Can "Groove" be taught?

[Fergie Fulton]

Well a few seem to be missing the point here..Talk......Bass....the clue is in the name.

Discussions work on many levels, those that believe a point of order or fact is relevent, only to learn it is not.
Many younger members will, in time, realise that some of what the believe in now may not be so rock solid, carved in stone as they thought it was as they learn and experience more.
I went through it and some of the ideas i was taught are nothing more than snake oil or detractions from what is relevent, and what is relevent is music.

Jeff Berlin has the right idea about learning music...just make music the centre of the teaching. In that, the need to master and play what you hear will eventually develop the skills required to do so.
But where Jeff got it wrong was in his presentation of that information in a modern world, backed himself into some corners based on his beliefs rather than what everyone else teaches as fact. So rather than teaching and developing education to a wider audience, Jeff spent a lot of time justifying his stance on things like "metronomes cannot give you good time" ( but if, and just of the top of my head, Victor Wotten, Ed Freidland, Adam Nitti, just some of the many many that say you should work with one). Everyone knows that a metronome is just a reference, it can not more teach you or hinder you without understanding how to work with one, how often you should work with one, and more importantly when to stop working with one. So other teachers offer guidence on how to get the best from working with a metronome, rather than saying no...if players and students are going to use them, then let them constructively.

One of those other big mis-conceptions is that learning your craft will hinder your feel. That in some way understanding what you do will mean you will not be able to do it..theory and such are groove killers. Many may use classical musicians as examples, but here is the thing....they are right, quite a number of classically trained orchestral players cannot groove. But that has nothing to do with theory but it is about learning their craft, and their craft is to play what is put in front of them, not be an individual, do not question or offer opinions, just play what is put in front of you. You don't like the programme...but you play it. You do not like the arrangement...but you play it, it is not about what you think or want, it is about what the music wants, and in an orchestra everyone is part of something bigger. The disipline is to repeat what you read, and play it as written, i mean if we have a woodwind section deciding it wants to add some groove to their parts, then they are not doing the job they were trained and employed to do. That means that some player that have great skills in one area lack them in others, especially if the use what they know to learn another instrument...it may take them some time to learn how to be themselves and interpret freely how they think a part should be played, rather than rely on what is put in front of them.

But this is Talkbass and the idea is to talk, put ideas and suppositions out there and see if it hold up, ask questions and expect to get correct answers, get relevent and good advice from all areas about all areas of playing bass.
But groove can be taught, but maybe someone elses idea of groove is just that...their idea, and based on what?..more than likely their own situation and experience.

So yes, groove can be taught, because the individual elements of it can be taught, how well some one grooves may be a different point....but if anyone that is funky and plays in the pocket with great feeling and note value, may find it hard to play with those orchestral players....so who is not grooving now, who is not getting it and playing the music, how will find themselves out of their depth because they cannot fit in (groove if you want) with the other players and the music to be played.
One more point those orchestral or trained players appear at jams and join in because those opportunities and option are there, the opportunities for un-trained players to come and join in what orchestras do is not an option....why would an orchestra wait till someone has showed them or explained to them what they have to do, or give them a recording of the piece to learn and remember, when all they have to do is sit down, read and play what is put in front of them?....one persons groove is not always seen or understood by what another person call groove.

[bassinplace]

Originally Posted by bassnat

Groove = Feel + Note Choices. Feel = born and developed. Note Choices = learned and practiced.

Nice!

[Stone Soup]

Originally Posted by bassnat

Groove = Feel + Note Choices. Feel = born and developed. Note Choices = learned and practiced.

Definitely. This is the perfect way to state the point. Don't know how I missed it. Well said.

[Russell L]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

Well a few seem to be missing the point here..Talk......Bass....the clue is in the name.

Discussions work on many levels, those that believe a point of order or fact is relevent, only to learn it is not.
Many younger members will, in time, realise that some of what the believe in now may not be so rock solid, carved in stone as they thought it was as they learn and experience more.
I went through it and some of the ideas i was taught are nothing more than snake oil or detractions from what is relevent, and what is relevent is music.

