Anyway, my guitar (yes, guitard by night) teacher had a few of his kids wanting to transfer to bass, and he wasnt interested, so i've got a couple students now.

I've got no formal training, although i've been privately taught since the dawn of time.

Are there any absolute basics i need to know when i start privately tutoring bass?
And what direction should i take with lessons? theory? songs?

thanks in advance :bassist:

You should know it yourself before teaching...with all due respect...

haven't started teaching. i am in a few weeks. i just want to prepare some material.

How to tune .
Proper fingering.
Learn the notes on the neck.
basic triads...root ...3 ....5
keeping time..
teach them a song that they like to keep interest...
Show how the basics apply to that song!

With all due respect, I don't think I would want to have a teacher that has a username "I suck at Bass".

Meev, not productive...my username was an attempt at humility (which is definitely talking me down). We all suck to a certain degree.

anyways. Great starting point John. thanks mate

I think you can find some tutorials online , try your luck with google .

The first thing any teacher should teach is the major scale and how it relates to diatonic theory, modes, triads, 7th chords, the dominant. This can all be done as part of technical development too. Also get your students started on some rhythm excercises where they are reading. Later on I generally tie in clave for example with some simple I V7 progressions though this is generally after a few lessons going through all the diatonic functions.

I think that anyone that goes to a teacher that doesn't teach them that is wasting their time and money. Songs can come later and as part of analysis. Teaching songs just to keep their interest means that you are going to be making them happy in the short term, but later they will be looking for someone that does teach them what they need as opposed to what they think they want. That person will probably be told and will certainly think that the student's last teacher had no idea what they were doing.

Teach a I IV V blues progression, in a few different keys. (There are CDs available with play along basic blues on them.) This will start them on the path to hearing the changes, and to internalizing shuffle rhythms. Have them play rhythmic roots, then root/fives, then arpegios (three and four part) over the changes. The added benefit is that after a few weeks or a month or two, when they ask if they can finally get started on learning songs, you can inform them that they've already learned hundreds. Then have them play along with you to Mustang Sally...

I've been a teacher for years, since I was 15. At that time, I only had a very fundamental knowledge of the instruments (guitar and bass). I think that while it is necessary to have an understanding and degree of competency, the best teachers I have experienced rarely operate on the "I'm this amount of great, and maybe you can be to someday!" theory. Most students at a begining level don't need to double thumb written classical pieces after their 3rd lesson. Teach basics and fundamentals, find a correlation to something tangible (songs, etc.), and always, always, always teach rhythm. That's 90% of learning. The majority of students that I have had aspire to play in a band within weeks of my teaching. Which is entirely possible. But let your students know that the most important element, especially in a "band" or collaborative setting, is rhythm. Beyond that, they can feel their own way towards making notes that please the ear. You're just giving them groundwork, a starting point that they couldn't get on their own. If you start to teach at an intermediate level, that is when you need to start incorporating more technically and mentally intensive studies on the instrument. Students dig feeling like your peer, as opposed to inferior. Just make sure you know what the f*** you're talking about.

First of all.... Good on you for making yourself available to help these kids get started, its not easy in some areas for them to even find a teacher.

I personaly have not much to offer more than Stiv and John
Wentzein and RiddimKing.

Of coarse to the very beginners even using both hands on the right strings together is a bit of a challenge so start with that of coarse.

They want to play something quick too and this is very important, find something simple, basic blues 1 1V V is the probably the way to go. May Your God help you if they want to play Metallica in the first week ;)

mmm. I suppose the old major scale should be taught pretty soon too, how on earth would they know what 1 1V V is without it.
Anyway the other blokes have given good direction.
Teach their ears and the best of luck.

Honestly, I don't see what you can teach if you don't ground your students in understanding diatonic theory to begin with. I mean if you are teaching drums, sure you can teach them rhythm only, but how do you explain to someone what a b3 is, for example if you don't explain the concept of the major scale as a unit of comparison? How do you get them to analyse anything unless they understand the basic building blocks of analysis? It's like building a house and adding the framework later. Sure it can probably be done. But in the meantime you have a shoddy house that probably will need to be adjusted once the frame is built anyway.

Now, that is not to say that you go and teach people about things like lydian dominant theory or serialism from the start but if you don't teach them basic tonal theory they are going to be doing things that they don't understand beyond that you told them to.

Tonal theory also goes directly to establishing good basic technique. Playing scales to start with establishes good left hand technique in getting them to use all of their fingers. It also helps them to develop good right hand technique by making them alternate fingers and gets them familiar with all of the strings. Even advanced technical development is best taught from the perspective of tonal theory. After all, actually putting any technique into practice needs a tonal context.

What good are rhythmic concepts on a tonal instrument if they can't be put into context? One way I teach rhythm early on is to teach clavè. The best way to put clavè into context is to demonstrate it as a I V7 or i V7 progression and without explaining how the dominant works or the way that harmonic minor works you are teaching them a couple of shapes they really don't understand.

Basically the way I see it as a teacher is that I treat all of my students as though they are paying me to bring them up to a level where they can play professionally, that is to play in a working band, and to be able to undertake their own development eventually. No matter what their goals are I feel that that is what they are paying for. If you feel that that is expecting a bit much you are either undermining that person's ability or you are not capable of providing that kind of service in which case you should probably not expect to be paid a lot, if at all. I personally ask every student what they want to get out of taking lessons when they call me. The one thing I tell them universally is that I teach theory and technique from the beginning. I don’t know how many students I have taught that, after I explain how the major scale works and how modes, triads and so on relate to each other universally, tell me that their last teacher taught them nothing and that what I teach them makes a lot of sense now.

Sure, it is good for your students to relate to you as a peer. Expressing yourself as a superior and intimidating them with how much better you are than them isn’t going to help anyone. It will make them feel that they can never achieve your level of skill and it will make you seem arrogant and unapproachable. On the other hand you are a mentor and if it wasn’t for the fact that you have something to teach there would be no point in them coming to see you. So really it comes down to whether you have something to teach or not.

I have found the site www.studybass.com very helpful. Seems that anyone looking to teach/play should know most all this site info.

Dear Suck, these young men are lucky to have you. When I was young I KNEW I was a bass player but there were only guitar teachers in my small hometown in Rhode Island so I took guitar lessons for many years before I ever found a great bass teacher (Darryl Williams in Las Vegas NV). One thing that you can do for your young students is keep it fun for them. I had a guitar teacher that would assign current songs of the time (and classic rock tunes) and mix them in with my guitar lessons. You can also teach them some guitar & teach the integration of the two instruments. my 2, good luck

How to tune .
Proper fingering.
Learn the notes on the neck.
basic triads...root ...3 ....5
keeping time..
teach them a song that they like to keep interest...
Show how the basics apply to that song!

I would just like to add, the role of the bass in music to this list.

mutedeity, what good is a house without a foundation? Of course a tonal context is necessary, but I have had a lot of students that have come to me that have more knowledge of modes than you could shake a stick at, but what good does it do them if they don't know how to play them with rhythm, with soul. I definately agree that you need to introduce them to diatonics early, as I do with all of my students, but I stand behind the idea that the most important fundamental with a tonal or percussion instrument is rhythm. I didn't mean to negate the basic fundamentals of learning what the actual notes are and why they exist in the patterns that they do, but overemphasizing clave and scales in my observations and experience, are the quickest way to take the soul out of somebody, and in many cases turn away would-be-artists. I agree that you have to approach each student as a unique entity, and design lesson plans accordingly. It's generally been my experience that most new, young bass students are playing cause they have a bunch of friends they want to jam with. Occasionally I get a student that is only interested in technique and jazz progressions and classical structure and theory. In either case, I make sure to teach the importance of rhythm as it coincides with lesson plans. I'd rather have them playing the correct rhythm and missing a few notes than hitting everything without feel, soul, rhythm. But also, I think that part of the beauty of teaching is that you don't get the same education from any two teachers. I've had teachers that taught only tone and theory, and I've had teachers that don't ever approach technique, and I've learned from every single one of them. With new students, you have to lay a foundation, but making music is why they are there, so give them a real life connection, a context. Generally I think that you can almost do no wrong as a teacher, unless you go into territory that is unknown to you. I'm amazed at how much I learn from students actually.

