The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Here goes something. (If this needs to be moved... no prob).

Every teacher is different.
Some follow a method books system.
I personally do not follow a method or agenda... although I do cover partiular stuff with everyone...the SAME STUFF, and i do teach out of two books in particular.

There are pros and cons to getting someone else to teach you what they have either discovered or been taught themelves. Here is my take on both:



1. I view drumming as an evolving artform of communication. Drum set playing started around 100-130 years ago. A teacher can help someone learn , in fact "FAST TRACK" them to a modern understanding. For example..who was teh first drummer to play a double stroke roll? I dunno...but if you listen to recorded examples of drummers from 60-70 years ago, and drummers now, you will hear ideas that took those old drummers years to develop. Well, with a teacher, you can learn those techniques and ideas quickly...sometimes in minutes. Something that took the originator maybe years to develop. Yes, you could teach it to yourself... but with a teacher, you can fast track so that you can focus on taking the art form to a different, hopefully unexplored place.

2. If you want to learn a specific technique, they can offer feedback on your effectiveness. The spot problems that you will miss because they are observing. Like players who hold their shoulders up to their ears when they "think"...it chokes their sound because muscles get tense. I see a kid doing that, I say "drop the shoulders!"

3. feedback.

4. Music is not just playing licks and patterns. It is relating. good bands are bands that know how to relate musically. Look at the Police...it's a well known rumour that there was a lot of personal hate and envy in that band...yet musically, they are dialed in. never underestimate the tight rhythmic team of Sting and Copeland! A teacher is someone to musically relate too... some kids, it's the only person they relate to for a long time!


Here are some critical things every teacher should offer, in my opinion:

1. Techniques
2. feedback
3. challenges
4. new ideas
5. support


Here are some cons:

1. If you only have 1 teacher, you run the risk (if you are not someone who questions things or blazes your own path) of basically havnig too much of their philosphical and technical approach...clone.

GET MORE THAN ONE TEACHER. (I had 11 private teachers I studied with... as well as college instructors... worked for me).

2. If you do not have a stong vision of what you want to say, or how you want to say it.. a teacher could end up shaping that for you. (so can landnig particular gigs though ... I've played alot of classic rock in my time...and my friends are always shocked by the heavy stuff I write... like all I want to do all day is play classic rock...)


3. If your teacher has ego issues, you run the risk of them competing with you and holding you back. I've seen this, and had it done to me. Any teacher who has "secret licks" or things they will not share are not worth it to me. If they are holding back stuff from you... they have the wrong vision as far as I am concerned. What better way to challenge myself to be better....than share all I know?

4. You can be put on the wrong path. I have...unfortunately..done this more than I wish! If I read a kid wrong... I can go three or four lessons with them...trying to either uncover or develop this "thing" I thought they wanted. It can be very difficult at times... but the trick for me as a teacher...is to recognize when teh wrong path has been taken and ask teh kid!!

5. personality clash. It goes both ways. I teach anywhere from 15-25 kids per session; maybe once in a two year period... I can't jive with a kid. Of course, it goes both ways. the reasons vary... but the bottom line is..if you aren't grooving with a teacher..its' time to move on.




Uh...do not confuse a teacher who holds back with a teacher who does not know. When kids say "can you teach me xxx" and I don't know "xxx' i say no. I don't know how...or let me figure it out and I'll show you.





I could say A LOT MORE. More pros, more cons. Bottom line is..there is a time , reason and place for having a teacher, and a time reason and place to not. Anyone else that wishes to contribute their reasons for using a teacher...or ones to avoid like the plague...line it on up and hit submit.

(I have no experience with instrument teachers, other than a godawful guitar teacher I had in the UK who was all "hurr hurr, scales!" while I was all "I wanna play songs, damnit!"[Thus began my downward spiral of having no technical skillz on the guitar])

However, I have had experience with voice teachers. (Which will probably be of no interest to most of the Songfighters). I sing at school, and because I'm in a rich area, all the kids have had tutors for a billion things all their lives. My music teacher at school often tells me, "Go get a voice teacher and you'll do so much better," but teachers are like ~$30/hour around here, and y'know, I have better uses for my money. So because I haven't had personal one-on-one tutoring, I'll never do anything technically classical with my voice. Oh well, y'know.