Jeff Berlin has the right idea about learning music...just make music the centre of the teaching. In that, the need to master and play what you hear will eventually develop the skills required to do so.
But where Jeff got it wrong was in his presentation of that information in a modern world, backed himself into some corners based on his beliefs rather than what everyone else teaches as fact. So rather than teaching and developing education to a wider audience, Jeff spent a lot of time justifying his stance on things like "metronomes cannot give you good time" ( but if, and just of the top of my head, Victor Wotten, Ed Freidland, Adam Nitti, just some of the many many that say you should work with one). Everyone knows that a metronome is just a reference, it can not more teach you or hinder you without understanding how to work with one, how often you should work with one, and more importantly when to stop working with one. So other teachers offer guidence on how to get the best from working with a metronome, rather than saying no...if players and students are going to use them, then let them constructively.

One of those other big mis-conceptions is that learning your craft will hinder your feel. That in some way understanding what you do will mean you will not be able to do it..theory and such are groove killers. Many may use classical musicians as examples, but here is the thing....they are right, quite a number of classically trained orchestral players cannot groove. But that has nothing to do with theory but it is about learning their craft, and their craft is to play what is put in front of them, not be an individual, do not question or offer opinions, just play what is put in front of you. You don't like the programme...but you play it. You do not like the arrangement...but you play it, it is not about what you think or want, it is about what the music wants, and in an orchestra everyone is part of something bigger. The disipline is to repeat what you read, and play it as written, i mean if we have a woodwind section deciding it wants to add some groove to their parts, then they are not doing the job they were trained and employed to do. That means that some player that have great skills in one area lack them in others, especially if the use what they know to learn another instrument...it may take them some time to learn how to be themselves and interpret freely how they think a part should be played, rather than rely on what is put in front of them.

But this is Talkbass and the idea is to talk, put ideas and suppositions out there and see if it hold up, ask questions and expect to get correct answers, get relevent and good advice from all areas about all areas of playing bass.
But groove can be taught, but maybe someone elses idea of groove is just that...their idea, and based on what?..more than likely their own situation and experience.

So yes, groove can be taught, because the individual elements of it can be taught, how well some one grooves may be a different point....but if anyone that is funky and plays in the pocket with great feeling and note value, may find it hard to play with those orchestral players....so who is not grooving now, who is not getting it and playing the music, how will find themselves out of their depth because they cannot fit in (groove if you want) with the other players and the music to be played.
One more point those orchestral or trained players appear at jams and join in because those opportunities and option are there, the opportunities for un-trained players to come and join in what orchestras do is not an option....why would an orchestra wait till someone has showed them or explained to them what they have to do, or give them a recording of the piece to learn and remember, when all they have to do is sit down, read and play what is put in front of them?....one persons groove is not always seen or understood by what another person call groove.

A tip o' the hat to ya, Fergie, for the many insightful posts you make on TB.

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by Russell L

A tip o' the hat to ya, Fergie, for the many insightful posts you make on TB.

No probs, its the difference between playing and teaching, when you teach you cannot just say, "because it is" or "That's just the way its done" or "I don't know I just do it". Imagine paying good money to be told that the player you are watching cannot explain what they do.

Classic example of one of the categories that afflict the subject (and music education as a whole these days) is the perception of where, what, and why something happens, as well as the reality of why it all happens. The perception is based on part information and experience rather than the cold reality. One of these is the killer player in his town, plays everything and anything, nothing they cannot do, that is a reality. They move to a large city full of musicians of all sorts and genres to grab some of the work.....but they find they are not that special in the this reality, in fact all the skills and techniques that were top drawer where they came from are not in this reality. Their reality now is based on a bigger, wider, and more experienced catchment due to the number of players from not just all over the county, or even the country, but the world...they find they are in fact not special, but just average or what is at least expected of a player, but there reality where they came from could not expand, test or give them that experience.
So in fact their reality is a perception in another reality, but that is the reality they want. So they either up sticks and move back to where they are something special, or knuckle down, face the reality of this situation, work and learn to become something people want to use and work with in this situation.
Many have tried and failed, but many do make a great career out of it, and a few if lucky become famous, but fame is a result of what they are known for and the fact that their skills and reputation preceded them, it is not fame without substance.