mutedeity, what good is a house without a foundation? Of course a tonal context is necessary, but I have had a lot of students that have come to me that have more knowledge of modes than you could shake a stick at, but what good does it do them if they don't know how to play them with rhythm, with soul. I definately agree that you need to introduce them to diatonics early, as I do with all of my students, but I stand behind the idea that the most important fundamental with a tonal or percussion instrument is rhythm. I didn't mean to negate the basic fundamentals of learning what the actual notes are and why they exist in the patterns that they do, but overemphasizing clave and scales in my observations and experience, are the quickest way to take the soul out of somebody, and in many cases turn away would-be-artists. I agree that you have to approach each student as a unique entity, and design lesson plans accordingly. It's generally been my experience that most new, young bass students are playing cause they have a bunch of friends they want to jam with. Occasionally I get a student that is only interested in technique and jazz progressions and classical structure and theory. In either case, I make sure to teach the importance of rhythm as it coincides with lesson plans. I'd rather have them playing the correct rhythm and missing a few notes than hitting everything without feel, soul, rhythm. But also, I think that part of the beauty of teaching is that you don't get the same education from any two teachers. I've had teachers that taught only tone and theory, and I've had teachers that don't ever approach technique, and I've learned from every single one of them. With new students, you have to lay a foundation, but making music is why they are there, so give them a real life connection, a context. Generally I think that you can almost do no wrong as a teacher, unless you go into territory that is unknown to you. I'm amazed at how much I learn from students actually.


Tonal theory is the foundation. I don't know many teachers that think otherwise. I also don't know many students that don't want to know how to write their own music or learn how to improvise. You can teach rhythm until the cows come home, but if they don't know how thier instrument functions tonaly you aren't really teaching them much at all. Furthermore teaching rhythm is part of any instruction. As for overemphasising clave, clave is one of the most basic ways to teach a whole range of rhythmic concepts. If teaching people theory and proper technique takes the soul out of them I look at it this way. I would rather have a lot of "souless" musicians out there playing professionally saying that I was their tutor than someone with "feel" that can't read a chart or know what to write with their band looking or someone to correct the fact I taught them nothing.

I agree with Stiv 200%!

Please, inculcate the rhythmic aspects of playing.

There are no less than 3,000 books out there on scales and modes already, and all they seem to do is tie one up in knots!

I'd rather play all the wrong notes and groove like a mother than know all the correct chords, modes & scales.

I wasted many a formative year chasing down theory related instruction, only to get out grooved year after year, by players with 'feel' out the ying yang.

There is a huge difference between reading books about scales and having someone who knows what they are talking about explain to you how relative theory works. Good for you if you don't mind plaiyng a bunch of bum notes. I'm sure there are plenty of garage bands that will have you. On the other hand if you want to be able to respond to someone when they tell you a chord progression or a key and sound like you know what you are doing you will need to learn how theory works. It's not about playing the "right" notes either it's about understanding how tonality functions. Being able to analyse and apply that kind of knowledge only benefits those who can. Those who can't usually spend their time trying to justfiy why knowing theory would make them "less groovy".

There is a huge difference between reading books about scales and having someone who knows what they are talking about explain to you how relative theory works. Good for you if you don't mind plaiyng a bunch of bum notes. I'm sure there are plenty of garage bands that will have you. On the other hand if you want to be able to respond to someone when they tell you a chord progression or a key and sound like you know what you are doing you will need to learn how theory works. It's not about playing the "right" notes either it's about understanding how tonality functions. Being able to analyse and apply that kind of knowledge only benefits those who can. Those who can't usually spend their time trying to justfiy why knowing theory would make them "less groovy".

Understand mute, that no one is saying pursue one, and forsake the other. Yes, a knowledge of diatonic harmony is imperative but what happens when a drummer strikes up a groove? All that theory goes right out the window if one cannot get on the same page as him rhythmically.

From my limited experience, well equipping a bass student to me, is helping him first to become as rhythmic as possible. How to sync up with a drummer/drum machine/metronone.

In hindsight, i would've benefitted greatly from a teacher having a drum machine pattern playing and helping me to hear & feel the kick, snare & high hat pattern and enabling me on how to sync up with what i'm hearing. That's real world experience.

I would try teaching them good habits first or be a stickler about it. What is the point of teaching them all when their technique isn't up to par with their knowledge?

Understand mute, that no one is saying pursue one, and forsake the other. Yes, a knowledge of diatonic harmony is imperative but what happens when a drummer strikes up a groove? All that theory goes right out the window if one cannot get on the same page as him rhythmically.

From my limited experience, well equipping a bass student to me, is helping him first to become as rhythmic as possible. How to sync up with a drummer/drum machine/metronone.

In hindsight, i would've benefitted greatly from a teacher having a drum machine pattern playing and helping me to hear & feel the kick, snare & high hat pattern and enabling me on how to sync up with what i'm hearing. That's real world experience.

You can check my profile to see where my perspective comes from. I have seen people that barely know how to hold an instrument go on to record and gig and write thanks to me. I am not too humble to say so either. I don't just teach scales on the other hand. I teach practical application of theory. Any good teacher should. By the way rhythm is not a concept separate from theory.

I would try teaching them good habits first or be a stickler about it. What is the point of teaching them all when their technique isn't up to par with their knowledge?

Technical development is limited without a proper applicable basis in theory. If you want to learn how to use correct left hand fingering ,for example, you need to apply it to scale and arpeggio practice. Go and watch Victor Wooten on youtube showing his double thumb technique, if you don't take my word for it. You will notice he says that to learn to play any technique you need to put it into a "musical" context. He plays scales and arpeggios as a demonstration. Trust me, there are few people that have good theoretical knowledge at the expense of good technique.

All this to me comes across as ways to justify not having a good theoretical understanding. I know this because these are the same excuses I used to make before I took it upon myself to learn theory. I am definitely a better player technically and have more ways to approach whatever type of music I am playing than I did before when I was "feeling it". Ironically I tend to "feel" the music more rather than struggle to play what sounds "right". One thing I know for sure though, if a teacher is supporting this type of thinking then they aren't worth paying.

Mute, with your years of experience, it seems that you are pre-supposing that an entry level student already has 'a feel' or familiarity with the instrument at the outset, before ever coming to you for instruction.

Whichever way a student was initially drawn to the instrument (or happened upon it) they, maybe unbeknownst to themselves, were influenced by the rhythmic aspect of ones playing, this is the quality i'm sure, spoke to them. The rhytmic aspect of the instrument.

Being able to discern & distinguish notes and chord qualities arrived much later.

Really, we all seem to be arguing on the same side of the issue, as both (rhythm and theory) are equally as important and go hand in hand.

Tonal theory is I would rather have a lot of "souless" musicians out there playing professionally saying that I was their tutor than someone with "feel" that can't read a chart or know what to write with their band looking or someone to correct the fact I taught them nothing.

If all of your players that lacked theory but could play their asses off, I'd take them over the soulless pros out there. I can't stand musicians who just read notes and play scales.


That said, the best musicians are those who have great natural feel along with the technique and theory to express it.

If all of your players that lacked theory but could play their asses off, I'd take them over the soulless pros out there. I can't stand musicians who just read notes and play scales.


That said, the best musicians are those who have great natural feel along with the technique and theory to express it.

Yes TFunk!!!

One can be piss poor in the harmonic understanding of the language of music, but posses the ability to affect the nervous system of the listener, by their strong awareness of the pocket/groove/ability to sync with the drummer, as a strong groove affects the nervous system of it's listener.

You focus on note choice and you do nothing more than get in and disrupt the tonal space of the keyboadist/guitarist.

If all of your players that lacked theory but could play their asses off, I'd take them over the soulless pros out there. I can't stand musicians who just read notes and play scales.


That said, the best musicians are those who have great natural feel along with the technique and theory to express it.


Well that is where you are mistaken. None of my students could play for peanuts until they were shown how to put things into perspective. Once again though all I am seeing is a lot of justification of what people lack. By the way I don't teach people to just read notes and play scales. Pay attention to what I write before you fly off on a tangent and make yourself look confused.

It's pretty obvious that my point of view comes from experience and application, not from what I lack and need to justify. I don't see how any of these comments help the OP or their respective students. What you think from the point of view of someone that doesn't know how to teach applicable theory or the benefits of it won't help when someone with a more open mind wants to learn how to play properly and be adaptable. I'm interested in knowing who these "souless pros out there" are, though.

Anyway, my guitar (yes, guitard by night) teacher had a few of his kids wanting to transfer to bass, and he wasnt interested, so i've got a couple students now.

