Page 1 of 4
Unreal T
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2006
4,506 IQ
#1
You always hear people saying " it takes years to be a great guitarist". Well, do you think that is because a lot of people do not know the correct approach to take to achieve musical goals? Everyone is just different and not everyone can benefit from the same methods of teaching as others for many reasons.

So do you think that when it takes years it is actually due to a lack of proper knowledge and other things when trying to achieve musical goals?

I bet if I knew what I knew now years ago I would have been so much better than I am now. Now I know why those handful of people seem to be better than the rest is simply because they just KNEW WHAT TO DO for their own personal musical goals. Too bad we can't rewind the clock.
flaaash
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2014
467 IQ
#2
god yes. If I knew what I know now 10 years ago, I'd be leaps and bounds in front. Of where I am now. That goes for playing guitR as well as song writing (broadly speaking). Obviously things are how they are meant to be.

We might as well get behind novice players and school them to avoid our mistakes !
GaryBillington
Last of a Dyin' Breed
Join date: Nov 2001
1,309 IQ
#3
I know I could have. I never had lessons & I've never practiced regularly, I just occasionally taught myself a new song, which for a long time was my only goal. I never studied theory, I just gradually picked up from experience what works & what doesn't. Even though I started playing in the late 80s, it was probably only the past 3 or 4 years that I forced myself beyond sticking to rhythm (which I was always very good at so never felt the need to progress beyond it) and actually teaching myself how to play any lead.

If I'd dedicated time to practice & actually learning why things work, I'd be 100 times better than I am today.
.
Gibson LP Traditional, LP Studio, SG Standard x2
Barber Tone Press > EHX Worm > TC Polytune > MXR Custom Badass 78 > EXH Glove > EHX East River Drive > Zoom G3 > TC Spark Mini Booster
Laney VC30
Marshall TSL602
Jet City JCA22H

My SoundCloud
MaggaraMarine
Slapping the bass.
Join date: Oct 2009
3,409 IQ
#4
Of course. I could have played a lot more. I don't really practice that much (and never have). I just noodle around, play some songs and that's it. And how much I play depends on the day. I could play a lot more regularly and have a practicing schedule (and I once had one but I noticed that it bored me - it was too non-musical. I like playing stuff in context). I could have joined a band as a guitarist (I play the bass in a band).

I still think I'm OK at guitar or at least not that bad. I'm good enough to play the stuff I want to play. I could be a bit faster and my overall technique could be better. I could be better at improvising.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Charvel So Cal
Ibanez Blazer
Yamaha FG720S-12
Tokai TB48
Laney VC30
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
Join date: Mar 2005
2,967 IQ
#5
Absolutely
Quote by classicrocker01
Only on UG would I say I got engaged and bought a jet city and get congratulated on the amp


Cajundaddy
60s throwback
Join date: Feb 2014
32 IQ
#6
Sure but life is too grand to sit in a closet and practice all the time. I have a need to sample all the flowers.
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis
AlanHB
Godin's Resident Groupie
Join date: Aug 2008
1,703 IQ
#7
Yes. If I didn't study or get a job, then used all of my free time to practice, and never had breaks from the guitar, I would be a better player.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
Hail
i'm a mean bully
Join date: Jan 2010
431 IQ
#8
there aren't any shortcuts to life and creativity

i mean i guess it's easy to be "classically" good at guitar, just like it's easy to be "classically" good looking or "classically" successful at school if you devote all your attention to trying to achieve a very specific series of criteria in a way that other people have approved for you to do

why do that when you can take your time, internalize and understand people and work on just enjoying the process of learning while you figure out who you are as a musician and/or person

most guitar players worried about reaching "perfection" are the same ones who are stuck in that high school mentality where they don't understand that quality isn't directly conducive to doing what other people do or want you to do
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#9
Quote by Unreal T
You always hear people saying " it takes years to be a great guitarist". Well, do you think that is because a lot of people do not know the correct approach to take to achieve musical goals? Everyone is just different and not everyone can benefit from the same methods of teaching as others for many reasons.

So do you think that when it takes years it is actually due to a lack of proper knowledge and other things when trying to achieve musical goals?

