#1
How should i work music theory into my practice routine.

I do atleast an hr a day if not 2 hrs overall practice routine, and also pick up my axe and noodle or play songs im learning or songs i made atleast another 2 hrs. I own a couple theory books like justin practical music theory. Mainly their filled with excersizes for learning notes on the neck. Im down for the discipline, just wondering where to fit it in and how long i should be doing it. My other question is does practicing things even for a short time a day say 10 mins actually improve your skill with that.

Im learning a rhythm with alot of skipped beats and its been 2 weeks and im a tiny bit better, dont seem to be making any progress.
#2
Since all music is made up of intervals, and there are only a few of these, they can learned very quickly ... visually and on-guitar is simple ... learning by ear is slower, but hugely beneficial. Once learned, they help you remember chord voicings, and scales, and better relate to melodies ... and when you start getting into tension and resolution, you'll then start to really appreciate the utility of intervals. They'll give to an understanding of stable and unstable landing notes.

I used to practise interval shapes for 5-10 mins a day. Had them nailed very quickly.

e.g. see https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/lessons/the_basics/drastically_reduce_learning_time_with_intervals_part_2.html

As for technique practice, 10 mins is way too little as you master the technique, but once mastered, can be useful.

Practising skills mentally only (about some piece of theory) ... 10 mins can be good. Ditto ear training, and singing.
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Apr 22, 2016,
#3
Every day 2-3 hours practice is well enough I think. But you need to do this regularly and even in the same time would be much better.
#4
Quote by guygroomes85
How should i work music theory into my practice routine.

I do atleast an hr a day if not 2 hrs overall practice routine, and also pick up my axe and noodle or play songs im learning or songs i made atleast another 2 hrs. I own a couple theory books like justin practical music theory. Mainly their filled with excersizes for learning notes on the neck. Im down for the discipline, just wondering where to fit it in and how long i should be doing it. My other question is does practicing things even for a short time a day say 10 mins actually improve your skill with that.

Im learning a rhythm with alot of skipped beats and its been 2 weeks and im a tiny bit better, dont seem to be making any progress.


Unless you're Going to be writing music, its not that much of a help, although it makes figuring out how to play songs easier.
#5
Well eventually id like to be composing and writing guitar and drums and a host of other things. I can already rip on the drums. I would rather learn thoroughly and slower and have that foundation and understanding. I threw 2 years away playing drums just fun style. Learned stuff so slow.

My big question on learning intervals. Is it beneficial for a 6 month playing beginner. I went hard for 4 months like 6 hrs a day most days. So i know quite a bit. My dexterity is ok. I know all the notes or can figure them out fairly quick for all the strings. obviously the more i learn the less i know so it keeps me modest so im definatley the learner.

and thank you for the advice. i will take it
Last edited by guygroomes85 at Apr 22, 2016,
#6
Well learning the proper names for all the scales and chords is good start to understanding theory, but it's just the surface. Once you've got your naming conventions down, a lot of theory work is as much on paper as on the instrument.

Theory is really about function and form, and answer the hows and whys of music. Knowing the whats is the foundation of that, but it only becomes music theory when you can explain why a note is A# instead of Bb.

I don't know many musicians I've met - even ones who sound really good - who name impossible key signatures (D# major?) and mix up their diatonic chords (Ab in the key of E?). I would say those musicians have learned their note names, but they didn't learn the theory. Most of the time this is completely inconsequential and the music is pretty straightforward, but when things get complicated, it's a big help if you don't have to ask for explanations and can do the explaining in consistent terms.

Depending on what kind of music you want to play, you may not need to delve very deep into the analysis stuff. When people take Theory as part of a music degree, they're usually applying it to stuff like 16-stave scores where it actually takes a lot of practice just to figure out which notes/chords are functional and where they're leading. Most non-professional guitarists will not be doing anything like that, so once you've got the basics of voice leading and chord function, you're likely more learned than most others.
Last edited by cdgraves at Apr 22, 2016,
#7
Quote by guygroomes85
How should i work music theory into my practice routine.

