Page 2 of 4
#41
Quote by bassalloverthe
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


I was the first poster to bring up the Traditional Method, its a concept and moniker I used to make a statement.

On my last point of the post. I laid out specific conditions in a variable format, a template to follow, if you will, to get the information that you're asking about, as far as "What do you mean by traditional method?"

Hail is right about a great many things, and I respect his knowledge and contributions to many topics, and he's a great contributor here.

Re your first PS: Your first part of that promise was correct.

I'm glad you know the notes on the fretboard. It's a great skillset to have, especially if you want to immediately apply theory, as you go.

Re your last PS: I'm not going to be able to help you, if you cannot come up with a sentence. The concept obviously is benign, and unimportant, so let it go, and acknowledge that you don't understand what I could possibly mean, and let's move on.

Best,

Sean
#42
Quote by Sean0913

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

Sean


You sur have given me loads to think about

In an ideal situation, a kid could be given his first guitar and placed into an ideal environment where he would exceed quite quickly. For example, Dahani Harrison grew up surrounded by very talented and hard working musicians who would've helped him develop.

Probably the minority but you've probably got the idea...
#43
Quote by Sean0913
I was the first poster to bring up the Traditional Method, its a concept and moniker I used to make a statement.

On my last point of the post. I laid out specific conditions in a variable format, a template to follow, if you will, to get the information that you're asking about, as far as "What do you mean by traditional method?"

Sean


Actually, what you said was,

Quote by Sean0913


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.

Sean


Nothing about what methods you dont like, just that you dont like them. Its difficult to lie about what you said when quoting is so easy on UG

Quote by Sean0913



Re your last PS: I'm not going to be able to help you, if you cannot come up with a sentence. The concept obviously is benign, and unimportant, so let it go, and acknowledge that you don't understand what I could possibly mean, and let's move on.

Best,

Sean


An appeal to grammar? How base, and a convenient way to avoid a perfectly good question.

The main problem I have with your posting in this thread is that you posted this list of "teaching methods."

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)


Sean


How is "circle of 5ths" a teaching method. What do you consider to be the traditional way of teaching the circle of 5ths, and how is your way better. Very simple question that you should be able to answer in one or two paragraphs. Seriously, what is your method, and what is the method you are comparing to.

You're telling players to disregard something which may not exist, and replace it with a pedagogy that you wont reveal
#44
Quote by Vlasco
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.


Hey Vlasco! Good to see you man! Thanks for your comments!

When you say well rounded, are you speaking of sight reading and such?

I sightread. But I have long held that sight reading for the most part is useless, for most people on guitar. You can function perfectly without it, and theory can be understood and applied correctly, without sight reading abilities.

I think you need it if:

1. You're planning on going into Jazz, ensembles etc. Must of that music is istll in standard notation.

2. You're going into classical guitar, though most classical guitar studies use a notation specific to classical guitar.

3. You're going to be a composer, work with orchestration, etc. Counterpoint, SATB, chorale, etc.

4. You're going to be a studio musician and working with the bandleader, producer and studio time is money (think Tommy Tedesco, Brent Mason, Carl Verheyen and Dan Huff)

5. You need it because you plan on auditioning and enrolling in a music school. As you may recall, in the time I've been here on UG I've "boot camped" 5 people from on here, in that skillset, to get them where they passed their auditions. So, even in a pinch, contextually, we were able to get them ready with their sight reading to get entrance.

6. It's personally meaningful to you.

I agree that conceptually it makes you well rounded, but in my professional opinion, as a teacher, the time should be expended if you're actually going to need it, and use it, proportional to the time that it takes to become proficient at it. If you're not going to be immediately applying it, I suggest that you spend time on things that you'll use today, and learn that skill in context with an interest that directly uses that, later on.

I've had students graduate, and turn around and then want to learn sightreading, because they already had everything else, and this sort of completed it for them, even if they weren't going to use it as much, it meant something to them.

Best,

Sean
#45
^ classical guitar doesnt have special notation at all. The only thing I can even think of is the way the right hand fingerings are notated, but thats exactly the same as on piano (except done as alpha, instead of numeric) where P=1, I=2, M=3, A=4, and Q=5. Sometimes guitar reads two staves, but thats hardly unique
#46
Quote by Sean0913

I think you need it if:
3. You're going to be a composer, work with orchestration, etc. Counterpoint, SATB, chorale, etc.

Why? As far as I know, if you're composing, you can take your time. It's not a real time thing like playing a song from sheet music. So why exactly do you need to be able to sight read?
#47
Quote by bassalloverthe
Actually, what you said was,

Nothing about what methods you dont like, just that you dont like them. Its difficult to lie about what you said when quoting is so easy on UG

An appeal to grammar? How base, and a convenient way to avoid a perfectly good question.