I bet if I knew what I knew now years ago I would have been so much better than I am now. Now I know why those handful of people seem to be better than the rest is simply because they just KNEW WHAT TO DO for their own personal musical goals. Too bad we can't rewind the clock.



That's a very thought provoking question.

I know beyond all shadow of a doubt that it doesn't TAKE years. It absolutely does not take years.

I put the reason that it TAKES years solely in the laps of what you guys have... the elephant in the room: The Traditional Method. It is terrible. The worst ever. Ever. It's the bane of My existence, and I hope I live to see the day it ultimately crumbles to dust like the impotent cow it is.

So, for you guys as of right now, it doesn't matter what your musical goals are, or the path you ultimately find and decide to take, because all that the world knows for the most part, is the same Traditional approach that's been handed down for generations.

It doesn't matter if you had the perfect learning order down correctly on Day 1. The Kool Aid that everyone drinks, is, that it is naturally supposed to take a lot of time. Time to learn your scales, time to understand triads, time to know the notes on the neck. Time to know your intervals, time to practice this scale and that.

Everything in the traditional method, sucks, and is worthless.

But a few of the more tenacious and perseverant, or fortunate enough to attend music school where you will be forced to swallow that approach or else drop out, and hence fail...will get through it, by necessity, and go on to carry the Kool Aid to others.

And the world will continue to turn, and it won't matter if you do it right on day one; most will give homage to the Traditional Method, ultimately, and the sacrifice and acsetical demands it makes of them.

Best,

Sean
Tempoe
. . . ∆ . . .
Join date: Oct 2008
2,508 IQ
#10
Yes, I started before internet so nothing was easy. Also I never had any time to devote to it before, now I have time and lots of info. This site helped me a lot actually, I started getting serious around my join date and got better in these last 6 years than the 20+ before
Unreal T
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2006
4,506 IQ
#11
Quote by Sean0913
That's a very thought provoking question.

I know beyond all shadow of a doubt that it doesn't TAKE years. It absolutely does not take years.


Everything in the traditional method, sucks, and is worthless.


Sean


I agree 100%
cdgraves
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
43 IQ
#12
Quote by Sean0913
That's a very thought provoking question.

Everything in the traditional method, sucks, and is worthless.



I would paint some gray areas in this statement.

The traditional methods work extremely well as long as you actually follow them. That means starting at a young age with a competent instructor, practicing routinely, attacking technical and aural skills early, developing repertoire progressively, and performing regularly. It's a curricular approach that yields tremendous benefits for a lot of people. A huge proportion of full-time musicians came up traditionally, regardless of the style they play in.

But for all its merits, that method only works if you stick with it very consistently, which very few guitarists do. There are still a lot of things you can learn from it, though, such as the importance of being thorough, having a mind to accuracy, and maintaining a "big picture" view of your musical development.
reverb66
Registered User
Join date: Mar 2014
30 IQ
#13
It takes the time that it takes. I don't think I could have become the player I am today in a shorter period of time unless I would have been able to put in more hours per day. I certainly don't feel like any of the things I played or practiced were a waste of time. I always find those internet ads about these secret "tricks" to being great a guitar player in little time very amusing - the only trick is to play - a lot! Any great player today has put in some serious hours.

I would say without a doubt that it takes many years to be a great player.

That being said, you should be able to be a fairly good/impressive player after a couple of years of intensive practice.
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#14
Quote by cdgraves
I would paint some gray areas in this statement.

The traditional methods work extremely well as long as you actually follow them. That means starting at a young age with a competent instructor, practicing routinely, attacking technical and aural skills early, developing repertoire progressively, and performing regularly. It's a curricular approach that yields tremendous benefits for a lot of people. A huge proportion of full-time musicians came up traditionally, regardless of the style they play in.

But for all its merits, that method only works if you stick with it very consistently, which very few guitarists do. There are still a lot of things you can learn from it, though, such as the importance of being thorough, having a mind to accuracy, and maintaining a "big picture" view of your musical development.


The traditional methods DO work, but, from my perspective, they are completely worthless.