I do atleast an hr a day if not 2 hrs overall practice routine, and also pick up my axe and noodle or play songs im learning or songs i made atleast another 2 hrs. I own a couple theory books like justin practical music theory. Mainly their filled with excersizes for learning notes on the neck. Im down for the discipline, just wondering where to fit it in and how long i should be doing it. My other question is does practicing things even for a short time a day say 10 mins actually improve your skill with that.

Im learning a rhythm with alot of skipped beats and its been 2 weeks and im a tiny bit better, dont seem to be making any progress.


In my opinion must teaching approaches are slow and tedious. I would expect a lot of wasted time while moving very slowly. I hate that about whats out there. I believe most methods are pretty woeful. So, the progress that you are indicating, seems to be standard from what I've observed.

I've always advocated learning things quickly and then spend the rest of your life, just playing, and the whole mystery of what to do, and how things work is done.

So you are young, or even older and have most of your life left, and now you just play. Things aren't mysteries anymore. They might still take "work", but its no mystery. That to me is of core importance.

Best,

Sean
#8
Thanks so much, you know i love to pick the brain of people smarter than me. I appreciate it guys
#9
Quote by guygroomes85
Well eventually id like to be composing and writing guitar and drums and a host of other things. I can already rip on the drums. I would rather learn thoroughly and slower and have that foundation and understanding. I threw 2 years away playing drums just fun style. Learned stuff so slow.

My big question on learning intervals. Is it beneficial for a 6 month playing beginner. I went hard for 4 months like 6 hrs a day most days. So i know quite a bit. My dexterity is ok. I know all the notes or can figure them out fairly quick for all the strings. obviously the more i learn the less i know so it keeps me modest so im definatley the learner.

and thank you for the advice. i will take it


Yes, learning intervals will really help you ... they are not some dry theoretical concept ... they are the bare bones of music (in terms of available sounds ... rhythm is the other huge aspect). You know these, it will help your playing in all sorts of ways, from note choice, to control of edginess in your music, to hearing melodies in your head, then playing it (once you've found out the tonic pitch by searching for it on guitar).

They will also hugely reduce your learning effort. Thisa is one of their key benefits ... so you move on faster. Intervals have nothing to do with note names ... they are a physical phemonenon of sound made playing two pitches together.

Learning purely by note name, without understanding what's going on in the music construct involved (a chord, a scale, a melody), is kind of like learning the letters of the alphabet, and see them crop up in words, phrases etc, but not understand these words etc. This is obviously an over the top analogy, but ...

For example, how long does it take you to spell a 7 chord in all 12 keys, using pitch names? And immediately recall in any key? With intervals, you just recall 1,3,5,b7. You use knowledge of interval shapes to locate these from a given pitch ... but very quickly you `know the chord shape instead, and simply recognise these interval shapes in that chord shape. You then have under your finder tips the important sounds, which you'll also be aware of in scales.
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Apr 23, 2016,
#10
Quote by Sean0913
In my opinion must teaching approaches are slow and tedious. I would expect a lot of wasted time while moving very slowly. I hate that about whats out there. I believe most methods are pretty woeful. So, the progress that you are indicating, seems to be standard from what I've observed.

I've always advocated learning things quickly and then spend the rest of your life, just playing, and the whole mystery of what to do, and how things work is done.

So you are young, or even older and have most of your life left, and now you just play. Things aren't mysteries anymore. They might still take "work", but its no mystery. That to me is of core importance.

Best,

Sean


Sean ... I agree one million percent. And that's a lot to do with why so many folk give up ... it is criminal. Not everyone wants to be a pro-musician doing sessions or playing in an orchestra etc ... so they don't need the same training ... they just want to have some fun, be that jamming, or experimenting.

So, whoever came up with "Every Good Boy Deserves Fun" would have done well to consider what that actually means!!
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Apr 23, 2016,
#11
Quote by jerrykramskoy
Sean ... I agree one million percent. And that's a lot to do with why so many folk give up ... it is criminal. Not everyone wants to be a pro-musician doing sessions or playing in an orchestra etc ... so they don't need the same training ... they just want to have some fun, be that jamming, or experimenting.

