Page 3 of 4
#81
I'm not sure that I've ever had that happen in a guitar based band.

I would attribute more value to the skills sight reading develops that aren't related to actually reading through music. Skills such as learning to feel your way around the instrument, see the movement of melodies and chords in a more obvious and meaningful way than the guitar offers, and a more solid mental picture of what certain musical patterns feel and sound like on the instrument.
#84
I agree with Vlasco.

As a rock guitarist you don't almost ever even need to read music. And sight reading is different. It's being able to play the melody immediately by sight without needing to figure it out first.

I don't know why somebody would force himself to learn a skill that he may use a couple of times in his lifetime. I think it's just a waste of time if you are never going to use that skill. Of course if you are interested in sight reading, go and learn it - and then you should learn it. But if it's not useful for somebody, why would he need to learn it? There are so many different reasons to play the guitar. Somebody plays the guitar just for fun and learns his favorite riffs, basic chords and that's it. Some other wants to become a really versatile musician and guitarist. He may want to learn to sight read (and IMO should). But not everybody's goal is to become a great musician.

There's no right way/reason to learn to play the guitar. People are different. Most guitarists don't need sight reading. Even if it takes just two weeks to be able to sight read (at some level), it's still time that you could have spent better if sight reading isn't what you want to do.
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
#85
Quote by crazysam23_Atax


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.


It's not laziness, it's the time it consumes relative to the amount of times that you'll use it. after over 15 years of teaching I am very comfortable with saying that few players need to learn it, and in an earlier post in this, I outlined the places where it's most essential, or when people should learn to sight read. I do know how to sight read, so I'm not anti sightreading, but its definitely contextual.

I guarantee you the sightreading is a non essential skill for learning and figuring out a song. Knowing and discerning keys, command of the fretboard, and a well practiced ear can usually accomplish all of those things. Understanding keys, Diatonic Harmony, Modal Interchange, extended chord voicings and harmonic function, moduation, inversion, intervals, and secondary dominant concepts, will make transcribing or figuring most things out, short work.

And most players can NOT sight read TAB's.

I'd challenge you there, on one simple basis: rhythms and understanding note subdivision in practice.

@Elintasokas - In my opinion, what CJ did, was not rote memorization because it involved him writing and doing a lot of diagramming, and I'd say that he learned by visual immersion.

@Maggara - I agree with you about technique, but then I don't think learning theory is effective without being provided an outlet and context to immediately apply it. At the Academy, not only do I teach what I do, but there are assignments, playing labs, quizzes, midterms and homework, as well as technique drills integrated with the lectures. Technique is a byproduct of specific correct practice.

I have people ask me, all the time, can I improve their technique. The answer is no, I can't nor can anyone else. I can show you the correct mechanics, and teach you the finer points, but unless they master themselves and practice it consistently, and in a very specific mindset, they aren't going to improve. So, no, I cant improve their technique, but I can provide a structure, and a support system to encourage their own development, so THEY can improve their technique, via correct practice, and more importantly, a correct mindset. But technique is not a motor skill that's picked up by osmosis.

PM me, and I'll hook you up to a soundcloud where I can let you hear the playing comparisons after 12 weeks from students. Not only are they playing well, but they also understand what they are doing, and what you're hearing is complete improvisation under specific structured instructions, merging fretboard concepts and specific theoretical application.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at May 28, 2014,
#86
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
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?

Dude, thats a ridiculous claim to make. Why would you waste so much time on learning something that you won't need. That's just utter stupidity.

You can't be a musician without knowing how to sight read? lol.......
Last edited by Elintasokas at May 28, 2014,
#87
Quote by Elintasokas
Dude, thats a ridiculous claim to make. Why would you waste so much time on learning something that you won't need. That's just utter stupidity.

You can't be a musician without knowing how to sight read? lol.......

Yeah, it's the same as if you wanted to play rock, you would waste your time on learning classical music that you don't even want to play.

@ Sean: Yeah, I understand what you are talking about. Yeah, I think one of the reason why most guitarists that haven't been playing for a long time sound so bad is because they don't know that they sound bad and what they need to improve in their playing. But learning technique still takes time. But yeah, that's pretty obvious. Of course it's faster if you know what you need to improve and how you can improve it.
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
#88
The way I see it is this…

you love music, you love playing guitar. Do what you love, stop worrying about it.
#89
^ +1. Not saying you shouldn't learn as much as you can (or can be bothered to), but if you go down the "lazy" route there's always more you could do. You'll get yourself feeling (unfairly, IMO) guilty pretty quickly if you're not careful. And then you'll never be happy (probably... citation needed ).

