinnings. No one is trying to discourage you from learning anything, it's just a question of your taste, priorities, preferred styles of music, etc.

You're absolutely right (or rather, I agree ) that any musician should be curious about all aspects of music. The guitar is simply a tool; it's not the "job" itself.
A balanced approach (as mr beaumont recommends) is obviously the way to go. Work with songs, or with whatever pieces of music you want to play, and are within your level (or challenging enough to get you to the next level). And be curious about what theoretical principles underly the music. What are the names for those sounds you're making? What do the names mean, and what connections do they reveal?
The point of theory - as I always say - is always to make music simpler. It's like the picture on the front of the jigsaw box. (Without theory you have a pile of pieces, and trial and error.) Or it's like a map of a strange country. Without the map, you can still find your way around, but it's slower, and you can't see what's over the horizon. But there's no point in studying the further reaches of the map when you are still miles away; work with your immediate area, to clarify where you are right now and orient yourself. And remember the place is the thing; a map is only a map - limited pieces of information about the place.
IOW, I don't think you'll gain anything by studying theory unless you can see how it applies to any piece of music you're working on now. Or - alternatively - you can see how it might apply to some other piece of (imagined) music.

Of course, that depends on your level of curiosity. Personally I enjoy studying theory (and music history) in ways that will never affect my playing. It's a fascinating subject in its own right (up to a point...).

What would be a mistake would be to imagine that increased theoretical knowledge means greater instrumental skills. The latter only come from actually playing the instrument. I don't even believe that one's creativity is much enhanced by theoretical knowledge (I mean the kind of knowledge one gets from books). Musical creativity - the understanding of the sounds and how they work - only comes, again, from actual playing. You can't train your ear by reading a book.
While I've learned a lot of theory over the years, I can't honestly say it's had much, if any, effect on my playing. It's had some impact on my compositions, but even there I try to forget theory when writing, because I want my ear to lead me. My theory means I know the names of what I'm playing; but it doesn't help me play it any better. And - paradoxically - it can sometimes get in the way, because one is tempted to judge by theory instead of the ear.
Theory can keep you on the straight and narrow - which is useful of course - but often the music might benefit from you straying from the path occasionally. Explore, but keep the map in your back pocket .

Thanks for this post. This was truly helpful - great analogies and guidance.

[David M123]

Hi Kh,

Kudos to you for wanting to learn guitar in as comprehensive a way as possible. I wish I had had as strong a drive to learn theory when I was starting out!

That said, I think you may be missing part of what some people have been saying. To go with your tennis analogy - how many instructors would have told you never to play a match until you had fully mastered the fundamentals? I personally can’t imagine spending years practicing strokes, foot placement etc. before actually trying to put them to use for real. Same thing for guitar. Ultimately, it’s all about the music.

Don’t get me wrong - by all means learn all the theory you can. Just balance that with actually making some music, using what you know at the time. Not only will that be more fun, but by trying things and running up against things you don’t yet understand or have the ability to play, you can better understand what you need to study right now. Every stumbling block can become the subject of your next practice session.

In terms of working with an instructor, a couple of thoughts occur. First, not every instructor has a full schedule of students. It may be possible to set up an ad-hoc schedule with one or more teachers, with the understanding that lessons will happen when they are possible for the both of you. Second, it might be possible to set up lessons from long distance, using video conferencing from your laptop. It wouldn’t be the same as being 3 feet away from the instructor, but it might well be better than nothing. I think I have seen references to this sort of thing on some learn guitar-type web-sites. Of course you’d have to take a guitar with you. Only you know if that’s feasible with the traveling you do.

Best of luck, however you decide to proceed!

Dave

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Kh1967

Thanks for this post. This was truly helpful - great analogies and guidance.

Thanks - I just added an extra edit while you were posting this .

[mc1]

Originally Posted by HHP

Tennis is an end in itself, guitar playing is not. Tennis has set rules that everyone follows and agrees to. While individual expression may enter into it, pretty much everybody plays tennis more or less the same way. If someone set out to be "excellent at sports" and did not have a desire to focus efforts on a single sport, they are likely to get bogged down and find themselves not excelling at anything in particular.

i'd say that pretty much everybodu plays guitar the same way. i mean, how far out can you go, libby cotten, paul galbraith, tony melendez? looks all kind of the same to me.

[Xcalith]

My opinion about this is that you should have fun in the process. If the learning is forced, then why play at all?