I had one lesson and the woman wanted me to get rid of all my own little things that made my voice different. Many of the people that do get voice lessons sing with no goddamn passion. In the more emotional pieces that we sing they just sing all "-_-" like, whereas I rock out during songs. They're technically near flawless, but inject no feeling into the song. Listen to any decent singer, and you'll be able to hear what emotion they're conveying.

So for me, I'd rather not have a voice teacher. Personally, I'd rather have a good voice with plenty of guts behind it, than an excellent technical voice with no feeling.

But voice is different to instruments, so this is probably way totally offtopic to any other posts in this thread. Woo!

A resounding 'No' from me. As Bjam mentioned, often technical training only serves to remove idiosyncrasy and replace it with emotionless drivel. I think it's probably better to make your own way. All IMO of course.

It depends on the instrument, and what you want to do with it. If you want to be a classical musician, lessons are a must. If you want to perform other peoples' music, lessons are a good idea, if only because it forces you to learn notation or pitch training.

If you want to compose your own songs, it gets a lot murkier. Lessons with the right instructor can give you a better grasp on music theory and chord progressions and so on, but on the other hand they tend to specialize on playing classical music.

My own history was I started out taking piano lessons when I was 5 (I actually wanted to start earlier!) and so my parents took me to the neighborhood piano-teaching lady, Mrs. Henry. After a couple of years I had already learned everything she had to teach me, and so I started getting private lessons with a university professor, who taught me both playing and composition theory. Also along the line I started taking cello lessons with a master cellist who also built cellos and violins. When I was 13 I had gotten burned out on classical music and playing stuff based on a literal technical interpretation and stopped playing everything altogether (as a sidebar, it didn't help that my parents were a bit pressureful when it came to wanting me to always perform for them which made me very self-conscious; to this day I feel much more comfortable performing in front of complete strangers than in front of family, and the fact that I had a sibling in attendance at each of the last two Song Fight Lives was a pretty major thing for me), and turned all my attention towards note-by-note sequencing on the computer, which of course is very hard to get any sort of emotional output out of, not to mention is extremely tedious. In college I kept a couple of synths around to play with, but I didn't do anything seriously with them until later.

Finally in late 2000 I found Song Fight, bought an old pawn shop guitar, taught myself to play it from chord charts on Cyberfret.com, dusted off my synths, and re-taught myself to play things. I am certainly not a good pianist anymore, and I have basically no technique on any of the instruments I play. I feel the most comfortable on the guitar, which I'm still completely self-taught on. However, I feel that the prior education I got on the other instruments is <em>invaluable</em>, if only that it gave me a feel for the individual notes and the music as a whole.

I also feel like I should be a lot better than I am considering how long I took lessons, though, and that tends to be disheartening.

I was pretty terse in my dismissal of lessons in the other thread (before it got deleted) so I guess I should explain my reasoning.

Along with the other things said here by bjam and fluffy, I feel that taking lessons (and I was referring explicitly to guitar lessons, BTW) puts the student in the position where (s)he learns technical stuff and theory stuff, but not how to *create*. If you sit and practice scales every day, your music is going to have a lot of scales in it, right? Because that's what you know how to do. On the other hand, if you are untrained, you'll eventually figure out what notes sound good over what chords, and what chords sound good with other chords, etc. And this happens not because someone told you it should be that way, but because you discovered it on your own. Everything you play will have your own unique stamp on it. The obvious drawback, though (and leaf pointed this out in his original post) is that it takes a lot longer to become musically proficient this way, but I think it's worth it.

And, if later on you feel that you've hit a brick wall and want to learn more, lessons are a great idea. Your teacher will hate you because according to him, "you're fingering everything wrong, and you should pick from the elbow, not the wrist, and... holy fuck, what did you just play there? That was cool!"