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
If I learn a lot of Jazz, I can then take that and apply it to Metal or Rock or Blues.


But then you just sound like TGP elevator music

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
That's great, and they might have more fun if they were able to use more "tools" (to continue the metaphor from earlier).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1DQwMlTKlU

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#90
Quote by GuitarMunky
The way I see it is this…

you love music, you love playing guitar. Do what you love, stop worrying about it.


If that were the case, then I don't think those same people would be looking backwards reflectively and saying "I wish I'd..." they'd be more like, "I've enjoyed the ride, had a blast and I'm happy with everything"

It seems that those who do "I wish I'ds....", are on some level, less than satisfied with how long things took, relative to their current status today.

Best,

Sean
#93
Quote by Sean0913
If that were the case, then I don't think those same people would be looking backwards reflectively and saying "I wish I'd..." they'd be more like, "I've enjoyed the ride, had a blast and I'm happy with everything"

It seems that those who do "I wish I'ds....", are on some level, less than satisfied with how long things took, relative to their current status today.

Best,

Sean


That's a fair point.

I guess you could say you're both right, in a way. GM is sort of saying, "You're doing something you love, just enjoy the ride and don't overanalyse it." You're saying if they were enjoying it they just would love it already.

I dunno.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax


I actually like music like that But still, any opportunity to laugh at TGP...
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at May 28, 2014,
#94
Quote by Elintasokas
Dude, thats a ridiculous claim to make. Why would you waste so much time on learning something that you won't need. That's just utter stupidity.

You can't be a musician without knowing how to sight read? lol.......



Hi all,

You do at least need to know the treble and bass cleff for at least a mnth, it really helps you understand how to interact with other instruments. You should look at helmholtz notation! it changed my life. I used to beat my self up about sight reading, even at university, everyone was a grade 8 classical piano+ string player. I just played contemporary guitar. That, is the difference. I read TAB "sight READ" effortlessly and know hte CAGED positions that passages fall into instantly. I see the rythum and the tab and can instantly read the song - pretty much anyway. But no one can play at 100% speed sight reading, it defeats the purpose of technique. I personaly am still learning to "target notes", improvise, analyse and compose. and yes, i beleive that there is a simple lesson by lesson step approach, just like karate as an analogy. How long untill your black belt? all the moves are simple proceedures. All and all, if I spent more time humming and la la la-ing along to my amp as i played I would speak guitar with my eyes closed + I wouldnt be able to analyse a lead voicing passage harmony without score above the tab !!!
#96
Quote by Sean0913
If that were the case, then I don't think those same people would be looking backwards reflectively and saying "I wish I'd..."


oh some may, some may not. My point is that if you play alot and you enjoy it, you will most certainly be getting better at the guitar. You learn stuff, make mistakes, learn more…. it's all part of it. and like it or not it DOES take time to become a proficient player regardless of whether or not you memorized the note names on the neck in 1 weekend or not.


Quote by Sean0913

they'd be more like, "I've enjoyed the ride, had a blast and I'm happy with everything"


well, they would still be aware of things that need work, and still have goals. The difference is they wouldn't be other thinking and worrying about everything, which gives them the ability to enjoy the ride.


Quote by Sean0913

It seems that those who do "I wish I'ds....", are on some level, less than satisfied with how long things took, relative to their current status today.

Best,

Sean


I would say those people will never be satisfied, and will always be looking for someone or something to blame.


My overall point is that it If you love doing something, you'll do it often. People tend to get good at the things they do often.

and it DOES take time. How much time varies from person to person based on their situation, and this is OKAY. Put in the kind of effort that you can put into it. Enjoy it. Don't worry about.


worst,

Munk

Last edited by GuitarMunky at May 28, 2014,
#97
Quote by GuitarMunky
I would say those people will never be satisfied, and will always be looking for someone or something to blame.


I agreed with some of your post, but not this line. Some people are always driven to learn more - and this is a very positive force.

I may be hard on myself, but I know that I've never been satisfied with my playing... and I don't foresee this changing anytime soon because I know I still have more to learn. I don't need to *look* for anyone to blame either because I place the blame squarely on myself. Anytime I'm in a band that falls apart (for whatever reason), I always blame myself for not playing better. It happens. I learn from it and I use it as motivation.