When I see what you guys call "effective", to me it's like saying, "I can chop down a tree... using a spoon". Sure you can. As long as your'e willing to spend the time, you'll eventually get there. That doesn't mean its a good method. It just means that's all you have in your point of reference.

In the meantime, I have a chainsaw.

It's like saying, "Hey this here antique horse driven wagon can get me from New York, The California in a little over 10 months, and I only had to eat half my family to survive the D0nners Pass winters.

In the meantime a 757 Jet passes overhead.

So, it depends upon your point of reference, as to what effective looks like. That's how I see the Traditional Method, all of it.

This is a very interesting discussion with lots of great points!

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#15
Quote by Sean0913
The traditional methods DO work, but, from my perspective, they are completely worthless.
Best,

Sean


Define "traditional methods" and I could be inclined to agree with you. Also, define the goals of the hypothetical student we are teaching. Otherwise it seems like your just bashing something that may or may not exist

Also being a musician is not like being a passenger, it's like being a mechanic. Sure, most mechanics are going to be focused on jet engines, but if someone brings in a prop plane, the "traditional knowledge" is instantly useful again

To take your analogy unreasonably far, 747s also need long runways, control towers, and terminals to land. A Cessna just needs a flat strip of ground

To answer OP

You are talking about a chicken and an egg scenario. Sure, I could be a world class computer hacker by now if I started learning when I was 5. If you gave me 15 years of intense study, I could probably make a great hacker before I died. It doesn't mean I can't use the internet and play video games perfectly fine
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#16
Your agreeing isn't of concern to me, but to define elements of the Traditional Method, since you asked:

1. How Players are taught to memorize the notes on the neck.
2. Everything found at musictheory.net, and how its taught
3. Pentatonic 5 box scales
4. CAGED
5. Method of learning Intervals
6. Method of learning scales, (that WWH junk)
7. Method of naming all the notes in any chord
8. Circle of 5ths
9. Key signatures
10. Basic beginning chords and how they are taught
11. Sight reading
12. Diatonic Harmony
13. Modes (don't get me started there)

That's a short list, but that covers a lot.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
reverb66
Registered User
Join date: Mar 2014
30 IQ
#17
Quote by Sean0913
Your agreeing isn't of concern to me, but to define elements of the Traditional Method, since you asked:

1. How Players are taught to memorize the notes on the neck.
2. Everything found at musictheory.net, and how its taught
3. Pentatonic 5 box scales
4. CAGED
5. Method of learning Intervals
6. Method of learning scales, (that WWH junk)
7. Method of naming all the notes in any chord
8. Circle of 5ths
9. Key signatures
10. Basic beginning chords and how they are taught
11. Sight reading
12. Diatonic Harmony
13. Modes (don't get me started there)

That's a short list, but that covers a lot.

Best,

Sean


Out of curiosity - what's the actual alternative to that?
Hail
i'm a mean bully
Join date: Jan 2010
431 IQ
#18
that's not the traditional method

the traditional method involves learning styles and music with rudiments comprised of some of those things. most classically trained musicians didn't even encounter music theory until 5+ years into their education because it's a lot easier to understand it when your muscles have been conditioned to perform perfectly and without question

gotta be a soldier before you're a general

not that that's an improper way of doing things, but it's silly to say that it's the "right" way when that method of teaching is only decades old, much like electric guitar

every other instrument goes through a different process in my experience, but if you want to compare the (electric) guitar to instruments around for hundreds of years (piano/harpsicord, voice, then the orchestral instruments) it's night and day in terms of studious rigor because the greats on those instruments were not self-taught, they weren't trained online, they weren't given hints and tips and put out to show the world

they sat in their room and learned pieces note by painful note and had to develop proper habits under the scrutiny of someone whose purpose was to perfect their performance, not their understanding, and over time they internalized that knowledge and were given the subconscious capabilities whenever they reached a point in time where they were given the skills to teach or compose for themselves

not really a disagreement, just semantics like the normal UG bs
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#19
Quote by Sean0913
Your agreeing isn't of concern to me


EL-OH-EL

Quote by Sean0913

1. How Players are taught to memorize the notes on the neck.
2. Everything found at musictheory.net, and how its taught
3. Pentatonic 5 box scales
4. CAGED
5. Method of learning Intervals
6. Method of learning scales, (that WWH junk)
7. Method of naming all the notes in any chord
8. Circle of 5ths
9. Key signatures
10. Basic beginning chords and how they are taught
11. Sight reading
12. Diatonic Harmony
13. Modes (don't get me started there)

That's a short list, but that covers a lot.