I've got no formal training, although i've been privately taught since the dawn of time.

Are there any absolute basics i need to know when i start privately tutoring bass?
And what direction should i take with lessons? theory? songs?

thanks in advance :bassist:

send him to someone with more experience...

send him to someone with more experience...

Simply, we've all needed to start somewhere.
He wants to learn, i want to teach (and make a few extra bucks).

:bassist:
appreciate the thoughts.

I say teach away. Lest we forget that going purely by experience, Dick Cheney has years under his belt. Not to want to make this political, but the fact of the matter is that there are things to be said about experience, as well as fresh enthusiasm. I think everyone agrees that rhythm and tonal context are important, and while I would never want someone that doesn't know how to build a house teaching me how to build mine, I do think that it is imparitive to note that music is art, and there isn't anyone that can tell you right or wrong. Teach under the context of what your own knowledge set contains. If you get asked questions outside of that, be humble enough to admit it, but also help to hunt down the proper medium for instruction, which generally can be found on the internet...which I assume that everybody here at least has access too. In my honest opinion, however, the art of bass is the constant pursuit of pocket. Groove. Funk. Soul.

Also, I think that this thread is becoming to hostile an environment. It was created to form ideas about helping people. Mute, nobody meant to back you into a wall, and I at least find it admirable that you're putting up a fight, but I don't think it's necessary. Let's try to be more collaborative on the ideas presented. This is a community, afterall.

I say teach away. Lest we forget that going purely by experience, Dick Cheney has years under his belt. Not to want to make this political, but the fact of the matter is that there are things to be said about experience, as well as fresh enthusiasm. I think everyone agrees that rhythm and tonal context are important, and while I would never want someone that doesn't know how to build a house teaching me how to build mine, I do think that it is imparitive to note that music is art, and there isn't anyone that can tell you right or wrong. Teach under the context of what your own knowledge set contains. If you get asked questions outside of that, be humble enough to admit it, but also help to hunt down the proper medium for instruction, which generally can be found on the internet...which I assume that everybody here at least has access too. In my honest opinion, however, the art of bass is the constant pursuit of pocket. Groove. Funk. Soul.

Also, I think that this thread is becoming to hostile an environment. It was created to form ideas about helping people. Mute, nobody meant to back you into a wall, and I at least find it admirable that you're putting up a fight, but I don't think it's necessary. Let's try to be more collaborative on the ideas presented. This is a community, afterall.

On the contrary. I don't feel at all backed into a wall. Personally I don't have to justify a thing. I'm sorry if you percieve any of my comments as hostile. Yes, my point of view contradicts yours in a lot of ways and yes I do try to present my point of view in an authoritive way based on my professional experience. That doesn't mean I am angered.

I think my comments do nothing but help someone who is unclear on what should and shouldn't be expected of a person that they are paying to teach. Once again I reitterate that I don't base my comments on what I lack. In other words I am not telling you this from the perspective of someone that doesn't know how to teach theory or the benefits and applications of it. Not to be offensive, but can you say the same? I do nothing but teach under the context of my knowledge which is based on more than just a set of rules I follow. Trust me when I say that because I understand relative tonal theory I break far more "rules" than most people.

It really comes down to the fact that when someone asks for advice some people are more able to give a qualified response based on thier knowledge and experience than others. I don't know of a single professional musician or otherwise that understands theory that would ever deny its importance in technical and even artisitc development. I personally spent ten years out of the twenty I have been playing saying "it's all about feel and groove" or something along those lines. So I see things from both sides of the fence and believe me I know the benefits of my theoretical knowledge now and how many more options I have.

In my opinion the art of bass and, music in general for that matter, is understanding how to apply your own perspective in any given situation appropriately. This is based on being able to analyse your options and choose the best way to voice yourself in any given situation. It's all about options and tonal theory will give anyone who has taken the time to develop and understand it more options, not less.

Once again if you are going to a teacher that doesn't understand that concept you are wasting your money.

I don't mean to keep butting in, however, in my limited forray into being taught 'the proper & correct notes' (i attended Jeff Berlin's Player School Of Music in ClearWater Florida for 10 weeks, i left after 8 though) one thing became abundantly clear to me.

Bass musicianship is far far far & light years away from being so studied on theory and proper notes.

Monday thru Friday (for 8 hours a day) i sat in the Players School learning jazz standards, ear training, reading, correct notes & playing in ensembles, only to leave the School in the afternoon and walk across the parking lot to the Sam Ash music store and get outplayed, outgrooved & outfelt. (if that's such a term)

Music is art and far from a competition, but let's be real.

Even to a layman's ear, what is looked for, or what attracts the listener, is the rhythmic aspect of ones playing.

Being able to solo fluently through changes, knowing how to navigate chord charts, knowing how to play modally and all that other stuff makes a bassist a complete musician but cannot substitute the rhythmn part of it.

Herbie Hancock has a documentary on HBO (or the Starz channel) and on one of his sessions John Pattatucci is his bassist. John's depth of theoritical knowledge is unquestioned and unrivalved by only a few. But as i was watching him support Herbie, John was only enabled to play minimally (note wise) but rhythmically he could've went where ever him and Steve Jordan to took it. (the drummer)

John's only requisite was staying out of the tonal space of Phil Lesh (the guitarist) and Herbie. (on keys) He spruced up his playing with some nice fills but that's all he could do.

What enabled that track to pop was John's rhythmic sensibilities, imho.

I don't mean to keep butting in, however, in my limited forray into being taught 'the proper & correct notes' (i attended Jeff Berlin's Player School Of Music in ClearWater Florida for 10 weeks, i left after 8 though) one thing became abundantly clear to me.

Bass musicianship is far far far & light years away from being so studied on theory and proper notes.

Monday thru Friday (for 8 hours a day) i sat in the Players School learning jazz standards, ear training, reading, correct notes & playing in ensembles, only to leave the School in the afternoon and walk across the parking lot to the Sam Ash music store and get outplayed, outgrooved & outfelt. (if that's such a term)

Music is art and far from a competition, but let's be real.

Even to a layman's ear, what is looked for, or what attracts the listener, is the rhythmic aspect of ones playing.

Being able to solo fluently through changes, knowing how to navigate chord charts, knowing how to play modally and all that other stuff makes a bassist a complete musician but cannot substitute the rhythmn part of it.

Herbie Hancock has a documentary on HBO (or the Starz channel) and on one of his sessions John Pattatucci is his bassist. John's depth of theoritical knowledge is unquestioned and unrivalved by only a few. But as i was watching him support Herbie, John was only enabled to play minimally (note wise) but rhythmically he could've went where ever him and Steve Jordan to took it. (the drummer)

John's only requisite was staying out of the tonal space of Phil Lesh (the guitarist) and Herbie. (on keys) He spruced up his playing with some nice fills but that's all he could do.

What enabled that track to pop was John's rhythmic sensibilities, imho.


Firstly, understanding theory is not about playing the correct and propper notes. I doubt Jeff Berlin's course is entitled "how to use theory to play the correct and propper notes". On the contrary theory is a way of analysising what you are doing so you understand how and why you are doing it. It gives you more options not less. Anyone that has a good understanding of theory and how to apply it would agree.

Secondly, I said this before but I am going to say it again. Rhythm is not a concept separate to theory. Teaching rhythmic concepts like syncopation, clave, polyrhythm, time signatures, accenting and swing for example are all theoretical.

Terms like groove, and feel and so on are arbitrary terms use to describe someone's subjective take on something. What one person thinks has "groove" another person might think sounds "flat". This thread is about what a person should teach a student and in a way I believe it covers what a student should expect from a teacher. If a person came to me and said teach me to groove the first thing I am going to teach them is, guess what?....The major scale.

If John Patitucci didn't have the theoretical knowledge he has do you think he would ever have gotten to the level of playing skill and dexterity he has or be able to understand the note choices he could make or the rhythmic context he could use them in? If you think playing bass is far from understanding theory (as opposed to playing the correct and propper notes) maybe you should try contacting John Patitucci and asking him if he thinks his knowledge of theory has anything to do with his being able to play the way he does, or whether he thinks just "feeling it" is enough to make you a bassist on his level. I already know what his answer would be.

I'm still not in a disagreement with you Mute.

All i was intending to convey (which you know already) is that a student that lacks theory, but is groovy, can very easily catch up on theory and it's application, wheareas one that lacks a good rhythmic foundation with it's sensibilities, will be a frustration unto himself and others.