In general, I know what you meant to say, so I'm not trying to be a jerk. Let me put it this way: I like to play ice hockey (I suck at ice hockey ). I do it for fun. I have a dumb desk job during the week, and this is my exercise. It's kinda social. I do enjoy it. But I do not plan on becoming an NHL player. I do, however, plan on writing an original album based on my guitar playing. It might be the other way around for somebody else (i.e. some people might want to be in a band primarily to be social), but I take guitar very seriously. This doesn't stop people from giving me hockey advice - and my level of interest does not make them wrong.

I enjoy ice hockey. I enjoy guitar. It's possible to have goals in one but not the other. (Pun intended.)
#98
Quote by cjohnson122989
I agreed with some of your post, but not this line. Some people are always driven to learn more - and this is a very positive force.


being driven to learn more, and not being satisfied with your playing are 2 different things.

You can be completely satisfied with your playing, and still have the drive to learn more.


Quote by cjohnson122989

I may be hard on myself, but I know that I've never been satisfied with my playing... and I don't foresee this changing anytime soon because I know I still have more to learn. I don't need to *look* for anyone to blame either because I place the blame squarely on myself. Anytime I'm in a band that falls apart (for whatever reason), I always blame myself for not playing better. It happens. I learn from it and I use it as motivation.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're never satisfied and you DO blame someone, yourself.

Your motivation to practice your guitar is based on this idea that "you should be better". So in order to attain that you practice/study more. I see that as pointless because the result is the same….. your still unsatisfied.

See if you love playing, the pleasure you get from playing is very motivating. People often mistake being satisfied with your playing as being complacent, but that's not the case. It just means your smart enough to accept where your at, and can appreciate it for what it is. You know that if you keep playing you'll get better, so you don't obsess over it. You still learn new stuff, you still have goals.

I find this approach much more realistic, appealing and enjoyable then the "I'm not as good as Guthrie Govan, so I better keep practicing".





[
Last edited by GuitarMunky at May 28, 2014,
#101
Quote by Sean0913
It's not laziness, it's the time it consumes relative to the amount of times that you'll use it. after over 15 years of teaching I am very comfortable with saying that few players need to learn it, and in an earlier post in this, I outlined the places where it's most essential, or when people should learn to sight read. I do know how to sight read, so I'm not anti sightreading, but its definitely contextual.

I guarantee you the sightreading is a non essential skill for learning and figuring out a song. Knowing and discerning keys, command of the fretboard, and a well practiced ear can usually accomplish all of those things. Understanding keys, Diatonic Harmony, Modal Interchange, extended chord voicings and harmonic function, moduation, inversion, intervals, and secondary dominant concepts, will make transcribing or figuring most things out, short work.

And most players can NOT sight read TAB's.

I'd challenge you there, on one simple basis: rhythms and understanding note subdivision in practice.

@Elintasokas - In my opinion, what CJ did, was not rote memorization because it involved him writing and doing a lot of diagramming, and I'd say that he learned by visual immersion.

@Maggara - I agree with you about technique, but then I don't think learning theory is effective without being provided an outlet and context to immediately apply it. At the Academy, not only do I teach what I do, but there are assignments, playing labs, quizzes, midterms and homework, as well as technique drills integrated with the lectures. Technique is a byproduct of specific correct practice.

I have people ask me, all the time, can I improve their technique. The answer is no, I can't nor can anyone else. I can show you the correct mechanics, and teach you the finer points, but unless they master themselves and practice it consistently, and in a very specific mindset, they aren't going to improve. So, no, I cant improve their technique, but I can provide a structure, and a support system to encourage their own development, so THEY can improve their technique, via correct practice, and more importantly, a correct mindset. But technique is not a motor skill that's picked up by osmosis.

PM me, and I'll hook you up to a soundcloud where I can let you hear the playing comparisons after 12 weeks from students. Not only are they playing well, but they also understand what they are doing, and what you're hearing is complete improvisation under specific structured instructions, merging fretboard concepts and specific theoretical application.

Best,

Sean


The question is, how many times would people use it if the knew how to do it? How many people look at tabs? If people could read music notation and sight read I am sure they would use that over tab and they would use it a lot.

You are correct in saying you don't need it to play guitar, but having it is another skill you can use, and another aspect to enhance you as a player. You don't need to learn music theory to play guitar either, but does that mean you shouldn't?