Best,

Sean


Are you saying that these are things people dont need to or shouldnt learn, or that there is a method of teaching them that you disagree with. Just confused since all you posted were topics, not teaching methods

1. How are guitarists usually taught note names on the neck? I was taught the open strings, and that every fret added a half step. From there, my teacher left it to me to put the rest together

2. MT.net is all standard common practice teaching. Im sure you know and use all the things taught on MT.net. How is it useless? What specific problems do you have with the way its taught? MT.net is a bit more of an encyclopedia than a teaching tool, sure, but do you have specific issues with it?

3. "Box scales" are something only guitarists learn, and I doubt if they are in the "traditional" method

4. See 3.

5. What is the "traditional way" of learning intervals?

6. The WWH "junk" is usually only taught to you after know a few scales. It allows you to build any scale from any pitch with no reference. Personally, I think knowing how to build a scale is just as important as memorizing note names and fretboard patterns (something usually frowned upon here)

7. What is the "traditional method" of building chords? Are you just annoyed at enharmonic conventions? I agree, personally I wish that western music used a 7 note staff so that every PC got its own line or space and we never would use any accidentals

8. The circle of fifths is hella useful. How can you define a pythagorean comma with no circle of fifths?

9. What is the "traditional method" of teaching key signature? For that matter, whats the modern method?

10. Once again, what is the modern vs the traditional way of doing this? If you are referring to the fact that most students are taught common practice voice leading, when popular music has heavily deviated from common practice, then yea, I guess I would agree.

11. How is sight reading "taught" at all? My teachers always just told me, "Obverse the time signature, key signature, and clef. Observe anything else you can with your remaining time. Now begin to play, and dont stop for any reason." I dont necessarily consider this to be a pedagogy though

12. Same thing as before. What is the "traditional method?"

13. Well, yea, its really shitty to tell someone that Dorian is when you play a C major scale starting on D. Its also really shitty to tell people that modes are rare, or that you need extremely simple harmony for something to be modal.


I dont really care if I agree with you or not either, but it seems like you are creating a false dichotomy between something called traditional and something else which we havent defined yet, and thats dangerous for OP and other readers who might believe it.

What I really am interested in though, is how you would teach your students these things, and how that contrasts to the "traditional method."

You could be referring to the fact that many musicians used to leave home as early as age 6 or 7 to study at conservatory (Shostakovich), but that doesnt happen anymore, and still wouldnt have an impact on the methods used to teach said student.
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#20
Quote by reverb66
Out of curiosity - what's the actual alternative to that?


It's really about time, in my opinion, so anything that gets you these skills quickly and can be used in real time, would be a valid alternative.

For example, what if in two days, you could know #1, (assuming that you don't know it)?

And add to that, you could do #1 in 2 seconds or less. That means looking at or touching any note, and instantly being able to name it.

It also means that you can call out any note on any string and find it in 2 seconds or less also.

-----------------------------------------------

Under the traditional ways that there are to learn that skill right now, anyone want to float an opinion or come up with a guess as to how much time would be required to accomplish the same outcome, (in number of days)?

If that seems esoteric, and your answer would be something like, "well it depends upon the person".

OK, let's do a 2 question survey for all who like to jump in:

2 Questions:

1. Do you know the notes on the neck to the 2 seconds or less proficiency stated in the above conditions?

2. If "No", you're done. If yes, how long would you estimate it took you from the day you started trying to learn it, to the moment you had that level of proficiency?

Best,

Sean
citizencaveman
Registered User
Join date: May 2014
12 IQ
#21
I only started to learn guitar some ten months ago, having never previously played any musical instrument.

For the first six months my practice was all over the place. Some days I practiced, some day I didn't. I didn't focus on any particular thing. Needless to say, I made little progress.

Disenchanted, I gave it up for a month.

