Jeff Berlins 16 points of Music improvment.

[Fergie Fulton]

1. Practice music slowly
2. Practice music out of time if needs be
3. Learn to read music
4. Practice factual, harmonically rich music
5. Don’t use a metronome when you practice music
6. Don’t apply your lessons on gigs (they aren’t meant for application)
7. Learn music in 12 keys
8. Learn chords and chord-tones, not scales, at least for a while.
9. Learn jazz music for academic reasons (no music even comes close to teaching you what jazz can show you)
10. Review your music lessons
11. Don’t make performing your music lessons your goal. Play them. Regard them. Review them.
12. Don’t worry about mistakes. Simply fix them no matter how often they occur.
13. Practice playing lighter on your instrument. You don’t need overly developed muscles to play an instrument.
14. Don’t practice your music lessons for hours. Break up your practice regiment. Take breaks and then come back later to continue
15. Practice at least 5 days a week
16. Don’t use a tuner in your lessons. Use your ear and a pitchfork.

Above are the 16 points that Jeff lists as a way to a better music education.
I can agree, because of what we know 11 of them are sound principals being being taught a good music education. But 5 of them are not.

Points 4, 5, 6, 13, and 16 are personal views of Jeffs, they bear no fact or documentation of substance other than they "are", to back them up, or do they? If you can add this information, links, or personal testement, and debate, then please do so.
If you wish to debate to see if this list of 16 is agreed on then i'm open for that. If you want to just come on and rubbish Jeff or any of the points raised, please don't as this is an attempt to clarify information, not blur it.

[René_Julien]

Well, I like Jeff Berlin, but I don't agree on #8.

The rest is fine.

[Fergie Fulton]

Here is how i see it just now.

1. Practice music slowly
2. Practice music out of time if needs be
3. Learn to read music
4. Practice factual, harmonically rich music.
Sorry but there is no such thing, music is music. Again maybe not explained to well, so what is the difference between music and factual music, and when did the two split?
5. Don’t use a metronome when you practice music.
It depended on how the metronome is used and the person using it. There is no facts or information anywhere that is not a personal view to support this.
6. Don’t apply your lessons on gigs (they aren’t meant for application).
Any lesson that cannot be applied is a waste of time, as is any skill, any language or any knowledge. Maybe this is just not explained very well but if I don’t get the chance to use what I learn then why am I learning it?
7. Learn music in 12 keys
8. Learn chords and chord-tones, not scales, at least for a while. I learned them side by side it was so much easier, and better for the development of my hands and fingers
9. Learn jazz music for academic reasons (no music even comes close to teaching you what jazz can show you)
10. Review your music lessons
11. Don’t make performing your music lessons your goal. Play them. Regard them. Review them.
12. Don’t worry about mistakes. Simply fix them no matter how often they occur.
13. Practice playing lighter on your instrument. You don’t need overly developed muscles to play an instrument.
You need specially developed muscles and that development can be targeted away from the instrument, thus reducing stress and time spent playing.
14. Don’t practice your music lessons for hours. Break up your practice regiment. Take breaks and then come back later to continue
15. Practice at least 5 days a week
16. Don’t use a tuner in your lessons. Use your ear and a pitchfork.
Makes no difference today, the important thing is to listen to the note and hear its pitch. Yes a pitch fork will do this in a different way due to frequency, if our hearing is not damaged. Again a visual representation is good but it is the bass note ultimately that need to be listened to, but that’s the point of point 1 slowly does it.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by René_Julien

Well, I like Jeff Berlin, but I don't agree on #8.

The rest is fine.

I am aware that this is a topic of debate in Jazz education - so for many years some teachers have said - this scale goes with this chord! But more recently I have heard many Jazz teachers says that is not a good way to teach and reacting strongly against this!

So - I see these things as a reaction against "lazy" teaching and they are all things that professional Jazz educators I trust, have mentioned in classes - as in, don't fall into habits - try and break away and make music, rather than repeating a "FORMULA" that some educator has prescribed....

[Dmanlamius]

Lol, it's like one big roundabout...!

[unclejane]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

Above are the 16 points that Jeff lists as a way to a better music education.
I can agree, because of what we know 11 of them are sound principals being being taught a good music education. But 5 of them are not.