Everything you learn on guitar takes time and effort, it's up to you how much you put into it. I believe sight reading is worth learning as a guitar player and you will not regret learning how to do it.
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.
#102
Quote by radiantmoon
The question is, how many times would people use it if the knew how to do it? How many people look at tabs? If people could read music notation and sight read I am sure they would use that over tab and they would use it a lot.

You are correct in saying you don't need it to play guitar, but having it is another skill you can use, and another aspect to enhance you as a player. You don't need to learn music theory to play guitar either, but does that mean you shouldn't?

Everything you learn on guitar takes time and effort, it's up to you how much you put into it. I believe sight reading is worth learning as a guitar player and you will not regret learning how to do it.


The question isn't that.

It's where are they going to need it relative to the time it takes and demands to become competent (if it's not related to the exceptions that I listed earlier)?

So, how long does it take to become proficient at sight reading?

Will the process be fun?

How will you make it fun?

Is it immediately relevant to their goals as a guitar player? If so, how?

Answer those questions, because at the end while you're all gung ho about the "why not, its another useful skill" camp of sight reading, there's someone who's in their room with their book trying to do what you and others think they should be doing and about to give up.

Music reading is great for piano, you have all 10 fingers, and no unisons, and you don't have to play it an octave higher than written. And most everything you need to learn and read on piano is in standard sheet music form.

Best,

Sean
#103
Haha this thread has gotten so stupid...

Sure, you can be a fantastic speech giver without being able to read or write


Also, I know plenty of local bands around me who write their songs all in paper. Check out bird concerns or "a band called mason"

Even for a rock guitarist, reading music is the easiest way to keep track of 100 different original songs that you play with say 5 different bands

I also find it incredibly condescending that you feel you can dumb down your teaching, avoiding difficult concepts on the presumption that your student won't need it

Also, the whole point of OP was that beginning players *don't* know what their goals are, and are not necessarily equipped to make long term decisions about what they want to learn and play

Last point: I love how the side which says standard notation is unnecessary also think that guitar reads "special notation." How can we be sure you aren't speaking from ignorance?

Oh yea, and Sean, how do double stop unisons make reading difficult? Thats what flags on notes are for
Last edited by bassalloverthe at May 31, 2014,
#104
Quote by Sean0913
The question isn't that.

It's where are they going to need it relative to the time it takes and demands to become competent (if it's not related to the exceptions that I listed earlier)?

So, how long does it take to become proficient at sight reading?

Will the process be fun?

How will you make it fun?

Is it immediately relevant to their goals as a guitar player? If so, how?

Answer those questions, because at the end while you're all gung ho about the "why not, its another useful skill" camp of sight reading, there's someone who's in their room with their book trying to do what you and others think they should be doing and about to give up.

Music reading is great for piano, you have all 10 fingers, and no unisons, and you don't have to play it an octave higher than written. And most everything you need to learn and read on piano is in standard sheet music form.

Best,

Sean


I don't always agree with Sean, but I agree with him here. (Though I'm a little concerned that he seems to be suggesting you should chop off some of your fingers when playing guitar )

I can read music (ok, badly, and I'm not that keen on it, but still) for piano and drums, and would never dream of getting tab (if it existed) for them. It just works well for those instruments (unless there's something I'm not thinking of, I don't see how you could come up with a form of tab which would be easier for piano than standard notation is), and most stuff for those instruments is in standard music notation.

For guitar, tab is a fair bit easier (I've said before but I actually use a mixture of tab and standard notation... but hand me standard notation alone and I'm not going to be best pleased).

That's not to say you shouldn't learn it for guitar, and if you can be bothered to do so, more power to you, that's awesome. But as Sean says, it's a lot of work, not necessarily terribly exciting work, and might not necessarily be the best use of your time, depending on the exact type(s) of music you play on guitar.

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Last edited by Dave_Mc at May 31, 2014,
#105
Quote by Dave_Mc
I don't always agree with Sean, but I agree with him here. (Though I'm a little concerned that he seems to be suggesting you should chop off some of your fingers when playing guitar )

I can read music (ok, badly, and I'm not that keen on it, but still) for piano and drums, and would never dream of getting tab (if it existed) for them. It just works well for those instruments (unless there's something I'm not thinking of, I don't see how you could come up with a form of tab which would be easier for piano than standard notation is), and most stuff for those instruments is in standard music notation.

For guitar, tab is a fair bit easier (I've said before but I actually use a mixture of tab and standard notation... but hand me standard notation alone and I'm not going to be best pleased).