Then I decided to have another go. This time I planned out a daily schedule. Twenty minutes for chords, twenty minutes for this and so on until it added up to two hours each day.

I amazed myself by managing to stick with it. After six weeks I found I had made more progress than I had in the first six months.

Unlike the six months, the six weeks had targets to achieve making my practice regular and consistent instead of f---ing and farting about like I use to.
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#22
Quote by Sean0913


1. Do you know the notes on the neck to the 2 seconds or less proficiency stated in the above conditions?

2. If "No", you're done. If yes, how long would you estimate it took you from the day you started trying to learn it, to the moment you had that level of proficiency?

Best,

Sean


1. Yes

2. Hard to say, but I would have been able to confidently do it in about a years time I think.

Don't forget when analyzing the data from your survey that most people dont go into a shed, learn all the note names, and walk out. They are probably learning note names, scale patterns, chords, songs, and other things all simultaneously. So the real amount of time spent learning just the note names is really hard to decipher


^ Great post. A practice schedule, and even log or diary, are great things to speed up your improvement. For the sake of the thread, however, I wouldnt be inclined to say its a modern technique. There are some Bach quotes on the practice regiment he assigned his students and children
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#23
Quote by bassalloverthe
1. Yes

2. Hard to say, but I would have been able to confidently do it in about a years time I think.

Don't forget when analyzing the data from your survey that most people dont go into a shed, learn all the note names, and walk out. They are probably learning note names, scale patterns, chords, songs, and other things all simultaneously. So the real amount of time spent learning just the note names is really hard to decipher

^ Great post. A practice schedule, and even log or diary, are great things to speed up your improvement. For the sake of the thread, however, I wouldnt be inclined to say its a modern technique. There are some Bach quotes on the practice regiment he assigned his students and children


OK, 2 days. To that proficiency.

There's your benchmark. That's just point #1.

So, it is within reason that I hold the opinion that I have.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#24
Quote by Sean0913
OK, I've done it in 2 days. To that proficiency.

There's your benchmark. That's just point #1.

So, it is within reason that I hold the opinion that I have.

Best,

Sean


Okay, but I still have no idea what your method is, and that was the entire point. You could have done that using a "traditional" method and just had an outstanding student


Most posters are going to point out how incredulous that claim is, and ask you to support it
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#25
Quote by bassalloverthe
Okay, but I still have no idea what your method is, and that was the entire point. You could have done using a "traditional" method and just had an outstanding student


No you have no idea what my method is.

If you were to, I think that is known as "teaching" isn't it?

I could have had an outstanding student. Let's entertain that thought.

So, what about 500+ outstanding students?

I'm not concerned with calls of "incredulous claims".

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#26
Quote by Sean0913
No you have no idea what my method is.

If you were to, I think that is known as "teaching" isn't it?

I could have had an outstanding student. Let's entertain that thought.

So, what about 500+ outstanding students?

Best,

Sean


I understand that I don't know your method. That would be why I asked what it is

It also pains me to thing about the 500 students who learned modes wrong, but I suppose that's for another thread
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#28
Quote by Sean0913
I think that's called teaching.

Best,

Sean


So the only thing which seperates the traditional style from the modern style is a teacher? Lol, don't be purposefully dense
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#29
Quote by bassalloverthe
So the only thing which seperates the traditional style from the modern style is a teacher? Lol, don't be purposefully dense


Speaking of dense...

Wow... I'll spell it out for you.

No, you do not know my method. Explaining the method, is the same as teaching it. I'm not going to do that. My method isn't important; I'm expressing an opinion on the traditional way things are learned and taught, if you're a guitar player looking to play better, understand music better etc.

I was registering my opinion, I'm not here to propose an alternative, or raise your understanding of how I teach be it different or otherwise, by providing examples.

That's outside the scope of this discussion. I will clarify questions about something I said, like "What do you mean by traditional method" etc, but I will not offer alternatives or explain how I do things.

Is there anything about this concept that you're not picking up?

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
Black_devils
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2013
460 IQ
#30
When it comes to how good you get at guitar it doesn't fall under "Years" it falls under how many quality hours of practice you put in on a consistent basis. A person could have been playing for 10 years, and they still could be consider a beginner on the other hand a person could have been playing for 3 years, and could be considered advance.