Here is another situation, and it happened only last night
I was invited to be the house player in an open jam house band, that means anything goes, so it is ears on as I say.
It was a great night, as to be expected the standard of play varied but in the whole it was very refreshing, because the music will never settle into the predictable, with player losing interest (and the audience) because it is the same thing each week, but just presented different.

So we had songs from simple blues and jazz progressions to players wanting to attempt, Cliffs of Dover, by Eric Johnston, and done very well, or Red Baron by Billy Cobham, again done very well, a bit of Jeff Beck, and again done very well.
In between when I was not playing I talked with players and found out a bit more about them, (they volunteered information with ease about their situations and playing) so here is two example, both relate to the understanding of what this thread is about, groove, or as I call it, the perception of groove.

Player one was a bassist, he was on me the minute I left the stage, loved what I did and asked how I do it. So I explained much the same as I always explain, you listen to all sorts of music and hear what is going on, listening to something, or someone, is not the same as hearing. About how to count a beat is not the same as implying a beat, you can move your playing in between the beat, so you are playing in between the beat, and then go in-between that to be playing off beat.
" but if you are between the beat then you are off beat surely" he asked
Which is true, but it is a simple sub-division, you are still playing 4/4 but in a different place. Before you were playing it to a bass drum, but now you are playing it to a snare...it is still 4/4. To be truly off beat you need to be in between those beats and moving it around, if not then you still have the same sub division between what you play, so it is still a 4/4 feel.

So when do feel you need to be on the beat or behind the beat or a head of the beat? If you are in between the beat are you ahead of the previous note....or behind the next note? The feel can relate to either situation because it is a straight sub-division.....it still has four beat between what you play.
He then picked up on the word behind the beat, he told me " people say I play behind the beat, its a lazy feel I have naturally got, but I would like to do what you do...you seem to lead then not lead, push the song or hold it back, that's what I want to learn"....."but all this stuff you are talking about is just going over my head I just need to learn to feel it".


So he asked me to watch him which I did, and he asked what I thought.
What I saw was player with good technique and a good head for music, but no real confidence in what he can do, yes he plays that lovely lazy behind the beat thing but it only works in certain songs and types of music, so that's what he practices and that's what he listens to, so he reinforces his strength to become a weakness. What he does in live situations is react to what happens, so he is always just behind the beat, he does not go for the beat in case his note choice is wrong, this guy has great ears, but uses them to react instead of instigate.
This comes from failing to really understand what he does and why he does it, rather than play the song he follows it. Rather than lay down a groove for others to follow or sit on, he feels comfortable and safe following.

When I explained this, he was amazed. He said that was him to tee, he just learned to play by ear, so he supposed to me that because the bass is played down on the recordings....the groove is in fact already laid down, he just followed it and developed the habit of following.

He got back up later and led the next by laying it down, even to the extent that sometimes it was to much, verging on over playing, but he was leading and laying down for others to follow, experience, trial and error will teach him what works and what does not, when to take over and lead and when to sit on it, but at least he believed what I said and was open to it in that case it worked for him, someone else might have said no your wrong, and tried to find another reason that was not their fault, not willing to accept that their way of learning may be flawed, so they stick to what they do best rather than expose themselves to a sterner test.
But in all this I may have been wrong, I do not like to give advice without knowing the person or the person really knowing me, criticism and advice can be the same thing, you give advice but it is taking as criticism.