The main problem I have with your posting in this thread is that you posted this list of "teaching methods."

How is "circle of 5ths" a teaching method. What do you consider to be the traditional way of teaching the circle of 5ths, and how is your way better. Very simple question that you should be able to answer in one or two paragraphs. Seriously, what is your method, and what is the method you are comparing to.

You're telling players to disregard something which may not exist, and replace it with a pedagogy that you wont reveal


I didn't lie about anything. I agreed that I brought up the term in this thread. Perhaps you're not comprehending words and how they are put together to form ideas and opinions?

I don't see where I am required to state by name what methods I don't like. I thought it was a generally understood term, and that if each person had their "idea" of what that might encompass, that I would probably agree with them about their idea.

You think you have a "perfectly good question", do you? On what basis? The one giving it, or the one receiving it?

Circle of 5ths is a universal illustrative tool used in part, to teach key signatures. It's a concept and a method found everywhere. That definitely fits into the idea of "Traditional Method" as I stated.

To answer your question, I don't teach the circle of 5ths. Everything that you might suggest that the Co5 is designed to teach, they will already know, though other means. So, the Co5, as I see it, is useless, and pointless.

You're pursuing something that "may not exist", then, is that what you are saying?

That makes sense to you?

Are you doing likewise, with the Yeti, the Chupacabra, and the Loch Ness Monster?

How many possible non existent things do you like to chase, exactly?

Best,

Sean
#48
Quote by bassalloverthe
^ classical guitar doesnt have special notation at all. The only thing I can even think of is the way the right hand fingerings are notated, but thats exactly the same as on piano (except done as alpha, instead of numeric) where P=1, I=2, M=3, A=4, and Q=5. Sometimes guitar reads two staves, but thats hardly unique


"The only thing I can think of.."

Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock into that...

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
#49
Quote by Elintasokas
Why? As far as I know, if you're composing, you can take your time. It's not a real time thing like playing a song from sheet music. So why exactly do you need to be able to sight read?


Well, I think in general you're more likely going to find places where it's more convenient and applicable to use it. Composition programs, Sibelius, if you're going to be managing scores for other musicians to know what to play, etc. I'm talking about, movies, soundtracks, video games, etc. Not composing in the informal sense.

Best,

Sean
#50
Quote by Sean0913
I didn't lie about anything. I agreed that I brought up the term in this thread. Perhaps you're not comprehending words and how they are put together to form ideas and opinions?

Sean


You said that in your original post you named pedagogy techniques you disagree with. You didnt


Quote by Sean0913


I don't see where I am required to state by name what methods I don't like. I thought it was a generally understood term, and that if each person had their "idea" of what that might encompass, that I would probably agree with them about their idea.

Sean


Your not required. Its not understood, it was never defined by you or anyone else. So you would leave it to guess work?

Quote by Sean0913



You think you have a "perfectly good question", do you? On what basis? The one giving it, or the one receiving it?


Sean


On the basis that you said "I dont like traditional methods," so I asked you what traditional methods are


Quote by Sean0913



Circle of 5ths is a universal illustrative tool used in part, to teach key signatures. It's a concept and a method found everywhere. That definitely fits into the idea of "Traditional Method" as I stated.

To answer your question, I don't teach the circle of 5ths. Everything that you might suggest that the Co5 is designed to teach, they will already know, though other means. So, the Co5, as I see it, is useless, and pointless.

Sean


Teach me what a Pythagorean comma is without describing the circle of 5ths. After all, this is the original reason the circle of 5ths was important

Quote by Sean0913


You're pursuing something that "may not exist", then, is that what you are saying?

That makes sense to you?

Are you doing likewise, with the Yeti, the Chupacabra, and the Loch Ness Monster?

How many possible non existent things do you like to chase, exactly?

Best,

Sean


I am not pursuing anything, I am trying to define the terms you are using. Unfortunately, this board is for theory discussion, not conspiracies.

What I AM learning is that your teaching method must leave students with a lot of dead ends, and doesnt equip them to understand the literature and concepts they will need to master after theyve moved on from taking lessons with you.

EDIT:

^Reported for double post

Regarding your double post, the exception proves the rule. Literally nothing about classical guitar notation is different from any other notation, except that the fingers are named with letters instead of numbers. If you can name any other differences, Ill believe that you werent talking out your arse
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
#51
Quote by bassalloverthe
You said that in your original post you named pedagogy techniques you disagree with. You didnt


Your not required. Its not understood, it was never defined by you or anyone else. So you would leave it to guess work?