I know very well about the latter! :crying:

Can't learn rhythm and tonality at once. Nope. :rolleyes:

My opinion on all of this is that the most important thing to teach is MUSIC. The love of music. The poetry of music.

Music is not comprised of rhythm and/or tonality. These are merely concepts and words. They are obstacles to the miracle at hand.

We gain much more from those teachers who are sensitive to our creative potential and nurture its growth than to those who dole out ideas and assignments and knowledge.

Granted, there are students who walk in the door in a position to reap great rewards from this approach. But in my experience, most do not.

Ever notice that there's always one or two kids in a class who are engaged, and who excel, while the rest of us daydream? The daydreaming kids are not lazy! They are merely responding to an ill-fitting educational setting by acting as though they were actually ill. Humans naturally want to learn; it's what we do. That desire only grows perverted if it is tampered with by an outside source.

I say, find out where your student's love of knowledge is...and then offer that love its proper nutrients. For some, the proper nutrients are, "Here: learn this scale this week, and then next week when you come in, learn this arpeggio, etc." But for most, they are not.

For many, the proper nutrients are merely the opportunity to relax and sound like crap with an experienced musician who jams with them as though they were the greatest of talents.

All this talk about tonality and rhythm and assignments and techniques...

Who got it in our heads that these were the building blocks of musicianship?

And how have we been so foolish as to believe it?

And now...how are we so foolish as to TEACH it?

Music is love. It is beauty. It is a child's laughter, the sun peering through the clouds.

Teaching from the perspective of concepts of achievement or muscianship just distances us from the good stuff.

Teach the good stuff first, and the rest will follow.

'Nuff said.

My opinion on all of this is that the most important thing to teach is MUSIC. The love of music. The poetry of music.

Music is not comprised of rhythm and/or tonality. These are merely concepts and words. They are obstacles to the miracle at hand.

We gain much more from those teachers who are sensitive to our creative potential and nurture its growth than to those who dole out ideas and assignments and knowledge.

Granted, there are students who walk in the door in a position to reap great rewards from this approach. But in my experience, most do not.

Ever notice that there's always one or two kids in a class who are engaged, and who excel, while the rest of us daydream? The daydreaming kids are not lazy! They are merely responding to an ill-fitting educational setting by acting as though they were actually ill. Humans naturally want to learn; it's what we do. That desire only grows perverted if it is tampered with by an outside source.

I say, find out where your student's love of knowledge is...and then offer that love its proper nutrients. For some, the proper nutrients are, "Here: learn this scale this week, and then next week when you come in, learn this arpeggio, etc." But for most, they are not.

For many, the proper nutrients are merely the opportunity to relax and sound like crap with an experienced musician who jams with them as though they were the greatest of talents.

All this talk about tonality and rhythm and assignments and techniques...

Who got it in our heads that these were the building blocks of musicianship?

And how have we been so foolish as to believe it?

And now...how are we so foolish as to TEACH it?

Music is love. It is beauty. It is a child's laughter, the sun peering through the clouds.

Teaching from the perspective of concepts of achievement or muscianship just distances us from the good stuff.

Teach the good stuff first, and the rest will follow.

'Nuff said.

In other words you are saying it doesn't matter what language you use to communicate as long as you are speaking. All you have to do is think beautiful thoughts and you are a great writer. Nice concept too bad it doesn't work.

If you don't learn some kind of conceptual basis for your playing your musical language will be severely limited. If you have no ability to analyse what you do either you will be stuck playing the same shapes and motifs and wishing you knew how to take it further. Also, you will be limited in the people you can play with and situations you can play in. You will be a spectator more than a participator.

Almost every person that contacts me about lessons tells me that they have been playing for x amount of time but now they want to learn more options. So do I teach them a few more shapes and rhythms and say off you go, or should I teach them the language that will give them as many options as their imagination will allow them?

You seem to be under the impression that teaching a musical language is a standardised system, which is where you misunderstand the point I have made many times that theory is not learning a set of rules it is learning the language with which to communicate your musical ideas and an analytical tool. If you want to use it as a set of rules, though, then go ahead. The more you understand a language the more you have to say with it. I don't really see the point of people projecting their limitations in this manner though. I really don't

mutedeity, what good is a house without a foundation? Of course a tonal context is necessary, but I have had a lot of students that have come to me that have more knowledge of modes than you could shake a stick at, but what good does it do them if they don't know how to play them with rhythm, with soul. I definately agree that you need to introduce them to diatonics early, as I do with all of my students, but I stand behind the idea that the most important fundamental with a tonal or percussion instrument is rhythm. I didn't mean to negate the basic fundamentals of learning what the actual notes are and why they exist in the patterns that they do, but overemphasizing clave and scales in my observations and experience, are the quickest way to take the soul out of somebody, and in many cases turn away would-be-artists. I agree that you have to approach each student as a unique entity, and design lesson plans accordingly. It's generally been my experience that most new, young bass students are playing cause they have a bunch of friends they want to jam with. Occasionally I get a student that is only interested in technique and jazz progressions and classical structure and theory. In either case, I make sure to teach the importance of rhythm as it coincides with lesson plans. I'd rather have them playing the correct rhythm and missing a few notes than hitting everything without feel, soul, rhythm. But also, I think that part of the beauty of teaching is that you don't get the same education from any two teachers. I've had teachers that taught only tone and theory, and I've had teachers that don't ever approach technique, and I've learned from every single one of them. With new students, you have to lay a foundation, but making music is why they are there, so give them a real life connection, a context. Generally I think that you can almost do no wrong as a teacher, unless you go into territory that is unknown to you. I'm amazed at how much I learn from students actually.
I agree.

Why is everyone arguing?
Aren't we all in agreement that bass is CLEARLY easier than guitar, because it has 4-strings?




;)

How old are your students?

I agree.

Obviously from professional experience as well

Why is everyone arguing?
Aren't we all in agreement that bass is CLEARLY easier than guitar, because it has 4-strings?




;)

Lordy!!! Well yes and there are less tones in bass scales too, and because you can't play chords on bass and you definitly can't play sweep arpeggios which is where guitar really shows its superiority.

How old are your students?

I don't know if you addressed that at me or the OP but my students, and I have taught many, have been between 12 and 50 something. I would generally not teach students younger than that on bass because of the physicality of the instrument and so on. I teach every one of them the same thing to start with and vary what I teach them as they progress according to their interests and needs.

"I don't know if you addressed that at me or the OP..."

To the OP, but thank-you for your response.:)

bass player had a great little article years back on the 20 ways to lose a student or something like that....... don't be a clock watcher, don't slam your students heroes ect. It was good. I would suggest to teach how to string, tune, set up, how to dial in different tones, right and left hand technic are all good first lessons.

bass player had a great little article years back on the 20 ways to lose a student or something like that....... don't be a clock watcher, don't slam your students heroes ect. It was good. I would suggest to teach how to string, tune, set up, how to dial in different tones, right and left hand technic are all good first lessons.

I remember that article.

In other words you are saying it doesn't matter what language you use to communicate as long as you are speaking. All you have to do is think beautiful thoughts and you are a great writer. Nice concept too bad it doesn't work.

Not the point I was trying to make at all.

I noticed a boiling debate along the lines of, "what is more important to teach, rhythm or harmony?"

My response was: neither. Music is expression. So, teach that first.

As a teacher, you should know your theory and techniques, and have oodles of gigging experience under your belt. And of course you should be teaching that stuff.

My point is that there is but one supreme priority in the teaching and playing of music, and that priority is not harmony or melody or rhythm or gigging experience. All those things we love to study and do should be the MEANS to the end, not ends unto themselves.

The end is to enrich our lives. If your student isn't growing to love himself, his world, and his instrument more deeply as a result of practicing music, you can flush everything else down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

You might say, "well that's obvious" or "of course I do that." But most of us do not, and personally I think it a tragedy that one's first instinct would be to refer to music as an intellectual concept rather than a mystical one.

I don't think you are making much of a point at all really. Music is what you make of it. You can't teach a person to love music if they don't have it in them. I mean really I am asking people to pay me money for my time and teaching. I'm not going to light the old incense and start chanting om. How stupid would I look? How stupid would the student feel when they realise I have been stealing thier money and wasting their time. If someone is willing to pay me to teach them things that are going to benefit them as musicians I am going to teach them PRACTICAL things that they can use to play their bass and "express" themselves with.