Another thing that I find as a fault in guitarist among us is that they're caught up in being perfect not only is this detrimental to your progress to becoming a great guitarist it's also bad for your mental state when practicing I used to be like this so i'm talking from pure experience. Practicing with this state of mind will slow you down you'll get frustrated when you can't perfect a song or transcribe something immediately some people even quit just from having that mentality.


Don't worry about how much time it takes to get there just know that you'll get closer to your goals by putting in the hours of daily practice.. There's people out there that are so infatuated with the thought of having perfect technique it's not about the technique it's about the music sure you can always improve within your technical limit, but that's not the point of being a musician. All I can really say is focus on being a musician not a virtuoso's because there's a lot of them out there that can't even make decent music.


It just pisses me off when people think that guitar playing is a competition it's not a sport for gods sake get your mind out the gutter people! On another note it does take years to become a great guitarist, but not as long as other people may assume it only really takes 4 years of consistent practice to become really good, but there's always something new out there to learn it's a never ending process, and you'll keep improving as you learn there's no "stopping point" unless you decided to quit.
Last edited by Black_devils at May 26, 2014,
AngryHatter
Position Player
Join date: Mar 2013
21 IQ
#31
That is akin to asking if I could have become an adult any faster.
It takes how long it takes.
Kids are not motivated the same as an adult; things and understandings change with time.
GuitarMunky
I play guitar n stuff
Join date: May 2007
115 IQ
#32
Quote by Unreal T
You always hear people saying " it takes years to be a great guitarist". Well, do you think that is because a lot of people do not know the correct approach to take to achieve musical goals?


No.

There is no one "correct" approach.


Quote by Unreal T

Everyone is just different and not everyone can benefit from the same methods of teaching as others for many reasons.

So do you think that when it takes years it is actually due to a lack of proper knowledge and other things when trying to achieve musical goals?


No

I just takes years. That's not to say people don't make mistakes in their approaches, but it's not the reason for it taking years. it just does…. for many reasons.


Quote by Unreal T

I bet if I knew what I knew now years ago I would have been so much better than I am now. Now I know why those handful of people seem to be better than the rest is simply because they just KNEW WHAT TO DO for their own personal musical goals. Too bad we can't rewind the clock.


I don't agree with that. There are lots of factors.


besides that, you CAN'T go back, so why worry about it. What you know now, you know because of those years. It's called experience. Use it to your advantage.
Last edited by GuitarMunky at May 26, 2014,
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#33
Quote by Sean0913
Speaking of dense...

Wow... I'll spell it out for you.

No, you do not know my method. Explaining the method, is the same as teaching it. I'm not going to do that. My method isn't important; I'm expressing an opinion on the traditional way things are learned and taught, if you're a guitar player looking to play better, understand music better etc.



"My method is teaching." Well, no. You teach your method. Which begs the question, what is your method. Surely it cant be that complicated to explain if your students can master it in only two days!

Quote by Sean0913


I was registering my opinion, I'm not here to propose an alternative, or raise your understanding of how I teach be it different or otherwise, by providing examples.




We want to know *why* you have that opinion. Maybe you have the best method of teaching guitar ever devised. How would anyone know your claim is valid?

Quote by Sean0913


That's outside the scope of this discussion. I will clarify questions about something I said, like "What do you mean by traditional method" etc, but I will not offer alternatives or explain how I do things.



So discussing your teaching methods is outside the scope of a thread on teaching methods? Wonderful. If you would please answer your hypothetical question, what do you consider a "traditional method" of teaching.


Quote by Sean0913


Is there anything about this concept that you're not picking up?

Best,

Sean


Yes, all of it. Because I dont even know what the concept is, let alone whether or not Im getting it. All you've said is, "I've had 500+ students and my methods allowed them to excel."

I'm genuinely curious, beyond the purposes of this thread, how someone with no musical experience learned all the note names on the neck in 2 days. It sounds miraculous to me, and thats why Im suspicious.

It also doesnt help your argument to cite your students, because for all you or anyone else knows, you use an extremely "traditional" method. I just dont know because I dont know what the method is.