On the basis that you said "I dont like traditional methods," so I asked you what traditional methods are


Teach me what a Pythagorean comma is without describing the circle of 5ths. After all, this is the original reason the circle of 5ths was important


I am not pursuing anything, I am trying to define the terms you are using. Unfortunately, this board is for theory discussion, not conspiracies.

What I AM learning is that your teaching method must leave students with a lot of dead ends, and doesnt equip them to understand the literature and concepts they will need to master after theyve moved on from taking lessons with you.

EDIT:

^Reported for double post


1. Nope that's not what happened.

2. I would leave it to guess work. I am comfortable with that.

3. That question was answered.

4. Tell me what relevance it has to someone that plays guitar.

5. You are pursuing, because you keep asking about something that "may not exist"

6. If that's what you're learning, I'd find cause to suggest that you should re-examine your criteria for learning.

Literature and concepts they need to master? Yeah? They *need* to master? Do they?

What literature and concepts would those be? I don't think I have ever represented that a person would never need to learn anything after they moved on. Music is a well with no bottom, you can always tap into and learn things from it.

I know theory but I still found it a good idea to learn Jazz from Jimmy Bruno, when I was interested in exploring it in more depth.

Regarding Classical notation: You seem to operate under a misguided notion of the value I place upon your opinion.

Double post reporting? I think we are done here.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
#53
Quote by Sean0913
Circle of 5ths is a universal illustrative tool used in part, to teach key signatures. It's a concept and a method found everywhere. That definitely fits into the idea of "Traditional Method" as I stated.

To answer your question, I don't teach the circle of 5ths. Everything that you might suggest that the Co5 is designed to teach, they will already know, though other means. So, the Co5, as I see it, is useless, and pointless.


I'm also having a hard time understanding what the traditional method is just from reading this thread. From what I understand here, it sounds like the traditional method is supposed to take a long time and expects people to gradually make connections on their own by using various patterns and mnemonic devices. Is this a fair definition?

And no offense, but if you won't describe your teaching method (or at least some alternative to traditional), then how would anyone else be expected know why you feel the circle of fifths is pointless or what other concept replaces its use? Not that I rely on it for anything.
#54
Quote by cjohnson122989
I'm also having a hard time understanding what the traditional method is just from reading this thread. From what I understand here, it sounds like the traditional method is supposed to take a long time and expects people to gradually make connections on their own by using various patterns and mnemonic devices. Is this a fair definition?

And no offense, but if you won't describe your teaching method (or at least some alternative to traditional), then how would anyone else be expected know why you feel the circle of fifths is pointless or what other concept replaces its use? Not that I rely on it for anything.


Hey cjohnson - I think that's a very good way to define it, absolutely. I did mention musictheory.net as a great example of this. That is at the very least, a specific example with many specific lessons, and explanations, and ideas presented.

Even if nothing else makes sense as a Traditional way, let's do that one and I will call that the "Traditional Method" and its one people delight in suggesting to others. I think it sucks.

No offense taken, by the way.

I don't think anyone from the outside could know "why" I feel the way I do about these concepts; wouldn't that require them to have my perspective?

How are you, cj going to be able to appreciate what I know, and thereby say "Ah yeah, I agree", or "I disagree"?

I don't see how that is even possible from an outsiders point of view. That fits the characteristic that defines what an outsiders point of view is.

I think it would be more constructive to list what people find problematic with whatever you just defined, as the traditional method:

Bob wants to learn music theory. He plays the guitar, he wants it for the guitar. Here's the first page of the site:

http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/10

What's wrong with this page as it pertains to:

1. What he wants to know.

2. How quickly he wants to know it

3. Applying it to the guitar.

Not from your perspective, mind you, but from one who is brand new and doesn't know anything about theory yet. This is his first page. This is what we give them, right?

Start there.

EDIT: Since I respect you.

I'll at least describe my approach, without going into the nuts and bolts of the "how", for one thing:

I teach how to name every triad, and extended chord there is. Correctly, and quickly.

By saying this I mean it's immediate. Not just in concept, "I understand how to do it, but I cant actually, you know DO it...". But, "I can do this in real time."

What that also gives them:

Intervals.

Chord knowledge correct to the actual notes. Whats E7#9

Circle of 5ths

Diatonic Harmony.

Eliminates any need for a chord book to learn chords and patterns and shapes. With knowing the Notes on the Neck, they can apply it to the guitar, as well. This includes inversions, partials, quartals, harmonic clusters, and open and closed voicings

That's as a start. There's more, but that's an alternative that's better. If you can name any chord on the planet faster than most could Google it, that covers a lot of ground.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
#55
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
basalloverthe is the PhilipPepper of MT.