All this nonsense about music not being intellectual but mystical has nothing to do with what a good teacher should instruct their students in. Speaking of which I have to go and teach someone else to play without their head stuck in the clouds.

My point is that education is about enriching people's lives.

Yes, teach all the theory and technique...but only in servitude to this higher purpose.

My point is that education is about enriching people's lives.

Yes, teach all the theory and technique...but only in servitude to this higher purpose.

On THAT we can totally agree

Obviously from professional experience as well

Somebody's just plain bitter.

If your wondering, my info page hasn't been updated once since I've joined, so I wouldn't base your character assassinations too much off that. :eyebrow:

Perhaps you should just try and accept that most people here seem to think that a player that can groove on plain root notes and nothing more would do a lot better than somebody with lousy rhythm and lots of theoretical knowledge. The dumb, groovy player will get more people to dance, too.

I would rather have a lot of "souless" musicians out there playing professionally saying that I was their tutor than someone with "feel" that can't read a chart or know what to write with their band looking or someone to correct the fact I taught them nothing.

Maybe you should pay more attention to what your student wants, rather than your own reputation. Stiv's got the idea down that each student has different needs and they don't all need to be hammered with theory, and that should be worth noting.

Don't get me wrong, I think all players should learn theory and will benefit from it, but I can't deny that countless players get by without it. That's why I think that it shouldn't a priority for every player.

Somebody's just plain bitter.

If your wondering, my info page hasn't been updated once since I've joined, so I wouldn't base your character assassinations too much off that. :eyebrow:

Perhaps you should just try and accept that most people here seem to think that a player that can groove on plain root notes and nothing more would do a lot better than somebody with lousy rhythm and lots of theoretical knowledge. The dumb, groovy player will get more people to dance, too.



Maybe you should pay more attention to what your student wants, rather than your own reputation. Stiv's got the idea down that each student has different needs and they don't all need to be hammered with theory, and that should be worth noting.

Don't get me wrong, I think all players should learn theory and will benefit from it, but I can't deny that countless players get by without it. That's why I think that it shouldn't a priority for every player.

Wait, I didn't read anywhere in that that your opinion is based on experience anywhere. On the other hand I see you accusing me of character assassination while you are simultaeously undermining my professional opinion. Well done. Seriously what really do you know about what students need or about providing a service worth paying for that qualifies you to disagree with me? All I see you doing is justifying a point of view based on what you imagine to be so but obviously have no experiencial reference to go by. All you are really doing in my opinion is justifying some kind of lack. My opinion is based on experience and knowing both sides of this story.

By the way you need not worry about my students. I know for a fact all of them would see things my way and not yours. That is why they continue to pay me.

Wait, I didn't read anywhere in that that your opinion is based on experience anywhere. On the other hand I see you accusing me of character assassination while you are simultaeously undermining my professional opinion. Well done. Seriously what really do you know about what students need or about providing a service worth paying for that qualifies you to disagree with me? All I see you doing is justifying a point of view based on what you imagine to be so but obviously have no experiencial reference to go by. All you are really doing in my opinion is justifying some kind of lack. My opinion is based on experience and knowing both sides of this story.

By the way you need not worry about my students. I know for a fact all of them would see things my way and not yours. That is why they continue to pay me.

First off, yes, that is character assassination. Your presumptions about my experience wouldn't have any impact on the validity of my opinion that rhythm is fundamentally more important that intermediate or advanced theory for a beginner.

And there is no contradiction in "undermining your professional opinion," as you seem to interpret it. God forbid I should undermine you.

By the way, your "professionalism" doesn't validate your opinion. That's a complete logical fallacy, and hence a very weak argument.

If you take the same "holier than thou, I know my **** and you don't" attitude with your students as you do with me, then yeah, I would be concerned for them.

As johncg noted, this seems to be devolving into a rhythm vs. theory debate. Arguing like this is is a bit pointless, as any competent teacher will teach both theory and rhythm.

To answer your original question, ISAB, in my experience it depends on the student. For a really new student to music, never played music before, I mix in teaching the bass instrument and basic music theory: Parts of the bass, how do we count time, note divisions, basic right and left hand technique, what is a note (tone), a scale, the major scale, etc. I usually introduce the concept of modes, but leave the details until they have a good grip on the basics. I teach them to read sheet music and lead sheets, etc. Which one I teach first depends on the student and their situation, but they learn both eventually. I also teach them the Nashville Number system, earlier if they'll use it, later if not.

For a more advanced student, I may spend more time teaching bass technique at first, assuming they have a grounding in theory. Basically, I try to shore up their weaknesses and balance them as a player, then move to more advanced studies.

As far as the disagreements, theory is a deep study, you can teach decades of it and still find fresh material. The study of rhythm is also a deep and important one; you will always improve your music when you improve your feel and time. To ignore one for the other is silly, teach both, mix it together.

I came to the bass from several years playing a different instrument in a jazz setting. I knew theory, the feel was lacking a good bit at first. I wish it had been the other way around. In my experience, it is easier to learn the theory and it's practical applications than to develop the feel.

I came to the bass from several years playing a different instrument in a jazz setting. I knew theory, the feel was lacking a good bit at first. I wish it had been the other way around. In my experience, it is easier to learn the theory and it's practical applications than to develop the feel.

I had a similar experience, too. I came to a point where I was soloing over jazz tunes. I knew what theory and modes I needed, but whenever I switched to "solo mode" my feel, and even rhythm were lacking. I would have been better off just going to a breakdown and doing something competent but simple over a pentatonic-- and that was usually what happened.

Otherwise I think everything else you said are good starting points for a teacher, assuming that the students are beginners.

I think one point that has been missed in this thread is that students come in all shapes and sizes and experience levels. A youngster (can't believe I actually used that word :confused:) doesn't need a music professor to teach them introductory lessons on the bass guitar. The basics can and are often taught by high school students to younger kids, college students to high-schoolers and so on.

In my view, it’s great that the OP is making himself available to tutor a new student of the instrument. The student gains a tremendous benefit from one-on-one guidance and instruction of the fundamentals of the instrument (tuning the instrument, holding the bass correctly, fingering and plucking techniques, etc.) The OP has experience playing songs that he can share with his student. Its definitely NOT a waste for either of them.

Music theory is important for understanding how music is structured. How each piece is constructed and how the different parts of the song fit together. I'm studying music theory at my local university (for fun). Its already helping me to improve my skills in my instrument, but it is not necessary for a beginning student to focus on, beyond the basics, to begin with. As the student progresses, he or she should seek instruction in music theory from the appropriate source.

To the OP: The bottom line in my view is for you to gather some good reference material and become very familiar with it as quickly as possible. Learn as much as you can from your student(s), because as someone once said, "The best way to learn is to teach!" Good luck, and have fun! ;) :bassist:

I would suggest that whatever you do, make sure to teach good left and right hand technique and posture. Harmonic theory and rythm are both very important, but you can teach them gradually as you go along. Too little too late and the students are hampered. Too much too soon and they'll drop out.
However, the physical aspects of playing are things they'll be forced to do no matter. This will cement patterns of movement in their muscular memory which will be very difficult to "unlearn". If you let them do it badly you've really done them a "bear's favour", as the saying goes in Sweden.

First off, yes, that is character assassination. Your presumptions about my experience wouldn't have any impact on the validity of my opinion that rhythm is fundamentally more important that intermediate or advanced theory for a beginner.

And there is no contradiction in "undermining your professional opinion," as you seem to interpret it. God forbid I should undermine you.

By the way, your "professionalism" doesn't validate your opinion. That's a complete logical fallacy, and hence a very weak argument.

If you take the same "holier than thou, I know my **** and you don't" attitude with your students as you do with me, then yeah, I would be concerned for them.

It's really not much of a jump to that assumption. If you had a professional opinion you would have entered this discussion with something along the lines of: "in my opinion I think that" or "I have found that". DocBop for example and I have had differing opinions about a few things and it has yet to come to either one of us accusing the other one of character assassination. By the way DocBop has my respect and knows how to handle a difference of opinion as a professional would.

You wouldn't be playing out this shortage mentality, "don't victimise me, my opinion is as valid as yours despite my obvious lack of any empirical knowledge", nonsense.

Yes I think my opinion on this matter is more valid than yours since you have failed to qualify a single thing you have said and everything you have argued is based on what you think is so rather than what you know through experience. On the other hand everything I have said is based on experience.

