An interesting read from Jeff Berlin

[chrisrusty99]

A note by Jeff that I found helpful and interesting (like most of his stuff). Enjoy

"
I want to highlight a point about available gigs that nobody commented about yesterday. I think of this general list as so significant from a pragmatic point of view, as it should be posted everywhere as proof of the need to read, the need to know more than your own particular style of music requires IF you wish to play and earn money, get experience as a player, spread your reputation, and out-and-out help to develop that which so many seem ot covet, which is groove, feel, and a paycheck while developing these things.

Where does groove come from? It comes from knowing your instrument and the style of music that you are playing. That is the entire explanation! Groove is a reward, not a method. It doesn't come from playing with metronomes. It doesn't come from being told to play a groove or to play in time (two things so obvious as to amaze me that people aren't aware of how obvious they are!) It comes from KNOWING! As you improve as a player, the styles of music that you play require a certain feel to make these styles "legitimate!" Groove means to function according to the time and feel required in the music that you are playing. And as I mentioned before, EVERYTHING has its own groove!

3 Examples!

1. Chefs "groove" as they cook their dishes at the right temperatures for the right amounts of time. They cook several different things at a time and combine them all at the right time. This is groove! But they coudn't groove when they first learned how to cook. This means that groove has no place in the academic cooking experience. Out-of-time regard for cooking times was necessary to learn the facts first.

2. Drivers "groove" although they don't use this term. Traffic flows at its own tempos, slowing down, speeding up, changing lanes. Except for accidents, it always flows according to its own tempo, as drivers, functioning in this driving tempo, "groove" or fit into traffic's flow. But drivers couldn't groove when they first learned how to drive. They started hesitantly in a parking lot or a side street "out of time" not in a driving groove, but hesitant and unsure, just as it should be when a new driver starts to learn how to drive.

3. Painting or Art! I include painting as an art that demonstrates the "groove" in a painters creative efforts. Van Gogh is one of the high examples of a painter that produced hundreds of canvanses in a pure "groove" outpour. Painters all "groove" But painters couldn't groove when they first learned how to paint. They made errors, and painted canvases all as practice events, working on undeveloped talent that only later came to flower,painting in their groove, but never before and never, not once in their academic lives, ever emphasised.

Gigs provide the fertile ground to learn how to groove. Here is a list of gigs that non-reading musicians will not get, gigs that not only pay you money as you learn your craft, but help to spread your reputation, hone your skills playing with different musicians, and experiencing different playing environments, musicians, feels, and, in fact, all organic point of need so necessary to find a groove, again, while being paid to do so.

Reading Gigs
1. Studio musician for hire!
2. Broadway shows (regional and nationwide)!
3. Backing up individual acts, singers, comedians, actors
4. Top 40 Big Bands, Small Groups, Dance Bands
5. Circus, Theme Parks
6. Church, Temple
7. TV shows, Letterman/Leno/Kimmel etc. Grammys, Oscars, SAG Awards etc.
8. Cruise Ships
9. Corporate gigs-Political events, industrial parties!
10. Self contained bands individual stylists playing restaurants, clubs, churches, Top 40
11. General Business- Weddings, Bar Mitzvas, Graduation Parties etc.

Readers can do non-reading gigs, but not the other way around!

Here is a list of gigs available to non-reading musicians!

Non-Reading Gigs
1. Self contained bands or individual stylists playing restaurants, clubs, churches!
2. General Business- Weddings, Bar Mitzvas, Graduation Parties etc.

It is hard to argue with the facts. These two lists are general, but in their generality, it shows that if you don't know how to read, you won't go anywhere as a musician outside of the style of music that many are forced to stick with, not as an art choice but as the only option to play. There is nothing wrong with choosing a style and trying to excel in it. Just know that many players are limited by their inablilit to only function in those forms of music simply because their DECISION to not expand their musical ability won't allow them any other option.

I once earned $14,000. for playing two bars of music for a KMart commercial in the 1970's. This is true! Two bars of music and the residual checks for that studio gig alone totalled to 14 grand! At the same time that I was a studio bass player, I was playing with all the New York musicians every night, recording records, jamming, touring, doing gigs with the best New York players in a dozen styles, and regularly playing with the stars of music of that era. I was 23 years old when I was in that world, one of the top players in the city, and it was music academics that opened that door to me, actually to all of us. I was a kid, not all that experienced, but having the right acacemic skills under my belt to function and provide the right musical basslines while I was working on the intangibles (as Joseph Wooten once said). But intangibles never require an academic setting, and in fact, aren't learnable in a classroom. They are learned on the gig. And reading and musical instruction prepared me to get those gigs! On those gigs I learned those intangibles while they paid me a lot of money at the same time. This can be your story as well, except that some players are limited by their own vision of what they can and can't accomplish as players. Stop this, and learn how to play better and reap the reward for doing so!