Tried Google, who's he? A poster on UG?

^to answer your question on one sentence

If you describe any single teaching method you use, that would clear up a great deal of confusion.

EDIT:

Also, Sean, I think its humorous that one of the first "unnecessary skills" you picked was sight reading.

Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
#56
Quote by Sean0913
Hey Vlasco! Good to see you man! Thanks for your comments!

When you say well rounded, are you speaking of sight reading and such?

I sightread. But I have long held that sight reading for the most part is useless, for most people on guitar. You can function perfectly without it, and theory can be understood and applied correctly, without sight reading abilities.

I think you need it if:

1. You're planning on going into Jazz, ensembles etc. Must of that music is istll in standard notation.

2. You're going into classical guitar, though most classical guitar studies use a notation specific to classical guitar.

3. You're going to be a composer, work with orchestration, etc. Counterpoint, SATB, chorale, etc.

4. You're going to be a studio musician and working with the bandleader, producer and studio time is money (think Tommy Tedesco, Brent Mason, Carl Verheyen and Dan Huff)

5. You need it because you plan on auditioning and enrolling in a music school. As you may recall, in the time I've been here on UG I've "boot camped" 5 people from on here, in that skillset, to get them where they passed their auditions. So, even in a pinch, contextually, we were able to get them ready with their sight reading to get entrance.

6. It's personally meaningful to you.

I agree that conceptually it makes you well rounded, but in my professional opinion, as a teacher, the time should be expended if you're actually going to need it, and use it, proportional to the time that it takes to become proficient at it. If you're not going to be immediately applying it, I suggest that you spend time on things that you'll use today, and learn that skill in context with an interest that directly uses that, later on.

I've had students graduate, and turn around and then want to learn sightreading, because they already had everything else, and this sort of completed it for them, even if they weren't going to use it as much, it meant something to them.

Best,

Sean



Naw, they just tend to handle more topics in smaller doses better than fewer topics in large doses. Everything comes up together and nothing falls behind just as nothing ever seems to pull a clear lead.
#57
Quote by bassalloverthe


EDIT:

Also, Sean, I think its humorous that one of the first "unnecessary skills" you picked was sight reading.



For most guitarists the skill is relatively useless and the subtitle states that this would be where to ask about sight reading though it isn't endorsing it as an important skill.
#58
Quote by Sean0913


Regarding Classical notation: You seem to operate under a misguided notion of the value I place upon your opinion.


Sean


Thats a very interesting way of saying, "I was wrong."

I wouldn't even care if I didnt think younger, slightly more naive players might think you were right

^ Guitar players dont read lead sheets anymore? Every kid I knew in highschool could do it Also, Bach has one of the largest canons that guitar players utilize (lute music, as well as his piano and violin music). Shall we have them learn it by ear?

Oh well, I guess theres a reason for the joke

How do you get a guitarist to shut up? Put sheet music in front of him
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 26, 2014,
#59
Most guitar players I know do not read lead sheets and could not if you asked them to. It's not something most of them would have any interest in doing either.
#60
Quote by Sean0913

http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/10

What's wrong with this page as it pertains to:

1. What he wants to know.

2. How quickly he wants to know it

3. Applying it to the guitar.


Yeah, I can see how that would be hard for a total beginner. This, as a first lesson, is probably unhelpful to an absolute beginner because it's emphasizing the ability to read sheet music - a skill that many successful guitarists don't even bother with. This would assume right away that you know the letter name of every note on the fretboard.

I think what piqued my interest on this thread was how I can relate to the frustration of spending years trying to make sense of certain concepts, only to look back and realize that it was not very difficult to understand at all. I probably learned via traditional method as I am primarily self taught (my first and only guitar lesson came after 8 years of going it alone). Lately, I've been trying to make sense of everything in a root/interval way, but I first learned guitar by reading tab and looking up basic chords.
#61
Quote by Vlasco
Most guitar players I know do not read lead sheets and could not if you asked them to. It's not something most of them would have any interest in doing either.


Do you think they are better off as players for it? Are there outlets of knowledge unavailable to them because of the skill they dont have?

My answers are no, and yes, respectively. I would, personally, focus my pedagogy around those two questions.
#62
Quote by Vlasco
Naw, they just tend to handle more topics in smaller doses better than fewer topics in large doses. Everything comes up together and nothing falls behind just as nothing ever seems to pull a clear lead.