Your experience in this matter has everything to do with the validity of your opinion here. How would you know what to teach a student unless you have done it? Honestly if you think you have something to say, how about you give me a lesson plan for the first 5 lessons with a student. Otherwise that will be the end of it and I will just ignore your nonsense.

Playing the instrument, but missing it's purpose is primarily what a competent teacher should make sure his student isn't deficient in. (read:Cannot Groove)

By all means, study and teach theory until you know as much as Bach Cannon himself, however, if lil' bobby or tiffany cannot sync up with that bass drum he or she will be a straight laughingstock! :crying:

As johncg noted, this seems to be devolving into a rhythm vs. theory debate. Arguing like this is is a bit pointless, as any competent teacher will teach both theory and rhythm.

To answer your original question, ISAB, in my experience it depends on the student. For a really new student to music, never played music before, I mix in teaching the bass instrument and basic music theory: Parts of the bass, how do we count time, note divisions, basic right and left hand technique, what is a note (tone), a scale, the major scale, etc. I usually introduce the concept of modes, but leave the details until they have a good grip on the basics. I teach them to read sheet music and lead sheets, etc. Which one I teach first depends on the student and their situation, but they learn both eventually. I also teach them the Nashville Number system, earlier if they'll use it, later if not.

For a more advanced student, I may spend more time teaching bass technique at first, assuming they have a grounding in theory. Basically, I try to shore up their weaknesses and balance them as a player, then move to more advanced studies.

As far as the disagreements, theory is a deep study, you can teach decades of it and still find fresh material. The study of rhythm is also a deep and important one; you will always improve your music when you improve your feel and time. To ignore one for the other is silly, teach both, mix it together.

I came to the bass from several years playing a different instrument in a jazz setting. I knew theory, the feel was lacking a good bit at first. I wish it had been the other way around. In my experience, it is easier to learn the theory and it's practical applications than to develop the feel.

I don't disagree with any of what you say there other than that I wouldn't consider rhythm a non-theoretical persuit. I personally start by teaching every single student the same lesson.

By explaining the major scale it gives me a good indication of what a student really knows versus them telling me they know a lot about theory and really they just know how to play a few scales and triads or can read really well. By the way I don't consider a fluent sight reader that doesn't understand that natural minor is the relative 6th mode of the major scale to be a knowledgable theorist. It lets me assess their left and right hand technique through watching them play the scale. It gives me a good indication of their sense of timing. It introduces them to the concept of musical language and gives them an overview of how notes on their instument relate to each other.

I have found personally that all of the students I teach have benefitted from me using this as a starting point. Of course I adjust the way I teach a lot of this to cater to the needs of the student and their level of experience, but I far from neglect teaching rhythmic concepts. My take is that since bass is a chromatic instrument the first thing that needs to be addressed is the concept of chromatic and diatonic tonality. I could teach all the rhythms in the world but what good is it if the student can't go and put a tonal context to what they are playing unless they want to be a glorified percussionist. On the other hand I could show a student 50 ways to rhythmically phrase a particular arpeggio, but I can't explain the arpeggios's context unless they have a grounding in realtive theory.

It's really not much of a jump to that assumption. If you had a professional opinion you would have entered this discussion with something along the lines of: "in my opinion I think that" or "I have found that". DocBop for example and I have had differing opinions about a few things and it has yet to come to either one of us accusing the other one of character assassination. By the way DocBop has my respect and knows how to handle a difference of opinion as a professional would.

You wouldn't be playing out this shortage mentality, "don't victimise me, my opinion is as valid as yours despite my obvious lack of any empirical knowledge", nonsense.

Yes I think my opinion on this matter is more valid than yours since you have failed to qualify a single thing you have said and everything you have argued is based on what you think is so rather than what you know through experience. On the other hand everything I have said is based on experience.

Your experience in this matter has everything to do with the validity of your opinion here. How would you know what to teach a student unless you have done it? Honestly if you think you have something to say, how about you give me a lesson plan for the first 5 lessons with a student. Otherwise that will be the end of it and I will just ignore your nonsense.

I "entered this discussion" by saying "I agree." I must be such an a**hole.

This "my opinion is more valid than yours" is utter crap. Why should anyone listen to my opinion, then? I am a student, and I know what's worked for me and what hasn't, and where it would have been better for me to have learned something at X point in time. That's what I base my opinion off, so excuse me.

You seem to have forgotten what it's like to be a student yourself.

I will say this though. If you're anything in person like you are on TB, you're not suited to be a teacher. Good teachers aren't stubborn, arrogant and condescending, and that holds true for any subject. Even if you know more theory than anyone in the world, that would be irrelevant with a character like yours. So you have students, so what? Plenty of students get stuck with bad teachers and stick with them because they don't know better. I must assume that this is the case.

Ignored.

I "entered this discussion" by saying "I agree." I must be such an a**hole.

This "my opinion is more valid than yours" is utter crap. Why should anyone listen to my opinion, then? I am a student, and I know what's worked for me and what hasn't, and where it would have been better for me to have learned something at X point in time. That's what I base my opinion off, so excuse me.

You seem to have forgotten what it's like to be a student yourself.

I will say this though. If you're anything in person like you are on TB, you're not suited to be a teacher. Good teachers aren't stubborn, arrogant and condescending, and that holds true for any subject. Even if you know more theory than anyone in the world, that would be irrelevant with a character like yours. So you have students, so what? Plenty of students get stuck with bad teachers and stick with them because they don't know better. I must assume that this is the case.

Ignored.

Yes, and did you pay attention to what you were agreeing with? Enough of you. Bye bye. You had the chance to answer me accordingly now I am not at all interested in anything you have to say. I know one thing for sure I would refuse to teach someone as arrogant and disrespectful as you have proven to be.

Major and Minor pentatonic. My instructor once mentioned that there is a fairly large percentage of bassists that use them for the majority of there playing.

Also teach the role of the bassist. He or she is not a lead guitarist. I have seen guitarists to bassists conversions who pay no attention to the drummer and just play fast riffs!!!

Make sure they are having fun.:hyper::hyper:

I always leave my lesson in anticipation of getting home and working on what I have learned. My last assignment was to play along with Autumn Leaves using the first inversion and then when I am comfortable going to the 2nd inversion of the chord.

Yes, and did you pay attention to what you were agreeing with? Enough of you. Bye bye. You had the chance to answer me accordingly now I am not at all interested in anything you have to say. I know one thing for sure I would refuse to teach someone as arrogant and disrespectful as you have proven to be.

you're just proving that you are the arrogant one... from your first post you have had a self righteousness that has turned me off, I would never pay you to teach me.

you're just proving that you are the arrogant one... from your first post you have had a self righteousness that has turned me off, I would never pay you to teach me.

Oh dear here we go again. Good for you.

Oh dear here we go again. Good for you.

where are we going? good for me what?

see thats the arrogant attitude that turns me off. I mean I have played in so many bands I can't count over 15+ years of playing, yet I know very little theory. I would say I know basic theory. it has never stopped me from playing classical music all the way through metal and jazz.

most comments I get are on my feeling and my groove, not how many notes I can play and in what key or mode.

I agree that what you are talking about is important but I think alot of people who just want to play the instrument with there friends would get turned off quick if you threw them into a theory storm.

some people just want to play, and not worry about the crap behind it. is that any less valid than your way of playing?

I've been wrong before but it appears logical that when rhythmic studies are introduced at the outset, WHATEVER you teach thereafter, the student will not be left to chance, as to how they will make sense of arpeggios, scales, modes, or whatever theoritical or abstract concepts that their minds will grasp.

They won't be like me, who struggles with how to shape their notes, or phrases, into something that is meaningful, instead of just meandering around with scales.

That's not left to chance, as you've hopefully established & enabled the student, now you can build on that with the diatonic harmony principles, chord changes and such, imo.

where are we going? good for me what?

see thats the arrogant attitude that turns me off. I mean I have played in so many bands I can't count over 15+ years of playing, yet I know very little theory. I would say I know basic theory. it has never stopped me from playing classical music all the way through metal and jazz.

most comments I get are on my feeling and my groove, not how many notes I can play and in what key or mode.

I agree that what you are talking about is important but I think alot of people who just want to play the instrument with there friends would get turned off quick if you threw them into a theory storm.

some people just want to play, and not worry about the crap behind it. is that any less valid than your way of playing?