The second one was a young guitarist that had ambitions to make music a career. He asked and sort of failed to grasp one of the main points he did not understand in the song we jammed.... he said he would like to work some cruise ships, and enjoy himself for a while. Then he asked "how do you get that sort of work?"
So I have to give him ambition, something to work towards, not shoot him down, or overwhelm him. But how do I do this, he has a good ear and technique, like the bass player, but nothing else to offer, i do not know him well enough to say something that will inspire him rather than defeat him.
What was making me feel un-comfortable was the fact we had jammed a slow blues. Sort of Latin feel over Bm, Em and G7 implied, so a 12 bar blues over I IV V, with a little twist on the V by having it as a sharp 5 and the implication of G7.

Well just before we started this jam, he asked what the #5 was, so I just explained it just a little variation on the 12 bar, so use G7 implied rather than a Gb. "When you say Gb do you mean F#?" He asked, I replied "yes... same notes are the same if you will"......"so is that a major G7 or a minor one?" came back me reply.."and what do you mean imply?". I looked at the keyboard player who had a grin as wide as a Cheshire Cat, he has done the jam a lot, heard the conversation, and obviously hot this type of reaction a lot when structure or chords are used.
So I just said, " leave it to the keys bass and drums to lay it out, you just take the solo". Which he done, and again, done well, his feeling is quite intuitive, even playing snap chords in-between the beat in a very tasteful way...he tried the G7imp once got in a muddle and just left it alone, so got thinking in not labouring his failing in basic chord theory by trying to find it live, on stage.

So I told him this, cruise liner work is mainly reading skills. Having the knowledge to read, understand what is required of you. Most players in that line of work already know the standards. So for them they will have a reputation, but maybe the vacancy arrives because they are ill, wife having a baby ( or if a female player, she's having the baby), family problems or what ever. It does not transpire in my experience that job has appeared because the player cannot handle the music, an outside influence is there as well ( Captain daughter for one sax player I know...but maybe another time).
So as a rule you get your sheets, you rehearse material, new songs, requested material etc during the day. But also the ship will have a show, so you play the music for the show. Depending on the show, you may have to read lots of sheets on the day or have little time to prepare them. A song maybe cut and replaced on the night...as will the key be suddenly changed. Then there are passengers requests, so you have to take your sheets to add to everyone else's, and that big book of "cheat sheets" the band leader carries or any music if the ships theatre has a library. They may even download the music on the day if the do not have something that has been requested or needed.

As a rule you do have free time. But you are always on duty, you conduct and where you go and what you do are always being watched by someone or another. Depending on the range and length of the Cruise you play every night, and twice, maybe three times at weekends so it can be a hard slog for the in-experienced or under prepared player.

"But if you can do I say go for it" is what I told him.
He then, to my relief. point out why he could not do it, he identified that if he cannot read and identify chords, he was of no use to them. He even pointed out that why would they rehearse with him and allow him time to learn the songs, either by being shown or listening to them, when all they have to do is read.
So he resolved to work on his weakness and make it a strength, and I think he will, he seemed to have the right attitude, but no experience in the reality of the work, just the perception of it.

So two players, one will learn to groove a differ feel and another who will groove better because he has learned what he can add..or leave out in his playing, he will understand why a G7 chord is so, and then understand that its implications over Bm and Em when used as a #5 can be seen as a good use or a bad use....depending in how he uses it, that part is experience of what works and what does not in his hands.

Again a bit of a long post, but this subject can be taught, explained and demonstrated. But like the subject matter itself, if this post may seem a little to long to read, a little to much hard work to get the ideas in it, that you start to read it, then think "what the heck, groove is feel" then you maybe one of those players that just shrugs their shoulders when asked about how you do it, or you may be one of those players that is able to teach someone about it and can relate or formulate ideas on how some of this can work for you...in that sense groove can be taught, but again who is defining what the bench mark is?
I would think anyone that sees this post to long to read is the type of person that would not take the time to read and learn new ideas, after all in each case I have talked about it was minutes........reading and learning through reading is like making a film, that film you watched for 2hrs did not take to hrs to make. There were thousands of hours, trial and error for that 2hrs on the screen, this is the same it s long to write and read, but the reality is it would take minutes to say, which is another area of groove, how fast does it take to learn it, and can I takes short cuts or speed the process up...answer to that one... No.