Points 4, 5, 6, 13, and 16 are personal views of Jeffs, they bear no fact or documentation of substance other than they "are", to back them up, or do they? If you can add this information, links, or personal testement, and debate, then please do so.
If you wish to debate to see if this list of 16 is agreed on then i'm open for that. If you want to just come on and rubbish Jeff or any of the points raised, please don't as this is an attempt to clarify information, not blur it.

I personally think 12 through 16 are spot on (but again this is in the realm of opinion). You and I have debated the issue of strength in an oblique way in the bent-wrist technique thread, so I'd have to agree that the general idea about playing lightly is probably only a good rule of thumb and not something with an established kinesiological basis.

I'd defend 16 actually with personal experience. I think Jeff is referring to using a visual tuning reference instead of tuning your instrument by listening. I'd go along with the idea that learning to tune your bass by ear is a skill that can be developed with practice.

I feel about tuners the way Jeff feels about metronomes hah! But that's just a personal opinion and not something I can really substantiate - all I can do is say I hate them and assert "tuners are bad" and that's really all.

And of course getting substantive explanations for 4 and 5 were tried in the other thread with little success, so I can't offer anything new on those.

Jimmy tried to address 9 in the other thread and was pretty much banned as a result of his comments. So I think he's probably on to something there. I would have to agree that this one is suspicious as well. I think there's value in learning all music forms - like there's no such thing as a "degenerate" human language (except perhaps pidgin forms and even those grow into creoles when adopted as native languages) I don't think there're such things as inferior forms of music. Just because I might dislike it doesn't mean it's devoid of innovation and musicality. Rap for example, my least favorite form, is exceedingly innovated lyrically. I've heard calls that it should be studied linguistically in fact because of this richness in terms of language use.

So I'm skeptical of the claim that jazz is the only true route to true musical education. Ask any classical musician and they'll strenuously disagree with that too (tho they'll only insist that their form is the only True Way). I think an eclectic approach here would be a lot more enrichening....

LS

[fdeck]

I think that a point like point #4 can be made, but I just can't put my finger on how to express it: Practice from a body of music that explores the full harmonic possibilities of your instrument, and then some. Or something like that.

Point 13 might be substantiated by research in to musician injuries. It is the conventional wisdom among teachers of both cello and double bass.

[unclejane]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I think that a point like point #4 can be made, but I just can't put my finger on how to express it: Practice from a body of music that explores the full harmonic possibilities of your instrument, and then some. Or something like that.

It could be that #4 is nebulous intentionally. Gauging by the commentary on the other thread "factual, harmonically rich music" might simply be an obfuscation of the word "jazz".
In any case, it remains undefined but with the suggestion that it simply expresses a prejudice in favor of one particular style of music and means nothing else.

Point 13 might be substantiated by research in to musician injuries. It is the conventional wisdom among teachers of both cello and double bass.

I'd be very interested in the conventional wisdom there on injuries. I too have finally started running across problems with my left wrist after about 25 years of playing and about a decade of that while gigging so I have naturally become very keen on getting good information in this regard.

Fergie and I have gone round about this elsewhere and the conclusion so far is that this is inconclusive .

In fact, I'd study double bass if I thought my left hand could take the pounding, not only for the enrichment musically but to also find out about "correct" technique, experience with injuries and so on....

LS

[GianGian]

Interesting. I just can't agree on #13...the others could be open to discussion.

[Fergie Fulton]

no. 16 I agree with Jeff, to a certain point, because if i use a tuner i tune one note on my bass( E at the 7th fret on the A string) and tune the rest from that by ear. So what difference does it make if i use a fork or a tuner for this reference?
Let me answer that..... none, no difference at all.

They are both references to where i start. Once i have the note the rest of the bass is tuned from that by ear. I play semi acoustics with flatwound strings, and recently had some work done on one of them. If you try and set one up to a tuner you will be there all day trying to intonate to the fretboard, the tuner will not settle on over all intonation, as the tech doing the job found out much to his waste if time. Done by ear and a few notes later the job is done.... in minutes, so whether i use a fork for that note or a tunerit makes no difference.

Maybe like the metronome debate, if it is looked at and discussed there will be better ways to use them rather than rely on them. Just saying no acheives nothing, when something is being widely used or done it needs guidence to make it better or more practical to the user.