Good for you. I don't care if you would take lessons from me or not.

Thanks for justifying your lack. It doesn't matter at all to me that you claim that people compliment you. You are the best example of arrogance yet. Justifying yourself based on what you claim other people say is really no recomendation to me.

This thread isn't about whether you should learn theory or not either. Trying to discourage anyone from learning theory is just myopic and all it serves to do is underline your laziness and fear that someone might know better than you. Until you can tell me that you have taught and taught applicable theory and have a professional opinion to give on this matter you really aren't in a position to know what a good method for teaching is. What really is the point of going to a teacher if they aren't going to teach you the tools with which to broaden your musical ability?

If some people "just want to play" then that is their prerogative I don't see how they would have any bearing on this topic at all. A teacher doesn't have to ponder the possibilities of what to teach someone who isn't a student.

I don't get paid to make a student popular with their friends. I don't get paid to make the student think that all their dreams will come true by playing bass. What I do get paid for is to teach them to play bass well and to give them as many options as I can. I know from experience the best way that I can do this and I don't really know any reliable teachers that disagree that relative theory is important to every concept you teach.

The thing I do notice on this thread is that of all the people arguing with me and trying to undermine my opinion not a single one can say they have any teaching experience or know how to teach relative theory. Mostly all I see are people who obviously lack a good grounding in theory trying to find ways to justify why it isn't important. The people that are experienced that have commented, while their methodology might vary have yet to say that relative theory is unimportant.

Fountain boy. The reason you are probably meandering around with scales is that whoever taught you, if that is who you are blaming, didn't teach you relative theory. They probably just showed you a couple of shapes and gave them names without properly explaining what they mean. You can teach all the rhythm theory in the world but it won't help you understand tonality. What is the use of knowing a lot of rhythms if you don't have any concept of tonality? Bass is a tonal instrument by the way and in playing bass you need to put rhythms into a tonal context. Maybe you just didn't pay attention to what the teacher was telling you. So far you have failed to pay attention to anything I have said and just gone around in circles saying the same thing despite the fact I have given you the same response time after time.

[edit] Since this thread seems to be going around in circles with me obviously upsetting the masses with my "arrogant" professional opinion I am going to ask anyone who wants to challenge what I say to show me your first 5 lesson plans for a new student. I'm really not interested in the opinion of anyone who wants to argue with me if they can't do that anymore. Sorry

This thread belongs on Jerry Springer!!:eek::eek::eek: Or maybe Dr. Phil??.........

I think what people are taking issue with, Mutedeity, is your attitude.

You act like an asshole to everyone who disagrees with you.

You are probably a great teacher. Based on what you've said, I would say that in the lesson room you are very personable, that you know what you're doing, and that you do it very well.

But in this thread...

You have come across as an asshole. You are insulting and condescending for no good reason. You're not the only one in this thread whose arguments have gone down this path. But the reason people argue with your points so passionately is not what you're saying. It's the way you say it.

Ah, internet forums. They bring out the demon in all of us! :hyper:

I think what people are taking issue with, Mutedeity, is your attitude.

You act like an asshole to everyone who disagrees with you.

You are probably a great teacher. Based on what you've said, I would say that in the lesson room you are very personable, that you know what you're doing, and that you do it very well.

But in this thread...

You have come across as an asshole. You are insulting and condescending for no good reason. You're not the only one in this thread whose arguments have gone down this path. But the reason people argue with your points so passionately is not what you're saying. It's the way you say it.

Ah, internet forums. They bring out the demon in all of us! :hyper:

Yeah, I don't know. Personally I don't care if that is how I come across in this thread. I am a complete "asshole" to anyone that treats me with the kind of incredulity some of these people have.
I'm not going to be nice to someone that tries to undermine me by throwing their shortage mentaility my way just so they can feel better about thier laziness and inability to comprehend that a person like me is far more qualified to comment on what good teaching methods are than someone that barely knows how to play a scale. There is no passion in anything that people are saying to argue with me. It's more like desperation.

I don't have a problem with any of the posters here that talk about this sensibly and with credibility, but I am going to defend my point of veiw vigourously when someone says "oh well from my limited experience you don't need to know all that theory if you can't groove" as a way to undermine what I have said based on more than 5 years of teaching experience. Not to mention my other professional experience where I understand the benefits and importance of my knowledge and its applications.

As for being insulting, take a look at what is being said to me. As though I have to humble my opinion when actually what they are saying undermines it and potentially gives a false representation to anyone that might look at this thread for advice. Who is insulting who?

Anyway, my guitar (yes, guitard by night) teacher had a few of his kids wanting to transfer to bass, and he wasnt interested, so i've got a couple students now.

I've got no formal training, although i've been privately taught since the dawn of time.

Are there any absolute basics i need to know when i start privately tutoring bass?
And what direction should i take with lessons? theory? songs?

thanks in advance :bassist:

I always start with the physical aspects, holding a bass properly, hand position, finger position, also some alexander technique can go a long way with this. The more relaxed and efficiantly you are with your posture and positioning, the easier it will be for you to express your ideas on your instrument.

Then i asses where they are, have them play a song or two; jump on a kit and play with them. based on that you can judge where you should focus and start.

I think that too many teachers work with formulas and don't really take the time to learn what the student needs. It really makes a difference. all the teachers that i've had that went this route with me really got through and pushed me to learn alot.

Just my take on it. Good luck with the teaching!

Allllrighty then

I have no teaching credentials to draw upon/from, as i'm a career student on the axe, but as far as formal education i attended the local community college for 1 semester an was enrolled in the music theory I program. I attended The Collective in NYC for it's 1 week intensive bass program and then i had the privilege of attending Jeff Berlin's Player School of Music in Clearwater Florida where i had an epiphany that real world bass playing, ran counter to the false sense of security & the antiseptic enviorment that Mr. Berlin has created. It's an illusion. Real world bass playing to me, is sometimes creating on the fly, it's never soloing, it's syncing with a drummer at all times, it's staying out the space of melodic instruments, it's yielding.

Jeff tries to equip his students to be fluent soloists, to be out in front, which as a supportive instrument, rarely ever does a situation like that manifests itself in the real world, unless your a Jonas Hellborg or Linley Marthe. Never did he emphasize the rudiments like working in tandem with the drummer.

Jeff teaches from the perspective that if you can play jazz, you can play anything, which is kind've convoluted. That reasoning implies that a students fundamentals are very much in tact. Mine were not and as such, i found myself down there building on quicksand.

I came back home to Maryland crestfallen & downtrodden & out've almost $3,000.00 (which included living accomadations) but resumed studies with a private teacher.

Out've all i've learned academically, i can honestly attribute me not understanding the relationship between the drums & the bass to be the biggest impediment in my growth.

I have some exercises (Paradidles) i'm working on now (with the grace of Jehovah God) that are helping me to get myself together.

I don't think you are making much of a point at all really. Music is what you make of it. You can't teach a person to love music if they don't have it in them. I mean really I am asking people to pay me money for my time and teaching. I'm not going to light the old incense and start chanting om. How stupid would I look? How stupid would the student feel when they realise I have been stealing thier money and wasting their time. If someone is willing to pay me to teach them things that are going to benefit them as musicians I am going to teach them PRACTICAL things that they can use to play their bass and "express" themselves with.

All this nonsense about music not being intellectual but mystical has nothing to do with what a good teacher should instruct their students in.

On the other hand, if you change the word "mystical" to "intuitive", then I would argue that teaching students to balance the intuitive aspect with the intellectual aspect is exactly what any good teacher should be instructing their students in. Music theory is like grammar; once a concept learned and put into play, the specific rules need not be referenced in order to use it. The intellect/intuition balance is crucial in the making of a good musician IMO. Neither can be ignored completely, and each student has a different aptitude for each, necessitating an awareness of the student's learning style by his or her teacher. Some students need a lot of help on the intellectual side of things, others need help getting their intuition in balance with their knowledge, and many need both kinds of help at different times. YMMV, of course.

On the other hand, if you change the word "mystical" to "intuitive", then I would argue that teaching students to balance the intuitive aspect with the intellectual aspect is exactly what any good teacher should be instructing their students in. Music theory is like grammar; once a concept learned and put into play, the specific rules need not be referenced in order to use it. The intellect/intuition balance is crucial in the making of a good musician IMO. Neither can be ignored completely, and each student has a different aptitude for each, necessitating an awareness of the student's learning style by his or her teacher. Some students need a lot of help on the intellectual side of things, others need help getting their intuition in balance with their knowledge, and many need both kinds of help at different times. YMMV, of course.