Most player can groove, but it is the standard they play and that may be high or low, but it can be improved, so that means the player learns and if they can learn they can be taught, if they are open to it, if they believe feel cannot, they will not, there insecurities about maybe they are wrong in that belief, will over ride any point.
But I am open to being proved wrong, but you will never do it by telling me it is "all feel..it cannot be taught".....so how do you make your point....or disprove any of mine?

[mrbell321]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

No probs, its the difference between playing and teaching, when you teach you cannot just say, "because it is" or "That's just the way its done" or "I don't know I just do it". Imagine paying good money to be told that the player you are watching cannot explain what they do.

Can you tell this to everyone, everywhere, ever?

[Rockin Mike]

It can't be taught, but it can be learned.
Play along with recordings paying CLOSE attention to the timing.
Record yourself and listen to the playback.

Other musicians can give you feedback as to whether you're doing it right but the groove is just something you have to find yourself.

I think it has to do with fluidity also. When you can play the notes effortlessly you can focus on the subtleties of expression.

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by mrbell321

Can you tell this to everyone, everywhere, ever?

Of course I can, I can explain what I do and how I do it, because there are certain criteria that apply to things, if you can identify the criteria, you can target what to work on.
The thing about things such as groove is the are a very small part of the big picture, it is a now thing, it is a buzz word to mean playing in time and with feeling.

So go back what was there before groove and how was it taught?
Before bass guitar was even thought off music was played in time, with feeling to flow...no drummers to look into, no back beat to play against....how did music survives Centuries and Centuries of development without groove?

Early Ragtime players and Blues players were considered to have appalling timing, but it become a style to play.
In the thirties it was swing, the phrase "play it hard, but swing it" ment groove.
In the Forties, Be-Bop developed, again the players and their music was considered out of time, but again it grew in to a style play. A Latin influence began to take hold, syncopation was entering music. the end of the second world war say soldiers return home with new music they had heard in whatever threatre they fought in, music was a great escape from the horrors of war, again this music they came back with filtered in, and the world becoming 'smaller' (easy to get around faster) information and ideas could travel.
In the Fifties it was Rock and Roll, that's two words, some players seem to forget the roll in their playing.
In the Sixties it was about melding styles, soul, blues, rockabilly, country etc..
In the 70s it was Jazz fusing with just about anything from rock, to funk, to swing, and incorporating areas and countries such as New Orleans, Belgium, Cuban etc were have all been use to tag on the front of Jazz.

After that the music you got became corporate, the digital age arrived and to find music you have to look for it or accept what you get. But the "new skill" of playing to a click emerged?....new skill.....playing in time is a new skill......since when, and why are there so many struggling to do it? So a programme called Quantize, was developed to move music so it formed the different signals to be in time, but it would take out groove, because groove was seen as being out of time. So programmes were developed that used the term, Analogue, so now recordings could be made to not only sound flawed but also have groove. Software can simulate the feel of groove, in the same way as it can auto correct any part of a recording. So that great groove we hear may not be all the player.

So when I hear talk of groove, I treat it as the buzz word it is, what we are talking about is playing in time with feeling. Can it be taught, yes but you may not like the answer, because it does not fit with how you want to learn it....the fact is you change what you know to suit the music, its about the music, not about you.
So if someone came and wanted some serious advice about how to groove, it is the same as it has always been, learn to hear what you are listening to and understand it.
If I asked someone to put their bass in it case and just listen to various styles and genres for a year, do not play, just listen and learn to hear what's in the music, they would not do it. 12 months of learning to make them a better player without touching the instrument. The instrument is the physcal representation of what you hear and feel, it is not the creator of it, it is merely a channel for what you want to hear under your fingers, come from what you have internalised and understood, if the mind is not full of ideas to internalise to give a player choices and have them choose what they feel from it, then neither will the playing...it will have limited choices to choose from, rather than the un-limited ones gained, not my just listening, but hearing what is going on.