That's interesting.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read this, is "learning styles" Do you already have an assessment of the primary learning strengths for each student?

One thing when bringing the Academy online, back in 2009, was I made sure that I had something to account for every learning style, from visual to audible to hands on and so forth, in each lecture. That was a deliberate, planned out part of it. The other was, how to make it relevant for all cultures, without tending towards careless idioms that another country would have no clue about.

That was the biggest unknown. I was actually surprised when no one ever needed help, regardless of what country - Thailand, Croatia, Sweden, Canada (eh), even all my ones from the UK. You'd think that after a lecture SOMEONE says, "I didnt get that...what did you mean by that?".

Right? When do you see that no one EVER asks questions in a class lecture?

That to me is stunning. I can only figure that it was an approach that I somehow refined having taught it to hundreds in the years before it went online.

Best,

Sean
#63
Quote by Sean0913
That's interesting.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read this, is "learning styles" Do you already have an assessment of the primary learning strengths for each student?

One thing when bringing the Academy online, back in 2009, was I made sure that I had something to account for every learning style, from visual to audible to hands on and so forth, in each lecture. That was a deliberate, planned out part of it. The other was, how to make it relevant for all cultures, without tending towards careless idioms that another country would have no clue about.

That was the biggest unknown. I was actually surprised when no one ever needed help, regardless of what country - Thailand, Croatia, Sweden, Canada (eh), even all my ones from the UK. You'd think that after a lecture SOMEONE says, "I didnt get that...what did you mean by that?".

Right? When do you see that no one EVER asks questions in a class lecture?

That to me is stunning. I can only figure that it was an approach that I somehow refined having taught it to hundreds in the years before it went online.

Best,

Sean



Sure, if I give out traditional materials to a student then I believe it to be the most helpful method for them as a learner. No doubt the type of learner who learns best from those materials tends more towards a different style of study.
#64
Quote by bassalloverthe
Do you think they are better off as players for it? Are there outlets of knowledge unavailable to them because of the skill they dont have?

My answers are no, and yes, respectively. I would, personally, focus my pedagogy around those two questions.



Sure, but it wouldn't be a great idea to take someone who has expressed interest in just rocking out in their free time as a hobby and telling them they have to learn how to read jazz charts or classical pieces. It's a waste of their time and it kills their passion. It's much more efficient to give them the information that is useful to their goals and leave it open to expansion later when they decide to delve deeper.
#65
Quote by cjohnson122989
Yeah, I can see how that would be hard for a total beginner. This, as a first lesson, is probably unhelpful to an absolute beginner because it's emphasizing the ability to read sheet music - a skill that many successful guitarists don't even bother with. This would assume right away that you know the letter name of every note on the fretboard.

I think what piqued my interest on this thread was how I can relate to the frustration of spending years trying to make sense of certain concepts, only to look back and realize that it was not very difficult to understand at all. I probably learned via traditional method as I am primarily self taught (my first and only guitar lesson came after 8 years of going it alone). Lately, I've been trying to make sense of everything in a root/interval way, but I first learned guitar by reading tab and looking up basic chords.


And that's something, I definitely can relate to my friend. I spent 12 years of my life in L.A. trying to understand this all. I was accepted to GIT when it was still GIT, BIT and PIT, before it was consolidated to MI, if that tells you anything. Back then it was much more a Howard Roberts centered teaching; I studied with Dick Grove, if you remember him. I was really close with John Tapetta, I cut my teeth on Troy Stetina. I was the self taught guy, reading Wolf Marshall, trying to understand Satriani, and going crazy.

Wolf Marshall was my number one reason for wanting to know theory. That guy could play and he knew everything (at least in my world at the time he did). A few years ago at Winter NAMM, I ran into him, and I was shocked that no one seemed to recognize him or know who he was. I expressed a great deal of thanks for all he had done to inspire me, but it was a bittersweet meeting. The poor guy had just lost his father the night before, and he was gracious but clearly hurting; I didn't even have the heart to ask to take a picture with him. I felt so bad for him.

Anyways 12 years or so after trying to understand it, some things clicked, and I stepped back and said, "If someone would have just explained that this this and this...I'd have had it in 3 months, not 12 years. The question became its own answer: If people would have known this they would have taught it that way. So, there was a reason, that no ones teaching it, its because they didn't see it. I did. I can't tell you why I saw it, but there you have it.

I have a question for you, how come you say that once you understood it, "it was not difficult at all", yet, you describe your first attempts to learning as "frustrating". How would something not difficult at all, also be frustrating? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if it were not difficult at all you would have gotten it right then? If this isn't the case, what do you credit as the reason for being frustrated.