Sven wrote:..in the position where (s)he learns technical stuff and theory stuff, but not how to *create*.

Fair enough, but I've never heard of anyone taking guitar lessons to learn how to create. They take them to learn to play. Creating is what you do with what you know on your own, imo. 'Course, the definition of 'creating' is probably fodder for another thread.... carry on...

Anyone who wants to learn about something has two avenues, go out and find the answers themselves or have someone else with the knowledge teach them. The being taught route is definitely faster and easier if you think of a teacher as a bookmark of sorts. You ask a question, you get an answer. Finding that answer on your own could take a lot longer, so why not speed the process up a bit? However as Leaf said, if you repeatedly ask the question and repeatedly get shot down for the answer, maybe it's time to find a new teacher or simply go and explore on your own.

I don't know jack about songwriting, but if I wanted to learn more about composing songs and Sir Paul was available for private lessons, I would probably listen to his advice and take his class. That's an extreme example that will never take place I know, but the premise remains the same. Finding a teacher who has the experience and knowledge to help you progress, will make the process faster and easier. If you feel like you're not getting what you want from them then move on to someone or something else to find your answers. Music was still an "elective" the last time I checked.

And yes, there is nothing wrong with learning on your own. In fact I'll bet Leaf was the kind of student that came back to his teacher and started his lesson with, "Hey let me show you something I've been working on". You should be learning and practicing in between your lessons. And sometimes you stumble on things the teacher didn't show you.

Other times you find sources for self paced learning. You'll find some of it right here in the "Help and How To" section on all kinds of topics. Just sift through the advice you like or respect and trash all the rest of it. And yes even then, some of the advice you took might move you in the wrong direction, but all of it eventually leads you in the right direction (if you learn from your mistakes) and probably quicker than making buttloads of mistakes on your own.

If you don't believe in teaching then go and open up your own home hospital and start performing surgery without the proper training.

I'll see you on the 6 o'clock news.........you freak.

Also, I think you've got to consider whether you're learning from a teacher that you pay by the hour, or watching a friend play something and you asking them to explain it. If the latter counts, then I have a ton of teachers, including friends at my open mic, my Dad, and the kid who sits next to me in math.

That's an excellent point. Learn from whatever you can. Self-made authorities aren't always the best source of knowledge.

I'm contemplating taking drum lessons. I have an electronic kit, but holy-hell I have no idea how to play it. There are some rudimentary things about drumming that I just don't grasp. I'm at a strange place in my life where I have infinitely more money than time, so if lessons are my shortcut to rhythmic competency then I might have to pursue them.

Drums aside, I don't know how to play anything. And, just like cooking and drawing and handwriting, I have basically no interest in learning how. I am more than happy with my minor achievements in each field: A) I made pre-packaged rice the other day; B) I drew a wicked-ass stickman in a game of Pictionary... so good in fact that someone rescued the drawing and put it on a shirt for me; C) I learned how to do a capital Q (it looks just like a 2! Hilarious!); D) Just last night I discovered that an E minor has a G in it, and found an easier way to play it. I was so proud of myself.

Puce wrote: Just last night I discovered that an E minor has a G in it, and found an easier way to play it.

...there's an easier way to play an E minor? Is that even possible?

Puce uses a non-standard open tuning, because he only cares about making chords.

EADGBE, Puce. It's totally the wave of the future.

I'd rather have a good voice with plenty of guts behind it, than an excellent technical voice with no feeling.

I couldn't agree more.

The only music lesons I ever had was a 6-week evening class in "Singing and Voice Production" at the local community education centre many, many years ago. It was invaluable. The dude taught us how to breath with our diaphrams. That is something I would never have worked out for myself. Now I can drink beer and eat curry all night and not be concerned about the onset of hiccups.

I would like more lessons in stuff - though i will probably never get around to doing it. I think generally - the people on these boards anyway, have already got the creative thing going - further technical proficiency will only enhance that. The risk of a music teacher destroying your creative soul and ravaging your muse is probably very low.