Groove lessons? What a complete error of thinking this academic approach is.

Thanks for reading! Post this everywhere. "

[Clef_de_fa]

hahaha I liked it !

Also reading music may help you writting music for an entire band not only for the bass part.

[brianrost]

I've had to pass on $$$$ gigs because I can't sight-read at tempo.

The part about groove being learned on the job is dead on.

[narud]

the only thing that looks like it truly applies in this day and age is the cruise ship,circus, and broadway gigs.

[BassChuck]

I totally agree with Jeff on this one. This has been my experience to a "T". Best advice you can have .... ever. Young players take note, this is the truth. You might be getting by without formal knowledge (reading and theory), but in the end you'll go further with the knowledge. It will not hurt you to learn something.

I've had people tell me that learning theory will 'ruin their musical soul'. Nonsense. If the contents of your soul can be damaged by the contents of a book, I would seriously question your evaluation of the moment.

[Mike M.]

Sooooooo much to learn and so little time.

[Rick Robins]

Here Jeff continues with some new thoughts. Once again I find him nothing but right but still want to hear & see what others have to say about it & think its good to share this info with others...

by Jeff Berlin on Wednesday, February 22, 2012

"""People ask me why I dismiss the methods that other teachers subscribe to. People take my dismissal as an insult to these teachers without actually understanding why I dismiss their teaching concepts in the first place. If a teacher teaches music, then I am thrilled to support their vision. I hope that it is obvious to people that it would be way easier for me to go along with the flow as to how many teachers teach instead of objecting to their well-intended but misguided approaches. Leaning to a philosophy of teaching rather than to the content of it isn’t going to help you. In looking at what people subscribe to when they teach, I have discovered a great flaw in their thinking and I would like to show it to you now.

Musicians that teach music usually discuss the approach more than they discuss content. Has anyone ever noticed this? They will show why they do what they do! Example: Victor Wooten discusses that a baby learns a language from birth. Ernest Bacon stated that “what is warmth in music that is all warm? What is dissonance in a bed of discord? What is light without shadow?”

As philosophically interesting as these gentlemen are, if one takes the concept of music and twists it into a new point of view, where is the content that should immediately follow their approach?

This is the flaw! Many teachers base their beliefs on a philosophy of learning, but rarely if ever, include solid musical content that all music instruction should be based on. If one isn’t learning how to play their instrument via perfect bits of musical excellence, then why do people go to schools, teachers, camps, intensives, or clinics? Following this line of thought, it occurred to me that every subject in every manner of study always, without exception, contains content in those lessons, except music!

Music is the only artform where well-intended teachers teach non-musical concepts that sound good in their explanation, but aren’t helping to you play better. Why? Because many teachers don’t put musical facts into their lessons for you to practice. But they will teach performance and style saying that these things will help you to play better. Let’s check it out.

Here are two links to bassists, one of jazz, the other of rock, considered among the best in music history.

100 Greatest Rock Bass Guitarists

100 Greatest Jazz Bassists

Name anyone on these two lists that say that they studied in a school and learned groove, feel, chops, rock, blues or getting in touch with their inner musician academically that aided them in entering the professional ranks.

I bet that you practically cannot name anyone. If you cannot then you should be re-thinking your belief in these methods of learning. Caution: teachers in these methods can spin a mighty tale stating their point of view, but cannot back up their comments in the practice room. Those two links combined two hundred of the top names show this as none of these names acquired these skills except by playing and innovating over time.

Here is another bit of proof that comes in the form of a question that I bet that nobody can answer. Here is the question!

Name any subject, any art form or any vocation of any kind that one pays to learn, where the academic or factual content is NOT offered in those lessons first and exclusively.

When I asked this question before, the best answers that I got were surfing (which is actually learned academically if one is teaching it to you) philosophy (which is learned academically through reading and study) and Life (which is probably more full of academic principles than any other general topic there is!)""""

Anybody want to take a crack at Jeff's questions? Or for those who have or had teachers, is this what or how you were taught? Or better yet any teachers who want to challenge his statements or offer a different perspective?

[mambo4]

I used to think Jeff's assertions often were some kind of jazz-centric snobbery, but now I get it.
"factual music" = theory, notation, beat subdivisions and other fundamentals.
If a student wants to "groove" , play with "feel", and develop "chops", they should embrace those basic fundamentals, because such things are a result of your command of the fundamentals.