[Russell L]

I often tell people that when practicing alone I like to find a "groove" and just play it for awhile like a loop. "What is a 'groove,'? " they ask. Uhh...in this case it's usually a one or two measure thing off the top of my head that I play over and over until I begin to warm up and give it different inflections at various points. After awhile I may move the inflections around to give it a different feel. All in all, it's someting to do when I don't have anything particular in mind. But, it's also something that helps me learn more about how to articulate. And, the passage is usually something that is easy enough to play, note-wise and rhythm-wise so that I don't have to think hard about that part of it, allowing the feel to come through effortlessly. I love articulation!

[Tupac]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

So when I hear talk of groove, I treat it as the buzz word it is, what we are talking about is playing in time with feeling.

Thank you, that's what I've been saying this whole thread! Rest of the post was spot on too.

[cire113]

There is no way you are born with anything; Everything is taught and learned through deliberate practice;

Everyone should read the Talent Code, Talent is Overrated, and Bounce for insight into how things are really learned versus the whole I'm a natural...


But besides the point; I would suggest learning Groove like Victor and Marcus did; by listening playing and imitating

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by cire113

There is no way you are born with anything; Everything is taught and learned through deliberate practice;

Everyone should read the Talent Code, Talent is Overrated, and Bounce for insight into how things are really learned versus the whole I'm a natural...


But besides the point; I would suggest learning Groove like Victor and Marcus did; by listening playing and imitating

+1 listen, learn, then understand.
Certain people are born with skills that help them progress faster than others, but they still end up in the same place, some just got there quicker.
Also some people with a natural talent seem to slack off because it all seems so easy for them, compared to those around them, so they do not develop the work ethic to always do their best. But once everybody has caught up and start to move ahead, they still think their natural talent will get them through. This world is littered with those that never lived up to their potential, never made the most of what they had.....and when they did realise it......it was to late.

[5StringFool]

Originally Posted by cire113

There is no way you are born with anything; Everything is taught and learned through deliberate practice;

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

Certain people are born with skills that help them progress faster than others...

I get what you guys are saying, and I son't disagree in that no one is born with the ability out of the womb to play and instrument, or play world class billiards, or anything else. However the two statements above seems contradictory in my mind. Since we're all born with aptitudes toward one thing or another that enable rapid learning in particular areas then to me it seems that the whole argument is semantic in a sense.

Fergie, you also use the phrase "natural talent" in your response, which one again seems to me to be at odds with the "no one is born with anything" assertion. If one has a natural talent, then you have been born with something. It most certainly needs to be developed for one to become proficient, but to me the statement "no one is born with anything" just doesn't fit the evidence.

The video of the drummer I posted is a perfect example. That young boy was barely able to talk, and yet had learned how to play the drum kit, in another video he was actually playing along in time with a piano at the same age. I'm sure he was taught, and learned to do that through observation of seeing his parents play, but I have all kinds of muso friends and none of their kids display that kind of an aptitude for playing even though they are actively trying to teach them. That little boy was born was born with an aptitude toward rhythm, and appears to have been blessed with a fair amount of kinesthetic intelligence to be able to put together his meager skill set (by adult standards) before he could speak.

And while I haven't read the books mentioned here I have read a book called "How the Brain Learns" which is the first place I was introduced to the "seven types of intelligence". I have even seen some classifications that have eight or nine types of intelligence, and "musical intelligence" is one of those listed, and intelligence (or at least a good portion of it) is definitely something you are born with.

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by 5StringFool

I get what you guys are saying, and I son't disagree in that no one is born with the ability out of the womb to play and instrument, or play world class billiards, or anything else. However the two statements above seems contradictory in my mind. Since we're all born with aptitudes toward one thing or another that enable rapid learning in particular areas then to me it seems that the whole argument is semantic in a sense.