So, whoever came up with "Every Good Boy Deserves Fun" would have done well to consider what that actually means!!


Exactly my friend. And, you know I do this for a living, and that's always been one of the most gratifying aspects, is I'm taking someone that's supposed to not ever know this stuff, and in relatively short time, they are making music, writing music, understanding music. And the concept itself, doesn't matter. It could be a V 6/4 cadence, it could be a secondary dominant usage in a song where they'd have otherwise, just been stuck with very routine I V ii IV, in could be a decision to use an Aug 6....or whatever it is...they have the tools that allow them to understand and make music that compared to their peers in terms of depth, knowledge, is far more interesting. They aren't just taking a random riff...repeating it 4 times, and then doing the same riff over the IV...and so on ad nauseum.

Their contemporaries don't know what to make of that. You know, I had a few of my students sit in on a group jam at an open mic recently, and someone not connected to the Academy was playing their "Original" meaning none of these guys ever heard the song or played with the person before. It's just live, and in the moment. And 4 seconds into the song they are shading this guy with creative fills, matching his changes, playing with maturity, so at the end of the song, people start asking "wow....how long have you guys been together?"

The poor songwriter is as surprised as everyone else is, and says "I don't know these guys....I've never played with them before". So these things, these tools allowed my students to get on stage and not only play together, but then to play alongside someone else on their original material, and play so convincingly well, that people think they've been playing together as a band for a while, by the time the song's done.

And talk about having STREET CRED...people talk about things like that. A guys musical reputation will quickly rise, as long as they are grounded and humble, and not offputting and arrogant.

My point is, that when you can do things like that, you're no longer being inhibited by "what you don't know". You know, and you understand what you are playing. You see songs as It's a "I iii ii" in G....not, "Okay first it's a G then Bm then Am" Oh it goes from C to D...then later to Em at the bridge. When you are doing that, then you pretty much have the rest of your life to do things on the fly, no longer is being "blocked" by what you don't know in play here.

You might be blocked by something else, like if you don't actually practice you instrument (technique), or keep your chops up, yeah that may take work. But, if you are having that much fun playing anything you like, chances are, it doesn't even feel like "work" anymore, so playing with others keeps your chops up, and spurs on that musical creativity.

I have seen more people not do something, because inside they know their understanding extends to almost nothing, but their abilities are more to the point of functional via imitation, as long as it's in monochrome....change keys, throw anything non diatonic at them, or remotely advanced, and it's just complete musical paralysis. That's sad to me, but because the process of "learning" is made so damn difficult and boring, it equates to musical torture. And it doesn't have to be. You no doubt seen my rant on musical theory on my YT - I've been passionate on this point since my arrival here in 2009.

It sucks. People really want to learn. But most of us don't want it to feel akin to mental headache and musical torture, with the payoff of a growth rate that's so slow, we have to measure it in chunks of years to see if there's been any progress. I like seeing progress measured in days, rather than months and years.

Thanks so much for your thoughts man - I am sure that in your eMuso, that's also at the heart of what makes what you do so important and worth doing.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Apr 23, 2016,
#14
Sean,

Can you imagine learning a new language, say French, that required you to lean a different language, say Polish, at the same time (or first) to explain French?

Or can you imagine wanting to cook a Thai meal; for some mates, but you're required to learn Thai language first to understand the recipe? You going to bother, especially if it's just a fun thing?

Worse, imagine us putting books in front of babies / young kids before they can speak, before they can recognise their world. What's the first thing these nippers respond to? Sound. Sure as hell isn't symbols.

Yet, what does "typical" music education do? The exact analogy of the above situations.

It is great you're stiudents are playing with understanding from early on. That's precisely my take also.
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Apr 24, 2016,
#15
Theory isn't a separate thing from other guitar really. You don't need to go to lectures for 3 hours a week to cover all of this theory that you need. Practice on your guitar should also be theory practice, and that's it.