That's not to say you shouldn't learn it for guitar, and if you can be bothered to do so, more power to you, that's awesome. But as Sean says, it's a lot of work, not necessarily terribly exciting work, and might not necessarily be the best use of your time, depending on the exact type(s) of music you play on guitar.



What Im really getting from your post is that you can read some music, and would be able to teach yourself the skill from the point you are at on your own without help from a teacher. And you seem to enjoy that skill
#106
Quote by Sean0913
The question isn't that.

It's where are they going to need it relative to the time it takes and demands to become competent (if it's not related to the exceptions that I listed earlier)?

So, how long does it take to become proficient at sight reading?

Will the process be fun?

How will you make it fun?

Is it immediately relevant to their goals as a guitar player? If so, how?

Answer those questions, because at the end while you're all gung ho about the "why not, its another useful skill" camp of sight reading, there's someone who's in their room with their book trying to do what you and others think they should be doing and about to give up.

Music reading is great for piano, you have all 10 fingers, and no unisons, and you don't have to play it an octave higher than written. And most everything you need to learn and read on piano is in standard sheet music form.

Best,

Sean


Reading music isn't relevant to playing guitar? I am most certainly in the reading music camp, it has so many benefits. It gets players to start thinking in notes right away not in fret positions, it also gets players counting out rhythms right away.

There are thousands of original scores that are not written in tab, if I want to play the original scores for a Bach or Motzart piece I am going to need to be able to read music, and if I can sight read it is going to be a hell of a lot faster to learn. I can also play music written for violin, piano, flute, saxaphone, or whatever other instrument I choose.

Guitar players should not use unison notes as an excuse not to learn to read, they should be learning every note on the fretboard inside out and know the best place to play those notes on the fretboard, if anything it gives you more freedom to decide on how to play a piece, learning the notes all over the fretboard is often neglected with guitarists.

I can read music and I enjoyed learning to read it, so I don't know why you are under the assumption that people hate learning how to read. I could say a lot of players don't want to learn music theory and you don't need to learn music theory to be a great guitarist, but just like reading it is something that will enhance you as a musician.
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.
#107
Quote by GuitarMunky
The way I see it is this…

you love music, you love playing guitar. Do what you love, stop worrying about it.


The smartest thing posted in this thread.
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.
#108
Quote by radiantmoon
The smartest thing posted in this thread.


Really? I think its a cop out.

Like telling someone to simply give up desire in order to be happy. Sort of a non statement that doesnt have any effect on tangible skills
#109
Quote by radiantmoon
Reading music isn't relevant to playing guitar? I am most certainly in the reading music camp, it has so many benefits. It gets players to start thinking in notes right away not in fret positions, it also gets players counting out rhythms right away.

There are thousands of original scores that are not written in tab, if I want to play the original scores for a Bach or Motzart piece I am going to need to be able to read music, and if I can sight read it is going to be a hell of a lot faster to learn. I can also play music written for violin, piano, flute, saxaphone, or whatever other instrument I choose.

Guitar players should not use unison notes as an excuse not to learn to read, they should be learning every note on the fretboard inside out and know the best place to play those notes on the fretboard, if anything it gives you more freedom to decide on how to play a piece, learning the notes all over the fretboard is often neglected with guitarists.

I can read music and I enjoyed learning to read it, so I don't know why you are under the assumption that people hate learning how to read. I could say a lot of players don't want to learn music theory and you don't need to learn music theory to be a great guitarist, but just like reading it is something that will enhance you as a musician.

It is relevant to somebody but for some others it's not. That was Sean's point. He doesn't teach it to everybody. But if the student gets interested in sight reading, of course he teaches it. The point was, many guitarists don't need sight reading anywhere and needing to learn a skill that you don't need may bore you.

Also, if you read Sean's posts he explained that he teaches the note names and where you can find them on the fretboard.
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
#110
Quote by bassalloverthe
Really? I think its a cop out.

Like telling someone to simply give up desire in order to be happy. Sort of a non statement that doesnt have any effect on tangible skills



It's more like telling someone to use common sense. (sadly, it's often needed around here)

The point being that if you love playing, you'll play alot. if you play alot you get better. It's simple really. You don't give up desire, you feed on it.

This is different than constantly comparing yourself to others for motivation. It's different than always being hard on yourself, telling yourself that you suck in order to force yourself to practice more.
If you love playing, you don't need that kind of negative motivation. You'll practice alot simply because you WANT to, because you enjoy it.
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jun 1, 2014,
#111
Yes.