I know you'll probably continue to shrug off my legitimate question because of hurt feelings you have left over from another thread, but...

I know you say you are a world class teacher, but for all I know, you're blowing smoke up my ass. So I was just curious about one very simple teaching technique you use
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Hail
i'm a mean bully
Join date: Jan 2010
431 IQ
#34
sean's got a lot of credibility and i definitely trust him as an educator. i don't agree with him all the time, but it's at least in the 80-90% range

he's been here a long time and helped a lot of people. i don't see the point of arguing over different approaches in a non-constructive way as if there's one "set" way of doing things

education is a very individualized process and each student needs to be taken into account individually based on their strengths, weaknesses, and goals. the only contention i see is the difference between giving the students the power to decide how much they want to learn and dedicate, and hitting them on the hands with a ruler whenever they get something wrong. even then both ways are perfectly valid depending on the situation, the student, et al

i've had all kinds of teachers, including people on UG. music is a constantly growing spectacle for each person involved in it and you always learn more from everyone you meet and everything you listen to. even if sean is perpetuating ideas or whatever that i don't find important, those students can break out of those habits later if they don't work for them

the best teacher i ever had taught me modes the completely wrong way (and he was a trombonist!) but that doesn't change the fact that he was an outstanding person to learn under

idk i'm rambling ima go back to dark souls
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#35
Quote by Hail
sean's got a lot of credibility and i definitely trust him as an educator. i don't agree with him all the time, but it's at least in the 80-90% range

he's been here a long time and helped a lot of people. i don't see the point of arguing over different approaches in a non-constructive way as if there's one "set" way of doing things




Im sure, but that doesnt help me understand what a "traditional" teaching method is. Or a modern one for that matter. Id love if he taught me right now ITT

And its really hard to argue over different approaches, when no one has defined either approach! Only talked about why the word modern is better than the word traditional, but no thought given to what the words themselves actually mean
Hail
i'm a mean bully
Join date: Jan 2010
431 IQ
#36
i thought it was really clear what he meant by the traditional approach lol i mean he outlined it completely as a list of skills gained in a rough chronological order way forever ago in the thread

the "modern" approach is "bro just look up the tabs"
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#37
Quote by Hail
i thought it was really clear what he meant by the traditional approach lol i mean he outlined it completely as a list of skills gained in a rough chronological order way forever ago in the thread

the "modern" approach is "bro just look up the tabs"


I have to be reading this wrong, because what Im getting from this post is that Sean thinks interval relationships, keys, sight reading, etc are all useless skills that people generally dont need to learn anymore. I figured even shawn wasnt that naive. But if this is the case, someone, please, tell me where I can find the button to blow up this board and everyone on it?

I took his post to mean that he had a better way to teach students these things, but my problem is that I dont know what his method is, or the method hes comparing to.

Probably the methodman method
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Sean0913
Music Theory Life-Hacker
Join date: Dec 2009
813 IQ
#38
Quote by bassalloverthe
"My method is teaching." Well, no. You teach your method. Which begs the question, what is your method. Surely it cant be that complicated to explain if your students can master it in only two days!


We want to know *why* you have that opinion. Maybe you have the best method of teaching guitar ever devised. How would anyone know your claim is valid?


So discussing your teaching methods is outside the scope of a thread on teaching methods? Wonderful. If you would please answer your hypothetical question, what do you consider a "traditional method" of teaching.


Yes, all of it. Because I dont even know what the concept is, let alone whether or not Im getting it. All you've said is, "I've had 500+ students and my methods allowed them to excel."

I'm genuinely curious, beyond the purposes of this thread, how someone with no musical experience learned all the note names on the neck in 2 days. It sounds miraculous to me, and thats why Im suspicious.

It also doesnt help your argument to cite your students, because for all you or anyone else knows, you use an extremely "traditional" method. I just dont know because I dont know what the method is.

I know you'll probably continue to shrug off my legitimate question because of hurt feelings you have left over from another thread, but...