I agree completely. I don't teach theory as a set of rules at all. I teach it as a way of establishing a musical language. With that said, it is my opinion that you have to establish the intellectual basis to open up your options in an intuitive sense. I don't really believe that this works in reverse.

I do think that there are some musicians out there that do well with only the intuitive aspect of musicianship, Mick Karn being one example. I wrote quite a lot of music that I still feel is quite successful and theoretically complex before I learned any kind of formal theory myself.

I'm not really trying to argue the importance of theory versus non-theory here though. What I am trying to express is that as a teacher I think it is important if not necessary to establish the basic language of tonal theory from the outset so that you have a basic unit of comparison with which to teach and contextualise any concept.

[edit] My reference to the word "mystical" was not to imply that intellectualism is more important than "mysticism", or "intuition" in music either. I was basically trying to say that whether music is one or the other has no bearing on what is practical in terms of where to start with teaching. I personally believe that music is both and both are as important as each other.

What an interesting thread to read. There are some great arguments being made. My comment, however, pertains mostly to the initial post on this thread.

I started my music career as a trumpet player, and moved to bass later on to play some different genres and perform in a different role (i.e. in a rhythm section). As a result, I have learned that there are many parallels in music regardless of the instrument you play. I will focus on these "constants," which are sure to serve any student well.

The musical skills of time (aka "rhythm, feel, pocket"), tone, technique, theoretical knowledge, and listening are essentially inseparable. It's hard to say that one attribute is more important than the other, when a subtraction of even one of these elements considerably weakens one's musicality. While most of us are stronger in certain areas, these items remain essentials that should be taught to a fledgling musician. The best teachers are able to incorporate these concepts simultaneously, balancing finger exercises with recordings and discographies, note names with play-along tracks, amp settings with scales, and so on.

A final point: The more command you possess of the instrument you're teaching, the better teacher you will be. As a guitarist, I'm sure you will pick up the bass learning curve quickly and avoid passing on bad habits to a beginning student. I remember what it was like spending years reversing a faulty trumpet embouchure ("face"). Let's get these kids started off right.

Do you have any ideas for a text book?

I started lessons last year after having not played bass for over 20 years. My teacher turned me on to "The Evolving Bassist" by Rufus Reid. It is Jazz based as well as oriented toward string bass, but I find it to be a very instructive text for the style of music I want to play.

I'd be interested in what literature you will use in your teaching.

http://bassplayer.tv/index.html?req=1&station=vwooten&video=bptv/artists/bptv_j07_vw104

Let's discuss, shall we?

:D

First of all, what a bad-ass. Of course.

The thing that Wooten does not address is that the reason he is able to "sell" his "wrong" notes is the fact that he has a firm foundation of building solos out of a more fundamental tonal vocabulary. In other words, he makes the listener hear his outside lines as being right because he has a great ear and obviously knows the "right" chord tones to skip around. Wooten actually proves how important it is to know the "right" scales and arpeggios, in a backwards fashion.

By the way, the "wrong" note he refers to is a high E, which is correct giving the G dorian minor to C7 progession he is playing over.

Great link. It makes more sense of couse to work through the four "ten elements" instead of listening to the fourth one you linked to first. Who can dispute what Victor has to say, and yet for beginners, the notes have to come first. I agree that to be a better bass player you have to work on all ten of the elements. You can give a student the four notes of "smoke on the water" however and let them work on all ten elements from there. Groove comes with time and experience.

The audience in this seminar were not beginners, but players. If we go back to the original post, Isuck is looking to teach new students. His guitar teacher is confident enough in his abilities to turn these students over to him. From his profile, Isuck is 17 years old. I can't imagine being a new teacher or student and not having some sort of text to work from. A text can also be a guide (crutch) for an instructor to develop lesson plans. I think a good text would be helpful to him as he starts giving lessons.

right now im actually basing it off an unpublished book written by my bass teacher who is a session muso who used to live in the US (but now here in sydney).

As he teaches me, i teach others. I find that i'm spllitting a half hour lesson with 10 mintues theory and 20 minutes of what i like to call applied theory; just playing what i teach in that 10 minutes and learning its applications.
I find this is most relevant with the infamous 12 bar blues pattern, although explaining arpeggiated 7ths to beginners is a complication.

I find that while comments being made are very intruiging and thought-provoking; slightly off tangent and over complicating the query being made about simply WHERE TO START. Not to argue the values of rhythm of theory; i have a rough idea of how to incorporate both in my lessons.

WHERE TO START.

IMO, figuring out what each student needs to do in order to improve, and in what order, is always the best place to start. :)

On the other hand, if you change the word "mystical" to "intuitive", then I would argue that teaching students to balance the intuitive aspect with the intellectual aspect is exactly what any good teacher should be instructing their students in. Music theory is like grammar; once a concept learned and put into play, the specific rules need not be referenced in order to use it. The intellect/intuition balance is crucial in the making of a good musician IMO. Neither can be ignored completely, and each student has a different aptitude for each, necessitating an awareness of the student's learning style by his or her teacher. Some students need a lot of help on the intellectual side of things, others need help getting their intuition in balance with their knowledge, and many need both kinds of help at different times. YMMV, of course.

I'm glad to see that someone saw my point through my somewhat ornate language.

Most educators I've encountered seem to spend little time on the intuitive aspect of music. But the best musicians have a profound connection with it. It's something I think you really can't explain. It is felt, and one has to feel it in oneself.

But we teachers can encourage thought about it. We can show the students our own connection with it and ask them to participate by "jamming."

To me, nothing else is really important. I'd rather listen to someone feel every out of tune note on an out of tune guitar than what most great players end up doing: playing very well while their hearts are somewhere else.

So, again I say, teach the "intutive" first. And let all your rules and techniques act in servitude to that goal. You might even find that your students will care about the typical stuff more.

IMO, figuring out what each student needs to do in order to improve, and in what order, is always the best place to start. :)
Interesting. But there are two possible starting points here: One is when you start teaching. It says nothing about the student, and then you're 100% correct.

The other starting point is when the student starts learning how to play bass, assuming they haven't really played any bass at all. In that case you need a pretty good idea of how to move along. How to introduce the concept of bass playing. What is it, and how does it differ from other instruments they might already know something about.

I would probably focus on the major scale, whole-note root thumping and basic technique. Then move up to quarter notes and introduce the root-5:th pattern.

Way back, before I really could play any instrument I learned the major scale for no apparent reason. Later, when I started playing guitar I found that knowledge surprisingly useful. This certainly carried over to bass playing.

I've watched the guitar player in my current band struggle when me and the keyboard player transpose on the fly, so I have an idea of what obstacles the lack of theory knowledge might raise. He's an excellent player, but knows no theory. He hardly knows the names of the chords he's playing. On the upside, he's really good at hearing what's right and what's not. Probably because he's not caught up in trying to figure out what mode a passage is in or if that chord he hears fits in with the key of the song.

First of all, what a bad-ass. Of course.

The thing that Wooten does not address is that the reason he is able to "sell" his "wrong" notes is the fact that he has a firm foundation of building solos out of a more fundamental tonal vocabulary. In other words, he makes the listener hear his outside lines as being right because he has a great ear and obviously knows the "right" chord tones to skip around. Wooten actually proves how important it is to know the "right" scales and arpeggios, in a backwards fashion.
I beg to differ. He's asking us to choose between two evils: A groovy but completely disharmonic solo, and a stuttering harmonic, soul-less wank-fest. It's like asking what you'd rather prefer to eat: Mouldy bread or decaying fish? I'd pick the bread every time, but not because I like it.

And because his playing drowns out the background, he gets away with it. It would hurt my ears otherwise. I would have liked to hear him play a happening bass line to that backing.

But as bass players we are conditioned to prefer groove to non-groove, and rightly so.

I taught for a little while, just because a few band members of mine had kids that were interested in bass. One of my guitar players is a teacher --- He told me one thing that I think is important. NEVER show what you can do in front of a student ( unless they come out to a gig -- which probably won't happen if they're the age my students were.) Talk them into a drum machine ( not a metronome) . And just keep it simple. In my opinion, those old Hal Leonard books are still the way to go. I'm afraid I can't help you with advanced players. All of mine were beginners.