I could have taken lessons, and practiced instead of farting about.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#112
Quote by bassalloverthe
What Im really getting from your post is that you can read some music, and would be able to teach yourself the skill from the point you are at on your own without help from a teacher. And you seem to enjoy that skill


I'm pretty ambivalent towards it. Never been much fussed on sight-reading.

I could absolutely teach it to myself, but I can't be bothered, and I'm not sure if it's the best use of my time for the main stuff I play.

Pretty much what sean said, in other words. I'm not saying you shouldn't learn it if you want to, I'm saying if you don't want to and know you don't need it, maybe there are better uses of your time.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
#113
Quote by bassalloverthe
Really? I think its a cop out.

Like telling someone to simply give up desire in order to be happy. Sort of a non statement that doesnt have any effect on tangible skills


i bet you're a lot of fun at parties
#114
Quote by radiantmoon
Reading music isn't relevant to playing guitar? I am most certainly in the reading music camp, it has so many benefits. It gets players to start thinking in notes right away not in fret positions, it also gets players counting out rhythms right away.

There are thousands of original scores that are not written in tab, if I want to play the original scores for a Bach or Motzart piece I am going to need to be able to read music, and if I can sight read it is going to be a hell of a lot faster to learn. I can also play music written for violin, piano, flute, saxaphone, or whatever other instrument I choose.

Guitar players should not use unison notes as an excuse not to learn to read, they should be learning every note on the fretboard inside out and know the best place to play those notes on the fretboard, if anything it gives you more freedom to decide on how to play a piece, learning the notes all over the fretboard is often neglected with guitarists.

I can read music and I enjoyed learning to read it, so I don't know why you are under the assumption that people hate learning how to read. I could say a lot of players don't want to learn music theory and you don't need to learn music theory to be a great guitarist, but just like reading it is something that will enhance you as a musician.



It doesn't have many benefits relative to the time that it takes to become proficient at it for most people. I feel like I've said that before...

I get people that start with notes and the entire fretboard right away, none of which required music. So they van know every note on the fretboard, intervals, etc. I don't mind responding to you, I just feel like you're little late to the dance, and and lacking context. It would be a good idea to know what I said and the context, and details, of what I said.

You were presumably making a point about Bach, without knowing what I wrote earlier, but I did mention that if you are interested in playing and learning classical music, its a good thing to learn to sightread.

Guitar players don't need to see their reasons as an "excuse" for anything. The last I looked there was not council, or law, or universal governing body of guitar. An "excuse" suggests that they be called to "answer" for that choice, and that such choices somehow do not satisfy some ambiguous entity, who does not accept such "excuses".

I'm glad that you enjoy reading music, it's relevant to you. As for my "reasons" for my point of view, I guess I can cite 30 years of playing in all situations, being able to sight read, and having taught conservatively over 1000 students around the world. Demonstrable knowledge of theory and evidence of teaching all the things I do without needing sheet music once. That's for a start.

How long did it take you to learn sight reading to the point where you were competent in it?

Thanks for your comments.

Best,

Sean


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

Next response ---


Quote by bassalloverthe
Haha this thread has gotten so stupid...

Sure, you can be a fantastic speech giver without being able to read or write


Also, I know plenty of local bands around me who write their songs all in paper. Check out bird concerns or "a band called mason"

Even for a rock guitarist, reading music is the easiest way to keep track of 100 different original songs that you play with say 5 different bands

I also find it incredibly condescending that you feel you can dumb down your teaching, avoiding difficult concepts on the presumption that your student won't need it

Also, the whole point of OP was that beginning players *don't* know what their goals are, and are not necessarily equipped to make long term decisions about what they want to learn and play

Last point: I love how the side which says standard notation is unnecessary also think that guitar reads "special notation." How can we be sure you aren't speaking from ignorance?

Oh yea, and Sean, how do double stop unisons make reading difficult? Thats what flags on notes are for


If you leave the thread, its collective intelligence will be boosted substantially. Just saying.

You know local bands that use sheet music? Great. Woooo.

In your house/pantry somewhere is a cupboard. Perhaps if you look there, you'll find a cookie.

I find it satisfyingly entertaining that you feel it's condescending that I don't teach my students to sightread and they can still do pretty much anything they like on guitar, from play in just about any band that they like, to understanding Jazz and concepts like Coltrane changes without needing to read sheet music. That should score at least an honorable mention in the dictionary for the word "win".