[Fergie Fulton]

For me 4 does not exist, i have never heard of it, point 1 covers that point, so i would say that there are 15 points in Jeffs list because he made up point 4, and that has already covered by point one.
Its the "All things bright and beautifull equation again" LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7dYXVLPd6Y

[unclejane]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

no. 16 I agree with Jeff, to a certain point, because if i use a tuner i tune one note on my bass( E at the 7th fret on the A string) and tune the rest from that by ear. So what difference does it make if i use a fork or a tuner for this reference?
Let me answer that..... none, no difference at all.

They are both references to where i start. Once i have the note the rest of the bass is tuned from that by ear. I play semi acoustics with flatwound strings, and recently had some work done on one of them. If you try and set one up to a tuner you will be there all day trying to intonate to the fretboard, the tuner will not settle on over all intonation, as the tech doing the job found out much to his waste if time. Done by ear and a few notes later the job is done.... in minutes, so whether i use a fork for that note or a tunerit makes no difference.

Maybe like the metronome debate, if it is looked at and discussed there will be better ways to use them rather than rely on them. Just saying no acheives nothing, when something is being widely used or done it needs guidence to make it better or more practical to the user.

Ah, yes, that's a good point of clarification.

I agree, tuners are very useful for defining a starting point - i.e. tuning the A to the tuner's A.

In that case, I'd refine my objection to then going ahead and using the tuner to doing the rest of the tuneup - tuning the rest of the strings relative to the A. Doing that by ear I think is a valuable skill that shouldn't be relegated to a tuner. Here would be my reasoning:
- as you tune the rest of the strings, often the pitch of the original reference changes ever so slightly due to the small shifts in the instrument itself. This can goof up the tuner if you're trying to use it to tune the other strings and basically waste a bunch of time.
- on a gig or practice session, you need to be able to tune to the other instruments regardless of drift from the absolute pitch. If everyone's out of tune with each other it's a lot faster and easier to get everyone in tune if the ear skill is well developed by everyone.
- I can actually relative tune my basses closer by the harmonics/interference method than by using tuners for each string. Or at least I havn't yet tried any tuner that could do better than I could with the harmonics skill I've learnt over the years.

But as an absolute reference, yes I concede tuners are useful for that.

LS

[Cairobill]

I pretty much agree with the chord tone point as long as it includes the particular extensions you are using over a chord.

Once you have the flavour of a chord in terms of what the third, fifth and seventh are doing, a quick look at the extensions gives you the starting point for how to play a linear string of notes over that chord...i.e. a scale.

I suspect that Berlin is extolling the virtues of walking before running. Once you understand how chord tones and extensions (and the way they are altered) create the sound of a chord, you know what pool of notes you should shoot for (or deviate from to create tension). It almost does away with the notion of learning scales i.e. just look at the chords and any alterations etc and you've got the scale right there.

I've been playing with a very well educated jazz guitarist (a German guy with a degree in composition). When I queried him as to 'what scale' I should play over a certain set of chords in a composition of his, he basically said all the 'neat' notes are detailed in the chord, use them as a pool of notes to work from, don't think in scales...

Interesting stuff...

Cairo

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by unclejane

So I'm skeptical of the claim that jazz is the only true route to true musical education. Ask any classical musician and they'll strenuously disagree with that too (tho they'll only insist that their form is the only True Way). I think an eclectic approach here would be a lot more enrichening....

LS

I can see the point here on a practical level. So I always loved music in school and loved singing, playing bass etc.

But when I tried to do a degree in music, based on classical studies, I was just so bored I gave up - nothing would stick!

I played rock and pop in bands for 2 - 3 decades and no music theory was involved - I learned nothing!

But after starting a Jazz course in a few months I had learned more about music theory than in 20 years of studying other types - and it stuck!!

So , if I want to think about Dorian and other Modes and what they sound like - I can just hear "Kind of Blue" in my head and it all makes sense!

If I want to know what a tune based on whole tone scales I can listen to Lee Morgan etc. etc.

There are loads of Jazz tunes that work as examples of theory - going round the circle of fifths to creat a bridge in Rhythm Changes for example..?

It just helps so much in terms of having concrete examples!

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by Cairobill

Once you have the flavour of a chord in terms of what the third, fifth and seventh are doing, a quick look at the extensions gives you the starting point for how to play a linear string of notes over that chord...i.e. a scale.

I suspect that Berlin is extolling the virtues of walking before running. Once you understand how chord tones and extensions (and the way they are altered) create the sound of a chord, you know what pool of notes you should shoot for (or deviate from to create tension). It almost does away with the notion of learning scales i.e. just look at the chords and any alterations etc and you've got the scale right there.