I know you say you are a world class teacher, but for all I know, you're blowing smoke up my ass. So I was just curious about one very simple teaching technique you use


If I explain the method, to you, that is called "teaching you the method" because it cannot be explained, without you understanding, and to understand means I have to teach you something. We are not in a teacher/student dynamic.

My method isn't the scope of this topic/thread. This is about an opinion on the traditional method, as I see it, from my perspective; not anyone else's.

Review what the thread was about. It's not teaching methods.

Why do I have that opinion? Perspective and experience. Both of which are outside the scope of this topic. This isn't about me. This was an opinion, one of many put forth in response to a question in this topic. I clarified from a guitar-learning perspective examples of problem areas with the Traditional Method. I have a problem with it. I have reasons; chief among them, is the time it takes. That's my point of view.

In regards to point two, I'll defer that answer to you. How would anyone ever know my claims are valid? Good question. Let's remove me from this though, and use a variable.

How does person A determine the validity of X?

It's okay to be suspicious, if that's what you are. Am I now responsible to appease your feelings?

Also, I don't have an "argument"; I have made a statement.

I never said I am a world class teacher. That is definitely not an opinion I hold at all. What I teach is a different story, than my skill sets as a teacher.

And to clarify my point:

The skills, (most of them) in that list, are useful, some aren't, but how they are taught and learned via, the Traditional Method, is where I have the problem.

We good?

Let others talk and let's keep this topic on point.

You want to know if I will explain what a Traditional Method is. I'll tell you what: ask me a specific question, as to "is "x" for learning "y" what you consider a traditional method?", then I will answer that directly. This way you can play with every permutation of detail until you are happy. That sounds fair to me.


Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
bassalloverthe
Registered User
Join date: May 2012
43 IQ
#39
Quote by Sean0913
If I explain the method, to you, that is called "teaching you the method" because it cannot be explained, without you understanding, and to understand means I have to teach you something. We are not in a teacher/student dynamic.

My method isn't the scope of this topic/thread. This is about an opinion on the traditional method, as I see it, from my perspective; not anyone else's.

Review what the thread was about. It's not teaching methods.

Why do I have that opinion? Perspective and experience. Both of which are outside the scope of this topic. This isn't about me. This was an opinion, one of many put forth in response to a question in this topic. I clarified from a guitar-learning perspective examples of problem areas with the Traditional Method. I have a problem with it. I have reasons; chief among them, is the time it takes. That's my point of view.

In regards to point two, I'll defer that answer to you. How would anyone ever know my claims are valid? Good question. Let's remove me from this though, and use a variable.

How does person A determine the validity of X?

It's okay to be suspicious, if that's what you are. Am I now responsible to appease your feelings?

Also, I don't have an "argument"; I have made a statement.

I never said I am a world class teacher. That is definitely not an opinion I hold at all. What I teach is a different story, than my skill sets as a teacher.

And to clarify my point:

The skills, (most of them) in that list, are useful, some aren't, but how they are taught and learned via, the Traditional Method, is where I have the problem.

We good?

Let others talk and let's keep this topic on point.

You want to know if I will explain what a Traditional Method is. I'll tell you what: ask me a specific question, as to "is "x" for learning "y" what you consider a traditional method?", then I will answer that directly. This way you can play with every permutation of detail until you are happy. That sounds fair to me.


Best,

Sean



I think you were one of the first posters to bring up the term traditional method, so I'll leave that off topic to you.

Okay, addressing the last part of your post: pick any of the thirteen topics you listed. Compare what you consider to be a traditional method, and compare it to your method. I'm surprised that you didn't get to that in your wall of text

Hail is right, youve made yourself comfortable here

PS I promise you won't be teaching me anything (if unpaid teaching is uncomfortable) since I already know the names of notes on a fretboard

Last PS I swear. It's very hard for me to give you an example of a "traditional" teaching method for you tocompare, because I never use the term traditional teaching method, and I didn't bring it up in this thread. That's why I'm hoping you will provide an example, since you seem to have so many issues with it
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
Vlasco
Registered User
Join date: Jun 2007
121 IQ
#40
I have some students who rip right along using traditional methods. I certainly do not use traditional materials for all my students but those who use the traditional materials end up far more well rounded than those who do not but make no stellar progress in any one area at a time.