I find your use of exaggeration to make a point entertaining as well. I'd suggest that we take a small quiz; one question only, with a simple yes/no answer:

"If you play guitar, are you currently in 5 different bands and needing to memorize 100 different, original songs?"

Let's shoot for 10,000 responses, and count the "yes" answers, to "no" ones. Check back when you've finished your research, we will all be waiting with baited breath.

If you need help finding your way back, I'd suggest that if you approach the conductor at your nearest train station, and advise him that you'd like to visit a place called "Reality", and that should procure you a safe passage back to this topic.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Jun 2, 2014,
#115
Quote by Sean0913
It doesn't have many benefits relative to the time that it takes to become proficient at it for most people. I feel like I've said that before...

I get people that start with notes and the entire fretboard right away, none of which required music. So they van know every note on the fretboard, intervals, etc. I don't mind responding to you, I just feel like you're little late to the dance, and and lacking context. It would be a good idea to know what I said and the context, and details, of what I said.

You were presumably making a point about Bach, without knowing what I wrote earlier, but I did mention that if you are interested in playing and learning classical music, its a good thing to learn to sightread.

Guitar players don't need to see their reasons as an "excuse" for anything. The last I looked there was not council, or law, or universal governing body of guitar. An "excuse" suggests that they be called to "answer" for that choice, and that such choices somehow do not satisfy some ambiguous entity, who does not accept such "excuses".

I'm glad that you enjoy reading music, it's relevant to you. As for my "reasons" for my point of view, I guess I can cite 30 years of playing in all situations, being able to sight read, and having taught conservatively over 1000 students around the world. Demonstrable knowledge of theory and evidence of teaching all the things I do without needing sheet music once. That's for a start.

How long did it take you to learn sight reading to the point where you were competent in it?



I don't know why you keep bringing up time as a reason not to learn something, everything takes time and effort, as I said before, the more you put into something the more you will get out.

So lets discuss this subject of time. It really doesn't take that much time, in fact you only really need to spend 10 minutes a day on learning to read music and integrate that into practicing other things such as technique, repertoire, transcribing, and theory. It took me about 3 months of reading for only 10 minutes a day to be able to sight read all the notes in the 1st position on the guitar and to know all the notes in that position, and also to be able to recognise basic chords and sight read them. After a year I could play the notes in all positions and be able to instinctively know the best position to play a series of notes. So 70 minutes a week for a year comes to 60 hours a year, which is less than 3 days out of a year. So it took me 3 days out of 365 to be able to be a proficient sight reader.

We can agree you don't need to learn music notation to be a great guitarist, but you also don't need to learn theory either. Do I think taking 10 minutes a day is a waste of time to learn to be able to find a piece of music and instantly be able to play it? Think about how much time that saves you in transcribing and working things out by ear.

You are also missing out on the fact that learning notation really makes learning music theory a hell of a lot easier to learn and understand.
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.
#116
Quote by radiantmoon
I don't know why you keep bringing up time as a reason not to learn something, everything takes time and effort, as I said before, the more you put into something the more you will get out.

So lets discuss this subject of time. It really doesn't take that much time, in fact you only really need to spend 10 minutes a day on learning to read music and integrate that into practicing other things such as technique, repertoire, transcribing, and theory. It took me about 3 months of reading for only 10 minutes a day to be able to sight read all the notes in the 1st position on the guitar and to know all the notes in that position, and also to be able to recognise basic chords and sight read them. After a year I could play the notes in all positions and be able to instinctively know the best position to play a series of notes. So 70 minutes a week for a year comes to 60 hours a year, which is less than 3 days out of a year. So it took me 3 days out of 365 to be able to be a proficient sight reader.

We can agree you don't need to learn music notation to be a great guitarist, but you also don't need to learn theory either. Do I think taking 10 minutes a day is a waste of time to learn to be able to find a piece of music and instantly be able to play it? Think about how much time that saves you in transcribing and working things out by ear.

You are also missing out on the fact that learning notation really makes learning music theory a hell of a lot easier to learn and understand.


So you suggest that it took a year or three days? You can't skew your answers.

It either takes a year in actual chronological time, or 3 days. It cant be both. If it's 3 days, then that means you can learn to sightread proficiently in 3 days. Is that your claim?