That's why a teacher can be helpful, because they can guide you to learn guitar stuff that will teach you theory at the same time. You need to learn theory on your instrument. There's no way around that. You'll need to do some straight scales sort of practice, but I know ways to make it interesting, and you can tie that into the rest also.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Apr 24, 2016,
#16
Quote by jerrykramskoy
Sean,

Can you imagine learning a new language, say French, that required you to lean a different language, say Polish, at the same time (or first) to explain French?

Or can you imagine wanting to cook a Thai meal; for some mates, but you're required to learn Thai language first to understand the recipe? You going to bother, especially if it's just a fun thing?

Worse, imagine us putting books in front of babies / young kids before they can speak, before they can recognise their world. What's the first thing these nippers respond to? Sound. Sure as hell isn't symbols.

Yet, what does "typical" music education do? The exact analogy of the above situations.

It is great you're stiudents are playing with understanding from early on. That's precisely my take also.


You've read my animated rant on YouTube, right, the one about how I hate Music Theory and the way it's been presented? It's 12 minutes, I published it a year ago. This is exactly why it's a rant. "The Traditional Way" which I have seethed with contempt for in my soul for, since I arrived here in 2009...sucks. The ironic thing is, that one person commenting on the channel did so by presenting a very thoroughly convoluted "simple" way of explaining theory...

I could not make that any more poetic, if I tried.

But I hate music theory and Traditional music approaches. My entire way of doing things, was recently described as a series of "Life Hacks" for guitar and music theory. Because that's how terrible the Traditional way is in my opinion. It needs to be life hacked.

It's harsh to put it that way, since at its root, that criticism is very unfair. Because to anyone who goes out there to learn, like the great sincere people that post here all the time, say they get on YouTube...or buy a book, or take a class...it does not matter, all they will be doing is going through some distillation of the Tradtional way of learning. It may have some polish to it, but it's cut exactly from that same cloth. All roads lead to that only option...you learn the same tired eons old way.

That is all that there is, and so for me to criticize that, is...at the root, very unfair.

The chief reason it's unfair, is because for most , there are no (identifiable) alternatives to it. I put that in parenthesis, because I'm not saying alternative options don't exist.

They absolutely DO exist. If I can teach any person to name the notes of any chord instantly in less than 3 weeks, then that is an example of an alternative, if I do so without so much as a NOD in the direction of how the Traditional Music theory system does it...that's an alternative. And it's been in the link in my Signature the entire time I've been coming here.

But right now, I'm not mainstream. I absolutely want the way I do things, and my teaching system to BE mainstream....ultimately, and then we won't even be having conversations with these things. But I may never see that take place in my lifetime. Right now I have students from all over the world, representing (at last count) 38 countries, and though they are in the hundreds, (and more than a thousand since I first started teaching)...growth is slow as far as catching on in a global consciousness of others even being aware of the Academy even existing.

The only place people learn about it, is through some tired Tom Hess anti-post that Google search seemed to take a liking to from like 2011, or through a personal interaction with me here. That's it. I don't market or advertise. I hate Google, and have never played their games. I'm as subversive as you can be. If you're not in this forum, you don't know that I or what I do even exist.

I've long since accepted that what I teach, might likely be lost I die, but I have a hope that if that happens, at least some of the students that I've taught, will pass it on by teaching (and not by making freely available...because the process is a learners journey, its like saying, you cant get fit by simply reading a book about fitness) others, and maybe, slowly that will ultimately trickle down into the collective consciousness, like Joe Pass and the popularity of todays CAGED system. But I'm no Joe Pass.

Really appreciate your points Jerry. That language thing is spot on. Spot on. I'm really excited to see your emuso. Who knows, maybe one day what you do and what I do might find a collaborative common ground.

I know Xiaoxi has something very fresh going with his teaching approach, and you have your program, and I have my entire Curricula...who knows, maybe these three things may be like three people meeting in a garage together in the mid 70's and what one day became Apple or Microsoft, while the rest of the world was asleep...

And IBM was the only game in town saying "oh we are big and tall, and we know everything, and you do it like this...."

A guy can dream...