I still think metronomes are important, however

[BassChuck]

I see what Jeff is saying, and as a music teacher for 36 years I'll have to agree with most of it. However, music in the school system is, and probably should always be, a different sort of subject that private lessons or an academic situation that leads to performance.

The truth is that if all the children in public school band, orchestras and choirs across this country aspired to be professional performers, then we would have no small supply of disappointed adults. The main thing that we teach, as we teach music, is an understanding from the standpoint of listening and making music a part of our lives, not a creative participation in advancing the art. Students who aspire to be professional musicians will seek out private instruction or performance situations that are less structured than an academic setting. And this is as it has been for all time.

The other point that needs to be addressed in response to Jeff's comments it that teachers are assessed themselves as to how they are teaching, and the people who are doing the assessment are usually not musicians or artists of any sort. One thing that is quickly learned in the teaching profession is not only how well you teach, but how you allow your administration to view your teaching. Often times the number of students enrolled in a music program will be a stronger determining factor than the quality of music or the musical growth of the individual student.

And BTW, this "problem/situation" is not unique to the subject of music.

But I will say that Jeff is correct in many of the things he is saying. However I'm willing to bet he has never stood in front of a public school board and justified the existance of a music program.

[wrench45us]

a perspective related to me from a graduate of North Texas
There were acknowledged 'stars' of the program that could play just about anything and teachers loved them and they were spotlighted in any and all institution sponsored concerts. They tended to practice by themselves and only play in sponsored groups and situations
Then there were the B and C students who went out and played wherever they could, as much as they could, every night of the week. Those players learned the give and take of playing live.
(as you might have guessed the fellow relating this story was with the latter group.)
He admitted the differences in approach didn't make all that much difference in long term career prospect/success. (He's a web designer by day/ musician by night)

[Fergie Fulton]

Jeff is one of the "well meaning" teachers he talks about, his intentions are 100% true as is most of what he says, but he goes into areas he does not even begin to or it seems want to understand.
What Jeff has done for Music education, as far as electric bass guitar is concerened, is second to none, he has been a leader in this almost most of his profesional career i would think, but still he makes statements about things that he has no real information or proof of and presents them as some sort of fact.

In the two lists of players, rock and jazz, most if not all of those players were pioneers, leaders, or involved in bands at he beginning and early days of electic bass.
That is not it inception, but its general avaiability and popularity.
So who could they study techniques or " groove" to give it a buzz word from?

Just deal with the top five on either list,who would they have got their ideas, styles or techniques from? Who was doing what they were doing before them?

The nature of learning is over time things get corallated into those that have a viable use and those that don't, the info that is proven to work or has merit is used the rest disgarded.
In the current theory and academia we have today was built this way.
The first time the concepts on the use of harmony we used or sudied must have been alien to the orchestral establishment at the time, as was new time-sigs, or the introduction of new instruments all those centuries, and recent times, ago.

Electic bass guitar became widely available and used from the early 60s so the first generation players, would have had no peers, but second and third generation would have studied them in some form and it may have been the reason they picked up the electic bass. Then as each generation comes though so does more techniques, sounds, grooves etc....till we eventually end up with a market and a market that needs to be attended to. Hence the model we have today of performance and groove clinicsm DVDs, books etc.

Now there will be a vast amount of players that will take this route as their only source of instruction...they are cannon fodder, to quote an old military saying.
Their music education does not concern or should concern any one..they just make it easier for the serious ones to shine and come through.
Lets face it, the attitude of the serious player is that nothing will stop them gettting the best musical education they can find.
The serious player is concerned with music, not being famous, not with celebrity, awards etc, but music.

Jeff should sit up and take notice of what is going on under his own nose. His son is a wicked drummer but knows no theory i believe, Jeff does not want to force it on him, a sort of let him find his own way. All he has in the way of instruction is to watch and get some pointers from the drummer that visit the school.....that sounds like a "groove lesson" if there is no musical content as such to me, because rather than any book or DVD, Jeffs son get the same info on a one to one.

But in 99% of what Jeff says is positive info and mostly on the mark, but because of the way he tries to sell it, its that 1% on negative info we end up discussing, because for about 90% of players that 1% percent is what they use, and the truth of the matter is they don't really count, because as i said they are using it not for music, but for "fame, fortune or celebrity.

[Roscoe East]

Originally Posted by Rick Robins

Here Jeff continues.

Continues what? I didn't understand a word of that second post!