But that is just one side to learning scales and the usual academic, theory argument, which i agree with. But what of the physical side, the development of co-ordination, fingering, etc.
If one ignores scales from the start then one is ignoring great hand exercising. You see there is an overlapping function(as all things in music have) just learning chord tones is great for the mental side if you will, playing scales is great for the physical side. Run the two side by side( as i had ) why separate them?

[Bruce Lindfield]

I suspect it is the improvising/Jazz bias - if you improvise around chord tones, as a starting point, it gives you much more solidity and awareness of where you are - try to apply scales with limited experience and you will get lost and sound bad!

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by unclejane

So I'm skeptical of the claim that jazz is the only true route to true musical education. Ask any classical musician and they'll strenuously disagree with that too (tho they'll only insist that their form is the only True Way). I think an eclectic approach here would be a lot more enrichening....

LS

Well i have to agree with the quote below, because it is

Learn Jazz for academic reasons

My early training was much the same as Jeffs but jeff went Jazz, i went music business. Academic to me means higher or greater, so that is higher or greater reasons, than just playing. I found my classical training gave me a un-selfish attitude when i started bass. It was not about me, but the music, thats what you get in an orchestra, you are part of something bigger. This brought me so much work because i did as i was told, simply play what was put in front of me. I would never have got to where i am today without that side of a classical education...or would I?

[unclejane]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

Well i have to agree because it is My early training was much the same as Jeffs but jeff went Jazz, i went music business. I found my classical training gave me a un-selfish attitude when i started bass. It was not about me, but the music, thats what you get in an orchestra, you are part of something bigger. This brought me so much work because i did as i was told, simply play what was put in front of me. I would never have got to where i am today without that side of a classical education...or would I?

Well at least "learn jazz for academic reasons" is a little more honest about its prejudice than "factual" and "harmonically rich".

I propose "learn music for academic reasons" as a more objective pronouncement. This is also more inclusive which I think would lead to a far better musical education (IMO).

It's hard to tell but it seems like some unstated premises are gurgling around over there on this point, namely (my interpretation)
- there are degenerate, stunted forms of music
- jazz is the least degenerate, stunted form of music

which naturally lead to bizarre conclusions like jazz is the "best" form of music, jazz is the only musical form that's truly "musical" or some such rot as that.

Again, just because I don't like a musical form or I'm ignorant of it does NOT mean I'm justified in labeling that form as somehow inferior.
You have to show somehow that your favorite form is "better" somehow, probably an impossibly tall order for anyone.

Eclecticism seems to me to be the far more effective default position when pursuing a musical education (the same as it is with linguistic studies, introduced in the other thread in such a horribly ignorant way) than this odd prejudicial one.

LS

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by unclejane

Well at least "learn jazz for academic reasons" is a little more honest about its prejudice than "factual" and "harmonically rich".

I propose "learn music for academic reasons" as a more objective pronouncement. This is also more inclusive which I think would lead to a far better musical education (IMO).

It's hard to tell but it seems like some unstated premises are gurgling around over there on this point, namely (my interpretation)
- there are degenerate, stunted forms of music
- jazz is the least degenerate, stunted form of music

which naturally lead to bizarre conclusions like jazz is the "best" form of music, jazz is the only musical form that's truly "musical" or some such rot as that.

Again, just because I don't like a musical form or I'm ignorant of it does NOT mean I'm justified in labeling that form as somehow inferior.
You have to show somehow that your favorite form is "better" somehow, probably an impossibly tall order for anyone.

Eclecticism seems to me to be the far more effective default position when pursuing a musical education (the same as it is with languistic studies) than this odd prejudicial one.

LS

LOL never thought of it like that
If that is the case then maybe no.9 and no.4 is covered by No.1 so we can eliminate 2 points unders the ATBAB equation LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7dYXVLPd6Y

[unclejane]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

LOL never thought of it like that
If that is the case then maybe no.9 and no.4 is covered by No.1 so we can eliminate 2 points unders the ATBAB equation LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7dYXVLPd6Y

Yeah 9 and 4 don't really mean anything when you look at them critically so they're kind of superfluous. I agree they're covered elsewhere in the points that simply use the term "music", which is more objective and meaningful.

LS