If a miracle ever happened and I started singing professionally, I'd most definitely get a voice teacher for the reasons you just mentioned. I'm pretty sure that if I had to perform night after night, I'd damage my vocal cords. But the day that the passion goes away is the day I hang it up.

I never took any guitar lessons, but I did talk and jam with a few guitar teachers while I worked at music stores. Sometimes it would turn into an informal lesson by accident, sometimes I would ask them 'how do I get better at guitar faster than I am currently improving?' Simple things like playing with my pinkie and doublepicking technique came in, but so did scale and advanced chord work.

To me that's what it's all about. A teacher is a tool. Maybe it's because of the way I teach myself instruments. Theory interests me. So when I pick up something new, I like to learn why and how the instrument works, rather than just how to crash my way through a song.

Not all teachers are about scales. Scales are indeed an important part of music that should be learned, but it's not something a lot of people want to learn, and teachers are generally receptive to that. If someone wants to only play open chords for their whole life, that's their choice. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

I guess my point is, if you're concerned lessons will hurt your creative development, then put lessons on hold until you hit a brick wall. I was already recording music that I loved before I had my informal lessons, and was quite ready to take it to the next level. My playing, and soon my music, took off.

Analogy time, and I think it'll satisfy even Sven:

Self-taught with no lessons can be like a guy with a knife. Maybe he's really good with the knife. A guy with a lot of lessons can be like a guy with a gun. Now, just because he has a gun doesn't mean he's more deadly - he might not know what to do with it - I've seen a lot of gunmen get their asses stabbed. But he certainly has a huge head start if he really wants to be deadly.

Why not have a bayonet on your gun?

Why not have a bayonet on your gun?

....with a fricking laser beam on it's head.

Sven wrote:taking lessons (and I was referring explicitly to guitar lessons, BTW) puts the student in the position where (s)he learns technical stuff and theory stuff, but not how to *create*.

I disagree. Further to thehipcola's post: http://www.answers.com/topic/creativity

Knowledge enhances creativity. The more knowledge you have, the more possibilities you recognize.

Sven wrote:If you sit and practice scales every day, your music is going to have a lot of scales in it, right?

Not necessarily.

Who has a better chance of creating something novel and unique: The virtuoso with a deep, passionate knowledge of music history, playing technique, and chord theory? Or the hack in his bedroom with a stiff wrist, a badly tuned guitar, and a Mel Bay book?

More knowledge equals more possibilities. More possibilities equals novel associations. In short, creativity.

Bjam wrote:Many of the people that do get voice lessons sing with no goddamn passion.

That's a straw man, Bjam ... Those people didn't "unlearn" passion by taking lessons. They never had it in the first place, and they'd suck even worse without the lessons.

Bjam wrote:Personally, I'd rather have a good voice with plenty of guts behind it, than an excellent technical voice with no feeling.

I bet this statement resonated with a lot of folks, and I fear you may have done them a disservice.

Feeling and skills aren't mutually exclusive. If you have a good voice with guts behind it, then lessons will make it better. Conversely, if your voice lacks feeling after taking lessons, you should probably buy a drum kit because you're not a singer.

I'll repeat what a few others said above: Lessons will NOT hurt you. Other than the cost, you've got nothing to lose. And the potential benefits, at least if you're serious about making music, should make it a no brainer.

deshead wrote:

Bjam wrote:Personally, I'd rather have a good voice with plenty of guts behind it, than an excellent technical voice with no feeling.

I bet this statement resonated with a lot of folks, and I fear you may have done them a disservice.

Feeling and skills aren't mutually exclusive. If you have a good voice with guts behind it, then lessons will make it better. Conversely, if your voice lacks feeling after taking lessons, you should probably buy a drum kit because you're not a singer.

I'll repeat what a few others said above: Lessons will NOT hurt you. Other than the cost, you've got nothing to lose. And the potential benefits, at least if you're serious about making music, should make it a no brainer.