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Apr 24, 2016,
#17
Quote by Sean0913
You've read my animated rant on YouTube, right, the one about how I hate Music Theory and the way it's been presented? It's 12 minutes, I published it a year ago. This is exactly why it's a rant. "The Traditional Way" which I have seethed with contempt for in my soul for, since I arrived here in 2009...sucks. The ironic thing is, that one person commenting on the channel did so by presenting a very thoroughly convoluted "simple" way of explaining theory...

I could not make that any more poetic, if I tried.

But I hate music theory and Traditional music approaches. My entire way of doing things, was recently described as a series of "Life Hacks" for guitar and music theory. Because that's how terrible the Traditional way is in my opinion. It needs to be life hacked.

It's harsh to put it that way, since at its root, that criticism is very unfair. Because to anyone who goes out there to learn, like the great sincere people that post here all the time, say they get on YouTube...or buy a book, or take a class...it does not matter, all they will be doing is going through some distillation of the Tradtional way of learning. It may have some polish to it, but it's cut exactly from that same cloth. All roads lead to that only option...you learn the same tired eons old way.

That is all that there is, and so for me to criticize that, is...at the root, very unfair.

The chief reason it's unfair, is because for most , there are no (identifiable) alternatives to it. I put that in parenthesis, because I'm not saying alternative options don't exist.

They absolutely DO exist. If I can teach any person to name the notes of any chord instantly in less than 3 weeks, then that is an example of an alternative, if I do so without so much as a NOD in the direction of how the Traditional Music theory system does it...that's an alternative. And it's been in the link in my Signature the entire time I've been coming here.

But right now, I'm not mainstream. I absolutely want the way I do things, and my teaching system to BE mainstream....ultimately, and then we won't even be having conversations with these things. But I may never see that take place in my lifetime. Right now I have students from all over the world, representing (at last count) 38 countries, and though they are in the hundreds, (and more than a thousand since I first started teaching)...growth is slow as far as catching on in a global consciousness of others even being aware of the Academy even existing.

The only place people learn about it, is through some tired Tom Hess anti-post that Google search seemed to take a liking to from like 2011, or through a personal interaction with me here. That's it. I don't market or advertise. I hate Google, and have never played their games. I'm as subversive as you can be. If you're not in this forum, you don't know that I or what I do even exist.

I've long since accepted that what I teach, might likely be lost I die, but I have a hope that if that happens, at least some of the students that I've taught, will pass it on by teaching (and not by making freely available...because the process is a learners journey, its like saying, you cant get fit by simply reading a book about fitness) others, and maybe, slowly that will ultimately trickle down into the collective consciousness, like Joe Pass and the popularity of todays CAGED system. But I'm no Joe Pass.

Really appreciate your points Jerry. That language thing is spot on. Spot on. I'm really excited to see your emuso. Who knows, maybe one day what you do and what I do might find a collaborative common ground.

I know Xiaoxi has something very fresh going with his teaching approach, and you have your program, and I have my entire Curricula...who knows, maybe these three things may be like three people meeting in a garage together in the mid 70's and what one day became Apple or Microsoft, while the rest of the world was asleep...

And IBM was the only game in town saying "oh we are big and tall, and we know everything, and you do it like this...."

A guy can dream...

Best,

Sean


I think the traditional method is fine for some things, but I agree there are better ways for certain things. I would never teach nor want to learn the traditional way. There are lots of sorts of people, and lots of sorts of guitar out there, and I think a lot of different ways to go about teaching that are good.

Joe Pass and BB King are completely different guitarists, and they would teach differently as well.

For most people, I would say what matters most is to keep it fun while maximizing benefit from practice time, which is my philosophy, and they won't get very far, so it doesn't matter much beyond that. But different approaches to music or guitar, will yield different results, just like the same person would make different music if they trained on a piano or guitar. The geometry of the instrument and the way it is mentally parsed, matters.

Traditional methods are good for academia, or if you want to play in the philharmonic, or to write scores for movies or something. If you want to learn guitar as a hobby, or become a singer/songwriter sort of thing, then it's really not what you want imo. But that's pretty common, and it's been like that for a while. In general, pop musicians are not classically trained, or, maybe the band for the headliner is more frequently, but the songwriters generally are not, I find.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Apr 24, 2016,
#18
Quote by fingrpikingood
I think the traditional method is fine for some things, but I agree there are better ways for certain things. I would never teach nor want to learn the traditional way. There are lots of sorts of people, and lots of sorts of guitar out there, and I think a lot of different ways to go about teaching that are good.