Fergie, you also use the phrase "natural talent" in your response, which one again seems to me to be at odds with the "no one is born with anything" assertion. If one has a natural talent, then you have been born with something. It most certainly needs to be developed for one to become proficient, but to me the statement "no one is born with anything" just doesn't fit the evidence.

The video of the drummer I posted is a perfect example. That young boy was barely able to talk, and yet had learned how to play the drum kit, in another video he was actually playing along in time with a piano at the same age. I'm sure he was taught, and learned to do that through observation of seeing his parents play, but I have all kinds of muso friends and none of their kids display that kind of an aptitude for playing even though they are actively trying to teach them. That little boy was born was born with an aptitude toward rhythm, and appears to have been blessed with a fair amount of kinesthetic intelligence to be able to put together his meager skill set (by adult standards) before he could speak.

And while I haven't read the books mentioned here I have read a book called "How the Brain Learns" which is the first place I was introduced to the "seven types of intelligence". I have even seen some classifications that have eight types of intelligence, and "musical intelligence" is one of those listed, and intelligence (or at least a good portion of it)is definitely something you are born with.

You are taking the point to literal (maybe because that's how you learn) We all have the power to reason, so read all of want I said and reason it to to be in context with the overall post. If not then examples are need to make help make the point relevant.

I am Scottish, red headed and fair skin with Blue eyes, it is not a natural talent that I have these features, they are natural attributes for where I originally come from, a cold, climate with little strong sun. So I can take the cold, and happily move around and function in it.
This is why you do not see Counties around the Equator with people born with these characteristics.
But you can argues I know lots of people born with such characteristics in such places, again you would be right. If someone had moved there a few generations ago, or moved there from Scotland then you would see those attributes......then someone says "what about Ireland, they have red hair, fair skin".......now we are labouring a point not the fact
The fact is we do not see a lot of red headed fair skin people out in strong sun unless they are covered up.

So to me a dark skinned Italian has has the ability to stay in the sun, a natural ability if you will, where as I do not.....my natural skin colour is a light blue, I have to be in the sun a week or so before I become white......the occasional full moon can burn me if I am not careful.

Learning is this. You cannot stop learning.

What many books, professionals, myself included, talk, teach or use when we teach about is enhancing learning, or identifying how we learn.
From this we can target an individuals weakness and make it a strength so they can learn better or faster.
This is not a new idea, it is the extension that there are those that are academic and those that are vocational, in other words those that can think about it, and those that can do it.
The two are based on the same principal to learn, but some can read about it and learn and some can just watch and learn, some can explain in words how something works, the other can only show you how it works. It is not about the information, both know it, but one can represent it better with words, the other with actions.

We have all at some point in our lives experienced this, we have all used the phrase at some point of "it's easier/quicker if I just show you".
All this means is I will represent the information with actions, it does not mean I do not know it. That in itself has different depths and levels, maybe knowing something and understanding something means you can explain it in words, where as knowing it means you cannot. So understanding is another level of learning.

For musicians, knowing music is not the same as understanding music, classical musicians sometimes get a piece put I front of them to play the do do understand, but can play it because they play what they read....no real need to understand. But they would play it better if they understood it because it is another level learning to be used. When we understand things better we get a new sensation to add to our learning, the sensation of enjoyment, we all do the things better we enjoy, and like groove we learn to enjoy by developing a deeper understanding of why we do it, we develop empathy with the task (Stockholm Syndrome was identified as taken this form)

We see it ever day with news readers, they say the words on the auto cue, but how much of what the say do the understand? One thing is for sure they will retain certain parts of those stories, because they cannot turn off what our brains will learn and what it will not. We learn without realising we are learning, we learn from all our senses and all our senses reinforce our our understanding and action.

If I ask you to touch your mouth, you do it, you never think about it, you just do the action, it is a learned action you think it and do it.
But if you have ever been to the dentist and had your mouth numbed, then touching you mouth if not so easy, you will miss it more often or not. Part of the information you need is not available to you brain, those nerves that have been numbed are not transmitting correctly, so your brain does not really know exactly where your mouth is, so it cannot direct the hand directly to it as it did before. When the jab where's off all is back to normal.