And kudos and all respect for such a reasoned, real rational response.

You nailed it, that it would be hard for a total beginner. I think you understand better at least a sense of why I feel the way I do, so far as to say it sucks.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 26, 2014,
#66
I'm actually impressed at how quick I learnt guitar, I put in a lot more hours than I do now. Wouldn't change my approach if I somehow could
Blog Of Awesome UGers.
Quote by OddOneOut
I seem to attract girls.
Which is annoying, cos I'm a girl and I like cock.

Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
Being an idiot should be illegal too.
#67
Quote by Sean0913
I have a question for you, how come you say that once you understood it, "it was not difficult at all", yet, you describe your first attempts to learning as "frustrating". How would something not difficult at all, also be frustrating? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if it were not difficult at all you would have gotten it right then? If this isn't the case, what do you credit as the reason for being frustrated.



Thanks

I think I was referring to my old approach and the speed of my own personal understanding. It was frustrating that something so simple took so long to finally click. I started learning by reading tab, so in my earlier days I relied solely on patterns I recognized across other songs I learned. I tried to make sense of theory and diatonic intervals a few times, but never all at once. So... memorizing fret numbers...

I've made some moderate progress in learning about rhythm, time signatures, and composition by using notation software during this time period... and I did record myself often to clean up my technique, so I suppose it wasn't a total waste of time.


But since you asked:

The theory approach only became "not difficult" after I put in the time of doing some work on paper and running through different permutations of the major scale (is it ok to call them modes? or maybe agree to disagree and just call them major scale fragments?) as a guitar drill to aid in muscle memory, but mainly as a personal challenge to myself. When I began to recognize these same exact runs in tabs I've been struggling with, I decided to delve deeper into this approach. I just printed several sheets with blank fretboards and practiced filling out note names in various orders to search for something that made sense (ex: all the natural notes, modes of the major scale in 3 octaves, modes of the major scale in 2 octaves beginning on different notes and different strings, etc.) over and over again; and the repetition happened to build some big-picture understanding in my case. I do not rely on these sheets at all because scale construction makes sense to me now. I do not have to stop an think about it because I just plain know where intervals are in relation to a root note as a result of this practice - on paper as well as on guitar.

Trying to make sense of this all at once was difficult and frustrating, but now I would say that the concept itself is not nearly as difficult as it seemed. Knowing a basic major / minor or pentatonic scale is fine, but it isn't often that the entire scale would be used in a song, or even in a single musical phrase. These runs don't always start on the root either. Simply knowing a major scale as a shape isn't the same as understanding intervals. I truly wish that I had made sense of this sooner in my playing career. Fully understanding intervals in relation to the root through a comparison to the major scale was a huge step for me in filling the gaps that came with knowing a "shape" or a pattern. And I had to figure most of this out with no teacher. It all just seems so much simpler in hindsight when I try to explain it this way, and that is frustrating when I think of how easy it is vs. all the time I used to spend on rote memorization.

I take a lot of crap for it in these forums, but practicing the seven modes of the major scale (using the same root! and not some scale starting on a different note...) was very useful for being able to hear every interval used at least once in the context of the major scale's cycle of intervals. At the conclusion of the above exercise, the way I see it is: if chords can have inversions with notes, scales can have modes with intervals. Phrygian dominant would be a mode of the harmonic minor scale in that respect. And as long as UG keeps featuring articles and lessons with phrygian dominant in the title and Yngwie's picture on it's home page (like today), people will keep talking about modes. I don't care if other people see the use of this exercise, but I did, so I'm sticking with it.

I guess I wasn't far off in identifying my next step as understanding chord construction, based on your other post. I have already been taking some basic chords that I already know and breaking them down into using that same root/interval perspective I mentioned - even though it's been mainly root-third-fifth. That's one example of what I meant before about applying this approach to everything (and maybe even applied to roman numeral chord progressions too). But I'm confident that I could begin to try calculating inversions and other non-standard chords on my own through my understanding of diatonic intervals.
#68
Quote by cjohnson122989

Fully understanding intervals in relation to the root through a comparison to the major scale was a huge step for me in filling the gaps that came with knowing a "shape" or a pattern. And I had to figure most of this out with no teacher. It all just seems so much simpler in hindsight when I try to explain it this way, and that is frustrating when I think of how easy it is vs. all the time I used to spend on rote memorization.

How is that not rote memorization? It's just a different way of thinking. Instead of memorizing box shapes you still have to memorize every interval of every scale related to any given root. I'd argue it needs WAY more memorization than box shapes ever do.