Joe Pass and BB King are completely different guitarists, and they would teach differently as well.

For most people, I would say what matters most is to keep it fun while maximizing benefit from practice time, which is my philosophy, and they won't get very far, so it doesn't matter much beyond that. But different approaches to music or guitar, will yield different results, just like the same person would make different music if they trained on a piano or guitar. The geometry of the instrument and the way it is mentally parsed, matters.

Traditional methods are good for academia, or if you want to play in the philharmonic, or to write scores for movies or something. If you want to learn guitar as a hobby, or become a singer/songwriter sort of thing, then it's really not what you want imo. But that's pretty common, and it's been like that for a while. In general, pop musicians are not classically trained, or, maybe the band for the headliner is more frequently, but the songwriters generally are not, I find.


I get what you're trying to say.

How did you learn, if not by studying something that was not a deriviative of a Traditional Method?

BB King is not noted alongside the CAGED system of lead guitar. Today the CAGED system is a mainstream approach, just like the "box patterns". The CAGED system is associated with the name Joe Pass. I think you lost where I was going with the Joe Pass comment. CAGED has not been a art of our Mainstream consciousness as a thing for very long now, and it is an innovation to the way it was before. And it is EVERYWHERE now.

That is really the point.

Learning can be fun, if it's not boring and tedious, unless you are into that kind of thing. Completely agree that there are many approaches to the guitar, just as there were prior to the CAGED system being a "thing" but not all approaches are of equal benefit. And not all approaches benefit the same people.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Apr 24, 2016,
#19
Quote by Sean0913
I get what you're trying to say.

How did you learn, if not by studying something that was not a deriviative of a Traditional Method?

BB King is not noted alongside the CAGED system of lead guitar. Today the CAGED system is a mainstream approach, just like the "box patterns". The CAGED system is associated with the name Joe Pass. I think you lost where I was going with the Joe Pass comment. CAGED has not been a art of our Mainstream consciousness as a thing for very long now, and it is an innovation to the way it was before. And it is EVERYWHERE now. That is really the point.

Learning can be fun, if it's not boring and tedious, unless you are into that kind of thing. Completely agree that there are many approaches to the guitar, just as there were prior to the CAGED system being a "thing" but not all approaches are of equal benefit. And not all approaches benefit the same people.

Best,

Sean

I am completely self taught. I sort of discovered theory, and also taught it to myself from resources on the internet. I think the traditional method of organizing theory is actually very good. for most of it, even for myself specifically, I can't see any better way of organizing it, really. Although for myself and the style of music I play I did modify it slightly for myself.

I only learned about CAGED after I had discovered a similar method for myself, which I find is a bit more powerful. CAGED is sort of obvious though, to anyone that gets past cowboy chords. I mean, it has a name, but it's really just the fundamental nature of the guitar that all the chord shapes are consistent. It's probably only sort of new, because playing chord grips is kind of new to music. The classical method is more to play a set of notes as instructed, and less to stick to chord grips. But for improvisation it's too much brain work to do that, and for rhythm guitar, it doesn't make much sense.

The Joe Pass BB king comment, was to show an example of two renown guitarists that have two different approaches to guitar, and yield two different results, which were both very successful. That there isn't necessarily one single catch all method for everyone.

If I couldn't have discovered a way to make teaching myself guitar fun, I wouldn't be able to play the way I can today. But I also had to grind some stuff out, to farm some skills on my guitar skill tree, but I found fun ways to do it.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Apr 24, 2016,
#20
Quote by fingrpikingood
I am completely self taught. I sort of discovered theory, and also taught it to myself from resources on the internet. I think the traditional method of organizing theory is actually very good. for most of it, even for myself specifically, I can't see any better way of organizing it, really. Although for myself and the style of music I play I did modify it slightly for myself.