It is often taken for-granted the skills we have at our disposal to learn.
When someone says groove cannot be taught, they usually like to cloud or muddy that statement with examples of players, or situation that have nothing to do with learning groove, or they take the vocational route to learn how to groove, rather than the Academic one, because they do not realise the two things are the same thing, just represented in a different skill set.

The saying that life is a journey not a destination, applies to learning.
If you base that you are not learning on a time frame then you are rationalising you learning. I know plenty people that waste more time trying to find a better or faster way to do do something that just accepting doing the job will get it done.
Or if I am in a hurry and ask them to do it, by the time they have questioned it, hummed and had about it, tried to find an easier way, it would have been quicker and easier to do it myself.

In learning to groove, no one put a time frame on it, what you put on it is the quality of it. We are all born with the ability to groove, a baby can be contented and settled to a heartbeat, that why certain motion or music can soothe them, they have empathy to it. If groove is a buzz word, then maybe empathy is the real meaning of groove, its not a cool word, to relate to the one of the main things that relates groove to a players playing.....that is then related to you the listener, you feel and get what is happening, you are drawing in to listen and feel first....then maybe you will want to understand it....you become curious about it.
Maybe not the first time you hear it, or the second, maybe it takes a while and hearing it in various music, over time, but when you do question it, that means you have listened, learned and now want to understand.

[edfriedland]

Originally Posted by Tupac

I can confirm how useful a conductor is... you don't appreciate it until you're out there on stage.

But do you know the difference between a bull and a symphony orchestra? The bull has the horns in the front and the ******* in the back....

The suggestion of playing along to records is one I've heard some very well known players make as a way to develop your time... however, because the bass is so prominent in modern recordings, I always found it very distracting to play along with the existing bass. If you can remove most of it electronically, it helps, but I still find playing along to records pretty unsatisfying. Instead, I've learned how to listen to music actively so I FEEL like I'm playing it. While you need to groove ON your instrument, you won't until you can groove without it.

[Tupac]

Originally Posted by edfriedland

But do you know the difference between a bull and a symphony orchestra? The bull has the horns in the front and the ******* in the back....

The suggestion of playing along to records is one I've heard some very well known players make as a way to develop your time... however, because the bass is so prominent in modern recordings, I always found it very distracting to play along with the existing bass. If you can remove most of it electronically, it helps, but I still find playing along to records pretty unsatisfying. Instead, I've learned how to listen to music actively so I FEEL like I'm playing it. While you need to groove ON your instrument, you won't until you can groove without it.

I've actually found that playing along to tracks (70% of my practice sessions) really don't do much for my timing. But when I start by droning along to a metronome before I start, I can groove MUCH better for the whole session. That leads me to believe it's a nervous system thing. You have to train it to move that muscles RIGHT when you want it to, to get it on that sweet spot of a drum beat.

[Russell L]

Originally Posted by edfriedland

But do you know the difference between a bull and a symphony orchestra? The bull has the horns in the front and the ******* in the back....

The suggestion of playing along to records is one I've heard some very well known players make as a way to develop your time... however, because the bass is so prominent in modern recordings, I always found it very distracting to play along with the existing bass. If you can remove most of it electronically, it helps, but I still find playing along to records pretty unsatisfying. Instead, I've learned how to listen to music actively so I FEEL like I'm playing it. While you need to groove ON your instrument, you won't until you can groove without it.

I learn most of the tunes I need for my gigs by riding around listening to CDs. While I'm learning the chords, form, and what the licks are I also work out where I'm gonna play it on the neck. In short, doing just what you said, Ed. I am playing my bass in my mind, and I can feel it.

[lfmn16]

Maybe I missed it and someone else said it first, but IMO if you want to learn to groove you should spend at least as much time listening to groove music as practicing. I don't mean putting on the cd and having a beer, I mean really listening. I think that sometimes we practice too much with our hands and not enough with our ears.