Oh, I agree. But there are a lot of people that spend a lot of money on lessons, and although they have technical skill, they haven't been taught to sing with feeling. Obviously this differs with each teacher that you get, I'm sure some are pretty good, but unless you're spending a decent amount, it seems to me that they are all a little "Here's the technical aspects, go go go!" (at least from experience with friends who go to local mom and pop style, and then those who go to very fancy ones in Philadelphia).

And some basic skills are good. Learning how to sing an not ruin your voice is a good thing. If you're serious about singing and don't know these things, then yes, learning them is a good thing. I learnt them by a really good music teacher I had in school. She just said, "Y'know guys, if you do this you'll sing way better," and we did that, and it sounded better. But then many of the students were then so focused on doing that technique that they forgot to sing with any feeling.

If you go to a voice teacher for five years, and the first year you make a ton of progress, then great. But if for those next four years you don't learn anything new, then why take them? Personally, I learn a lot more about singing by doing it or watching people do it, than when a teacher says "Now do this". It's one of those 'once you have the basics, do you still need a formal teacher?' things.

*shrug* Just my opinion from experience. Lessons = Good. Spending money on lessons with no progress = No good.

There are good teachers, there are bad teachers. You should look for a teacher that inspires you, who you get along with, who communicates in a way that you understand.

Musicality *can* be taught, but not if the student isn't interested in learning.

If you learn by watching, aren't you being taught? If you see me do something, like it, and ask me how I did that, aren't I teaching you?

You should know the rules before you break them. Arnold Schoenberg, the ultimate musical rulebreaker, learned how to write standard compositions first, before he came up with the 12-tone system.

If you don't take lessons, your knowledge of what is *possible* is limited. It's like trying to build a house without owning a hammer. A shaky analogy, but you get my point.

Come learn 'cello from me, and I will teach you not only how to play, but how to appreciate what you're playing. How to imbue the music you're making with the passion you're feeling. As your teacher, that's part of my job.

A lot of the argument against going to a teacher seems to involve this fear that the act of being taught will take something AWAY from you. It's just not the case. Your classical-style vocal teacher will probably be delighted if you go off an sing jazz. But when you're singing classical, she'd be disappointed if you didn't utilize what she taught you. I guess my point is that when you're learning a style, you're not forever frozen into it-- there are things you can take from those lessons and use over and over. If you learn flamenco guitar, you can put that into a pop song.

Anyway, I am obviously very pro-teacher. Do you like my stuff? Do you think I play 'cello with heart? Do you think my singing is passionate? Do you think my song compositions are compelling or could be to someone who appreciates my genre?

If so, you have my teachers to thank.

JB

jb wrote:There are good teachers, there are bad teachers.

...and there is my mother-in-law. She spent her career teaching music at high scools in the 60s, 70s, and 80s - and I can hear her downstairs now playing "Baby Elephant Walk" - it sounds a bit like a mobile telephone ring-tone. A classic example of technical over feeling (though how one would play "Baby Elephant Walk" - with feeling, I'm not too sure.

And on re-think - when I posted earlier that I had not had music teachers - that probably isn't right. I've been an obsessive listener to music, of all types, for almost 40 years. I constantly refer to CDs and records - "..how does Led Zep do that?, "...what drumbeats do The Specials use?", "what if I combine an ACDC-style rhythm guitar with a Chemical Bros beat and backing vox like Frankie Laine?". It would be a lie to say I had no teachers - I've got thousands of them.

An anecdote.

When I was teaching myself how to play many years ago, I wanted to know what the most dissonant, horrible sounding chord possible was. After carefully going through many permutations, starting with two really dissonant notes, trying to find another note that was dissonant with both, etc., I found it. An awful, awful chord indeed. I found out later on after reading some theory books that this chord was in fact a tritone, 3 notes each a semi-tone apart. Hard to finger, BTW. The interesting thing is, though, is that while trying to find this holy gruel of horrible sound, I stumbled apon *tons* of really nice chords; suspensions, inversions, diminished, augmented, etc. My chord repertoire increased dramatically.

What if I had just asked a guitar teacher "What's the most horrible sounding chord possible?" and he replied "Oh, a tritone. Here, it's like this."