I taught someone from nothing to where they were sightreading proficiently in 2 months, but it was a grueling, unforgiving "boot camp" that I had structured, and was absolutely necessary if they wanted to get into music college. And it wasn't just 1st position; it was all positions. For what I teach essentially, it's 3 positions: 1st 7th and 9th. At those positions every note in in a 12 fret range can be accounted for comfortably for sightreading

Theory is not essential to be a great guitarist, but it is if you want to "understand" what youre doing. If you want to be functional as a guitarist, there are plenty of high level functioning guitar players around, and then there are those who understand what they are doing and why it works. It really depends upon what's meaningful to you.

By the same token, you can be great at theory and not a great guitarist, it's not all about what you know, its about what you can do/apply with what you know.

I really had to smile at your claim that theory and sightreading was "a hell of a lot of fun and easy to understand". What made it "fun" Was there some unique approach and path you took to sightreading and theory that made it so much fun?

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Jun 2, 2014,
#117
I went the traditional route and found it pretty easy and loads of fun.

>.>


I'm interested in why you have chosen I, VII, and IX for the default positions. Any reason for that over I, V, IX or I, V, VII?
Last edited by Vlasco at Jun 2, 2014,
#118
Quote by Vlasco
I went the traditional route and found it pretty easy and loads of fun.

>.>


I'm interested in why you have chosen I, VII, and IX for the default positions. Any reason for that over I, V, IX or I, V, VII?


Good catch - that was a typo - it's I V IX not VII

I will blame it on the fact that it's a Monday

Best,

Sean
#119
Quote by Sean0913
It doesn't have many benefits relative to the time that it takes to become proficient at it for most people. I feel like I've said that before...

I get people that start with notes and the entire fretboard right away, none of which required music. So they van know every note on the fretboard, intervals, etc. I don't mind responding to you, I just feel like you're little late to the dance, and and lacking context. It would be a good idea to know what I said and the context, and details, of what I said.

You were presumably making a point about Bach, without knowing what I wrote earlier, but I did mention that if you are interested in playing and learning classical music, its a good thing to learn to sightread.

Guitar players don't need to see their reasons as an "excuse" for anything. The last I looked there was not council, or law, or universal governing body of guitar. An "excuse" suggests that they be called to "answer" for that choice, and that such choices somehow do not satisfy some ambiguous entity, who does not accept such "excuses".

I'm glad that you enjoy reading music, it's relevant to you. As for my "reasons" for my point of view, I guess I can cite 30 years of playing in all situations, being able to sight read, and having taught conservatively over 1000 students around the world. Demonstrable knowledge of theory and evidence of teaching all the things I do without needing sheet music once. That's for a start.

How long did it take you to learn sight reading to the point where you were competent in it?

Thanks for your comments.

Best,

Sean


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

Next response ---


If you leave the thread, its collective intelligence will be boosted substantially. Just saying.

You know local bands that use sheet music? Great. Woooo.

In your house/pantry somewhere is a cupboard. Perhaps if you look there, you'll find a cookie.

I find it satisfyingly entertaining that you feel it's condescending that I don't teach my students to sightread and they can still do pretty much anything they like on guitar, from play in just about any band that they like, to understanding Jazz and concepts like Coltrane changes without needing to read sheet music. That should score at least an honorable mention in the dictionary for the word "win".

I find your use of exaggeration to make a point entertaining as well. I'd suggest that we take a small quiz; one question only, with a simple yes/no answer:

"If you play guitar, are you currently in 5 different bands and needing to memorize 100 different, original songs?"

Let's shoot for 10,000 responses, and count the "yes" answers, to "no" ones. Check back when you've finished your research, we will all be waiting with baited breath.

If you need help finding your way back, I'd suggest that if you approach the conductor at your nearest train station, and advise him that you'd like to visit a place called "Reality", and that should procure you a safe passage back to this topic.

Best,


Sean


Always does great things for your post to start with an ad hom

First off, why are your anectodes valid and mine are not? Hypocrite


Second off, I'm sure your students can conceptually understand coltrane. Could they read a big band arrangement of resolution?

Finally, I think it's hysterical that you think you need a sample size of 10000 for a straw poll. Have you never studied statistics? I'd say stick to music, but you seek to have a tough time with that. Well, you know what they say, if you can't do, teach.

I'm still waiting for a response to any of the questions I asked you, such as, what is a traditional teaching method, what is a modern teaching method, describe a Pythagorean comma without the circle of fifths, and how do double stop unisons make string music hard to read

Keep up the sh.it posting!