I mean you need to be able to play any interval without thinking a second. That involves a ridiculous amount of memorization before you can recall them all in real time.

It's a really useful skill, though and one I've been working on a long time. I pretty much remember all the intervals for all major scales.
Last edited by Elintasokas at May 27, 2014,
#69
I have been playing for ten years. By that I mean I bought my first guitar and started learning ten years ago. However until I was fourteen, I only practised maybve half an hour a week. When I was fourteen I took it more seriously, and began practising half an hour a day. Had I done that from the start... wow.

For my first seven years, I taught myself, and because of that I learnt bad technique. When I had lessons, I imporved much faster. Had I had lessons from the start I would be ten times the guitarist I am now.
#70
@ Sean:

I agree that you can learn theory a lot faster. But you still need to practice your technique. You just can't become great at technique in a short period of time. It requires a lot of muscle memory. Of course I could be a lot better at technique but I find technical exercises boring. And I'm not saying people couldn't get better at shorter period time. But it still takes a lot of time to become really good.

How many great sounding guitarists have you seen that have been playing for a year or less?

Most of the time their bends and vibrato sound horrible and their playing sounds really sloppy. That's because they haven't spent enough time with the instrument. Of course they could be learned faster. But techique comes over time. You need a good sense of rhythm and a good ear. And they are skills that need some time to develop. Same with speed. It comes over time. Developing skills like this aren't (all) about understanding. I'm sure they could also be learned faster, but again, they still need time to develop properly.

I also see no need to hurry. Of course it's great if you can find ways to learn things faster. But on the other hand, as somebody said, many people see guitar as a competition (even though they may not even notice it). They ask questions about how good they should be in 3 years. Or are they good guitarists because they can play [insert whatever] and they have been playing for x years. That's seeing guitar as a competition.

I don't think it's that important to become a great guitarist at a really short period of time. You need time to become a musician. And being a good musician is differnet than being good at playing the guitar. You need the "vocabulary". You also need your own ideas and your own view of things. Learning to understand music takes time - you need to listen to it a lot.

But yeah, I think this is enough rambling, the thread was about getting better at guitar.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#71
I started playing guitar not by any method, my parents gave me an acoustic guitar and left me to it with the internet. Ahh, then internet. What a wonderful place.

I didn't bother with any theory, I was 16 and there were people around me in bands that I wanted to be a part of and wanted to be a part of now, nothing else was acceptable to me so I practised almost every single day and night until I was good enough.

With the help of the internet, Guitar Pro and proper motivation I managed to teach myself enough guitar technique and physical skill in 6 months to be able to audition for one of the local metal groups that one of my school friends was a part of. They let me join!

I was told my guitar playing was at a level that some people only achieved after 2 years and this made me feel great. I achieved my goal. Remember I was young, in high-school, didn't care much about school work and didn't have a girl friend.

I had a lot of time.

But this is what is possible. After i turned 18 and finished high school life started getting in the way of getting better although I did always still play in bands an practice when I could. I still improved more and still didn't know any theory.

2 more years passed and life started really getting in the way, I almost stopped playing all together but occationally practiced or wrote songs and retained my overall skill for the most part.

Now, finally I have more time available to me and I have been using this time to pick up my guitar again. My new approach now also includes the learning of music theory when the opportunity presents itself and so far it has been going well. I have learned many of the popular chords and scale notes and shapes as well as the circle of 5ths.

This really helps with song writing but having the playing skills in place really helps learn his theory. I remember when I couldnt even play the guitar properly how hard it was to understand theory but now that I have experience with the instrument and I am older I can understand the theory much more easily.

I would recommend this approach if you are young and figuring out the guitar for the first time. Music playing is about expression and feeling. theory can give you good guidelines to making good music but no amount of theory will make you create good music. That is up to you.
Last edited by Victorgeiger at May 27, 2014,
#72
Quote by Elintasokas
How is that not rote memorization? It's just a different way of thinking. Instead of memorizing box shapes you still have to memorize every interval of every scale related to any given root. I'd argue it needs WAY more memorization than box shapes ever do.


I agree that it is mainly a different way of thinking, but I would say that having a "full understanding" of something is not really the same as rote memorization. There is admittedly some rote memorization involved in the learning process of course, but I think once someone understands a guitar concept, it's no longer rote memorization in the same sense as memorizing every note of a guitar solo one at a time. Scales are a good aid in that.

And I honestly don't find myself memorizing the intervals of every scale. Just being aware of notes that aren't typical of some form of the major/minor scale is good enough for me. When I learned that the harmonic minor scale is the natural minor scale but with a major 7th instead of a minor 7th, that's all I needed to know to understand it.
#73
Quote by Vlasco
For most guitarists the skill is relatively useless and the subtitle states that this would be where to ask about sight reading though it isn't endorsing it as an important skill.