I only learned about CAGED after I had discovered a similar method for myself, which I find is a bit more powerful. CAGED is sort of obvious though, to anyone that gets past cowboy chords. I mean, it has a name, but it's really just the fundamental nature of the guitar that all the chord shapes are consistent. It's probably only sort of new, because playing chord grips is kind of new to music. The classical method is more to play a set of notes as instructed, and less to stick to chord grips. But for improvisation it's too much brain work to do that, and for rhythm guitar, it doesn't make much sense.

The Joe Pass BB king comment, was to show an example of two renown guitarists that have two different approaches to guitar, and yield two different results, which were both very successful. That there isn't necessarily one single catch all method for everyone.

If I couldn't have discovered a way to make teaching myself guitar fun, I wouldn't be able to play the way I can today. But I also had to grind some stuff out, to farm some skills on my guitar skill tree, but I found fun ways to do it.



Well, I have heard your music and you know your stuff, and that neo soul jazz thing you have going, you do it well. No one's going to argue that however you got there was time well spent. Keep on keeping on!

I too was self taught, that's how I ultimately came to understand it. As you said, not everyone responds or needs the same thing.

I have always advocated what I teach as a way to just get it all done and make music, and I love saving people time, and watching as they go on and produce music, and play on bigger and bigger stages, literally and figuratively.

However as the saying goes...not all who wander, are lost.

Really appreciate you being here, and I always enjoy and respect your perspectives and input!

Best,

Sean
#21
Quote by Sean0913
Well, I have heard your music and you know your stuff, and that neo soul jazz thing you have going, you do it well. No one's going to argue that however you got there was time well spent. Keep on keeping on!

I too was self taught, that's how I ultimately came to understand it. As you said, not everyone responds or needs the same thing.

I have always advocated what I teach as a way to just get it all done and make music, and I love saving people time, and watching as they go on and produce music, and play on bigger and bigger stages, literally and figuratively.

However as the saying goes...not all who wander, are lost.

Really appreciate you being here, and I always enjoy and respect your perspectives and input!

Best,

Sean


Thanks a lot man. I'm not intimately familiar with your teaching practices, but from what I put together from posts you've made, is that you promote what I believe is a good general teaching philosophy. I find that can be tough to find, and I agree there are a lot of bad routes people can take with teaching, which I think has given teaching a bad name. It's often either poor quality, or too academic, I find, and you seem to be somewhere in between, which I think is where you want to be, really, for most people.

I think that being self taught has advantages for teaching. When someone is trained by a teacher, they might pickup a lot of tips, and drills and stuff like that, but they also probably didn't waste time, and learn things that weren't really specifically useful to them, or make mistakes, and stuff like that. So, they might just repeat what they heard, without understanding it. Whereas if you're self taught, things bit you in the ass, and you really know exactly why it is beneficial to do something some specific way. I know for sure I could have done things a lot more efficiently. I wish I could send myself back in time and teach myself things sooner. At the beginning, you don't really know what's what, so it's hard to know what to learn. That's why I really kind of face palm when I see people talk about how theory is pointless. And it's also why I think people are better off with a good teacher, as opposed to teaching themselves, and why I often make a point to tell people that. For me, I eventually found what works for me, but it was a roundabout way, because I first of all didn't get going in the right directions soon enough, but I also had explore everything that wasn't for me, and know sort of what's what, so that I could best choose what was relevant for me, and how I wanted to make music. And I still lookout for new methods or insights, or philosophies others might have that I could borrow from. Joe Pass is actually one guy that really showed me an unexpected philosophy like that. He has an interesting approach to guitar, I find.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words, it's good to have people like you around here also, that provide good positive contributions to the community. And thanks for labeling my music; "neo soul jazz". It's always a bit rough when people ask me, "what kind of music do you make?" because I never really know what to say. So, I always like to hear other people label it whenever I can.
#22
Sean,
Check you private messages.

Fingrpickingood ... it's good to see you get it, as well, about distinguishing between pro-, formal education, versus what's needed for folk that want to learn more for their own satisfaction and enjoyment, without being burdened with the whole 9 yards.

I can't see any drawbacks in getting folk up and running faster, playing with some knowledge ASAP.