[bassinplace]

I don't know about Berlin's preaching. I mean, he's totally right in what he's saying and I don't disagree with him one bit.

It's just the way he goes about saying it that I think he could be a bit more tactful with. Which I think is ironic when he knocks the stylistic approach of other teachers.

But he has much knowledge to impart, so someone could do a lot worse than taking the basic truth of what he's saying to heart and applying it in their studies. After all is said and done, one can only benefit from doing so.

[mambo4]

Originally Posted by bassinplace

It's just the way he goes about saying it that I think he could be a bit more tactful with.

agreed. Antagonizing others teaches nothing.

[Ekim]

Eh. I think folks should develop thicker skins.

[cire113]

im so sick of jeff berlins huge ego meh..

[fearceol]

Originally Posted by mambo4

agreed. Antagonizing others teaches nothing.

Originally Posted by cire113

im so sick of jeff berlins huge ego meh..

I was wondering how long this thread would go before the personal attacks would start. Why not comment on what he said, and leave out the personal parts.

Originally Posted by Ekim

Eh. I think folks should develop thicker skins.

+1.

[Rick Robins]

Fearceol" Personal attacks are human nature & a sign of ignorance.

Once gain I shared the link with Jeff so he may respond to his network followers & I could share the reply here.

Jeff: My intention is this might help people to start to re-think how they approach learning for pay.

Yesterday I wrote a post inviting people to name any learning opportunity in any subject whatsoever that one pays to learn where the facts are NOT the primary focus in those lessons. In musical terms this means to name any academic situation in music where musical content is NOT the focus in those lessons. The answer here is in two parts:

1. No one can name any situation anywhere that teaches anything other than fact or content.
2. In music, there are thousands of teachers, dozens of schools and a number of famous and secondary level players that teach everything except musical fact.

Unless people can offer examples of other subjects that are taught that exclude content, then there is little or no validation to support teaching or learning music the same way. P.S. Self-taught musicians are exempt from this conversation as they only have themselves to regard when it comes to their improvement.

I also said that many people would avoid this question entirely and everyone has.True, my question was loaded when I asked it. It is practically a no-win for the non-music academic crowd to make points here as everything is learned content first. Therefore, if everything academic is taught from a place of content, then music should function in the same way.

Realize that this conclusion that states that music needs to be learned according to the facts isn't only my idea anymore! Now it is yours. It became yours the moment that you couldn't show how
other subjects of learning don’t fit into the "facts only" approach to learning. Recognize that almost everything that you have been told about how to learn has been flawed, probably for more than three decades. We, as a musical community have ended up as the Cubans have ended up after decades under Castro's vision of Communism. They are uncomprehending of other social systems that might benefit them better than the system that they presently have. Further, they hold to their beliefs at all costs! Sound familiar? Musicians are like this today, uncomprehending that their teachers have barely improved their situation and yet, who trust their teachers that aren't giving their students what they need. The method to help students, should they seek help, is pure music content! You guys have verified this here by not listing other learning situations that teach without content. Music has to fall into the same manner of imparting information if everything else is taught this way.

Finally, I am not insensitive to the fact that my form of writing rubs some the wrong way. It just comes out this way when I write. But some people ignore the message and critique the manner in which I give it. I would never ignore a message that might improve my life because I am not happy with the tone of the guy that wrote it. But that's just me! I recognize their displeasure, but what was provided to the conversation by offering displeasure in me as a man in lieu of something appropriate to the discussion (read the Christopher Hitchens quote below) Comments like theirs are called "unfalsifiabilities". This is a term coined by Sir Karl Popper. It refers to a comment that cannot be argued because it isn't an arguement. Example: The sun will eventually burn out! One answered: You are antagonistic! Hence, an "unfalsifiability", a contribution offered when one cannot offer something related to the discussion.

To end, I will quote my favorite author, the late Christopher Hitchens, "If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I’m still waiting to hear what their point is! It is depressing that we are in a world where people can tell you “That’s offensive!” as if those two words constitute an argument or comment! Not to me, they don’t!"

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by fearceol

I was wondering how long this thread would go before the personal attacks would start.

That's talkbass for you.

Originally Posted by fearceol

Why not comment on what he said, and leave out the personal parts.

Not going to happen. That's talkbass for you


And for the record I have no issues at all with Jeff Berlin. None.

[fearceol]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

That's talkbass for you.




Not going to happen. T.hat's talkbass for you


And for the record I have no issues at all with Jeff Berlin. None.

That's a pity.

As for having "issues " : that's what forums are for, i.e. to discuss and tease them out in a civilised and non personal way.


Here's hoping....