In what way is sight reading a useless skill? It is a lot more proficient than having to work out what the note is before you play it which is more time consuming. Imagine reading a book and having to work out each word before you understood the sentence, sight reading is like reading a book, you understand as you play. To say it is a useless skill is ridiculous, why would you want to have to spend all that time working out the music if you could just play and understand it automatically?
radiantmoon is the toughest person I know. He inflects a sense of impending doom upon any who look upon his stone-chiseled face. The children run out of fear, while the men run for they know that the stories are true.
#74
Quote by cjohnson122989
I agree that it is mainly a different way of thinking, but I would say that having a "full understanding" of something is not really the same as rote memorization. There is admittedly some rote memorization involved in the learning process of course, but I think once someone understands a guitar concept, it's no longer rote memorization in the same sense as memorizing every note of a guitar solo one at a time. Scales are a good aid in that.

And I honestly don't find myself memorizing the intervals of every scale. Just being aware of notes that aren't typical of some form of the major/minor scale is good enough for me. When I learned that the harmonic minor scale is the natural minor scale but with a major 7th instead of a minor 7th, that's all I needed to know to understand it.

You're right. Apparently I didn't quite know what rote learning means

But yeah, I find knowing all the intervals useful because you can think like "okay, this note becomes a sus4 suspension of the next chord, which I can then resolve nicely to the third etc". Also it makes playing ANY kind of arpeggio with any number of extensions possible more easily because you can basically build chords in real time.
#75
Quote by radiantmoon
In what way is sight reading a useless skill? It is a lot more proficient than having to work out what the note is before you play it which is more time consuming. Imagine reading a book and having to work out each word before you understood the sentence, sight reading is like reading a book, you understand as you play. To say it is a useless skill is ridiculous, why would you want to have to spend all that time working out the music if you could just play and understand it automatically?


Because most guitarists are memorizing short pieces with repeating riffs or progressions with little to no availability of notation. For many it isn't time efficient to go the notation route especially if the will is adamantly against it and the chance to use it isn't even all that common within their genre.
#76
Quote by Vlasco
Because most guitarists are memorizing short pieces with repeating riffs or progressions with little to no availability of notation. For many it isn't time efficient to go the notation route especially if the will is adamantly against it and the chance to use it isn't even all that common within their genre.



So, I guess we should all just skip sight reading. You know, because why should guitar players learn how to play any song by sight? I mean, hell...most players can sight read tabs; why shouldn't they learn how to sight read sheet music?


Because...laziness? What a bad excuse.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 27, 2014,
#77


So, I guess we should all just skip sight reading. You know, because why should guitar players learn how to play any song by sight? I mean, hell...most players can sight read tabs; why shouldn't they learn how to sight read sheet music?


Because...laziness? What a bad excuse.


Yes, because that's exactly what I was saying.
#78
Quote by Vlasco
Yes, because that's exactly what I was saying.

No, you're saying, "Why learn it if they never use it in their genre?" Which is a bullshit excuse that ultimately translates to:

"I PLAY METAL/PUNK/ROCK/BLUES! WHY SHOULD I LEARN TO SIGHT READ?"
Well, maybe because you're supposed to be a musician, as in someone who studies music?


Let's be real here. As guitar players, we can learn and have access to (via the internet) just about any style/genre. This makes us better players overall. If I learn a lot of Jazz, I can then take that and apply it to Metal or Rock or Blues. If I learn classical guitar, same thing. And so on and so forth.

Just because you "don't use it in your genre" doesn't mean it isn't going to make you a better musician. Learn how to sight read sheet music, regardless of whether your metal band uses tabs or sheet music. Sight reading is simply another tool in a musician's arsenal, that can be used to good effect. It will make you a better musician to actually learn how to use sight reading (aka study enough to properly learn it).


The only real point your argument boils down to is laziness. And that's an utter bullshit reason.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 28, 2014,
#80
That's great, and they might have more fun if they were able to use more "tools" (to continue the metaphor from earlier).

How cool is it, to be able to do the following:
Your buddy tells you, "Hey, learn this song. Here's the sheet music. We should play it sometime". Then, you look at it, turn on a metronome/drum machine, and play the basic parts (I could see not playing solos or such) without batting an eye. Just by sight reading it!

HOW COOL IS THAT?! Of course, that takes more than 2 weeks of practicing sight reading, but you get my point.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at May 28, 2014,