Organizing Your Teaching.

[Pat Farrell]

Hey Everyone. Just a quick question. Has anyone come across any methods or materials for organising your teaching methods. I have studied music and bass since I was a child. I am a certified bass nerd - however whenever I get paid by a student I feel ashamed at how poorly I relay this knowledge to them. Part of the problem is that 30mins really isn't enought time to teach an instrument. However the main issue is that I and many other dedicated instrumentalists find them selves occasionally teaching without ever having anyone guide US in the art of teaching. I am refering specifically to teaching beginners - advanced students are easy because they ask questions.....but beginners don't know what to ask and I honestly feel like I sometimes confuse them more than teach them.

Any thoughts?

Peace,

Pat F

[mutedeity]

I always use the same regime for teaching begginers, technique and theory. I have a set programme for what I teach from the start and adjust how and at what rate I teach according to the needs and abilities of each student. I teach privately and only give hour long lessons.

I always start with an introduction to the major scale, teaching interval relationships and addressing basic technique for both hands. From there I teach modality and relative triads, tetrads and how those are associated with the modes and how certain chords function. I cover some basic sight reading, mostly with rhythm excercises and then some basic clave based ideas using arpeggios and so on. Once I can see my students have a basic understanding of diatonic theory I go from there.

One thing I don't really do is teach them songs if they can't tell me the difference between a major triad and a minor triad, for example. I think songs as part of a lesson are fine when they are done as part of analysis by someone who knows some theory, but I don't think it's a good thing with students who want to use you as a way of teaching them how to play their favourite songs. It won't teach them anything in the long run and it will probably give you a bad reputation when they go along to their next teacher and tell them they didn't learn anything from you.

My advice is to set up yourself a series of lessons that you can give your students and go from there. Also as they get more advanced don't be afraid to teach them things that you are working on yourself by way of etudes and so on.

[phektus]

My teacher would always mention after a couple of weeks without meeting him that he forgot what he's supposed to teach me. I don't blame him for that, as my work schedule is really hectic so some weeks we ended up not meeting each other. But that is a sign of a lack of teaching organization - I expect him to have some sort of curriculum to work on with me, so that even if we miss on a week we can pick up on what was left. I know that because I used to teach myself on I.T. subjects.

My advise would be to come up with a curriculum or list of topics that you'd like to teach. Also have a way to gauge your student first and be able to select the topics based on his level of playing. Come up with a budget in terms of time for each topic, and a way to test if he has it down before moving to the next.

Hey, teaching is the noblest of professions, and is not that easy. So it only follows that you should put effort in organizing your lessons, to make the student's money and both of your time's worth.

[Pat Farrell]

Originally Posted by phektus

My teacher would always mention after a couple of weeks without meeting him that he forgot what he's supposed to teach me.

I take my laptop to each lesson and record what we've covered. I think the issue is that given that my teaching consists of one day a week in a high school my problems are not entirely self made. These kids - I swear I don't know why they pay for lessons! THey don't do ANY practice and don't seem to care that we're doing the same thing every week.

My first two lessons consist of demonstrating the organisation of the octave into 12 semitones and subsequentally (spelling?) the RN-t-t-smt-t-t-t-smt shape of the major scale using the piano.

Then I explain to them how important it is to understand where the natural notes are on the bass first so that they don't get hung up on shapes. I have them walk up and down the neck (keeping the semi-tones between E,F - B,C in mind) to identify all the natural notes.

Then I show them the C major scale fingering. Over the next few weeks the plan is they learn the Modes of C. Then they play the modes all from C.

Now in my mind that should take say one month to cover. But it seems to take FOREVER.

So am I just forgetting how long it really takes to learn something new or are these kids lazy?

Or maybe I'm just crap at getting the info in their heads?

One thing I'm not sure about is playing in front of them. Because I love having the instrument in my hands I usually play one or two things every lesson I hope will inspire them (that's what my first teacher did).....but I am not sure anymore, I think it's having a different effect.

[mutedeity]

Are you explaining that the major scale is based on the interval sequence of tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, semitone and can be played from any of the 12 chromatic notes? I give them an exercise where they have to use those intervals to show all the notes in each key. That way they can grasp that it is the intervals that make the scale type not the notes and they won't be confused by thinking that the major scale starts in C only.

As far as teaching modality, you should be showing them how dorian starts on the second degree of the major scale by moving your first interval to the end of the scale. I usually move to D to show this, then E for phrygian and so on. What I do as I go is transpose the major scale to that note to show the alterations of each mode compared to the major scale. For example if I have them play E phrygian I get them to compare it to E major and see that the second, third, sixth and seventh degrees are altered.

As far as teaching shapes, I think that having students identify intervals in a geometric sense is a good thing to do. If you are expecting them to learn to identify intervals by pitch it will help if the student is able to know intuitively how that interval is played.

As far as kids being lazy, yes they are. Children rarely grasp the concept that if you want to do something well you have to work hard. I would say thought that it's not really just children that think this way. People tend to think that music is all for fun and so hard work is the antithesis of musicianship. It's really your job to explain to them that if they want to achieve something that they have to practice. You have to reitterate that over and over with a lot of people. The key is to be patient and to realise that not every student has the same goals as you do. You should be prepared to always go over something again with someone and demonstrate what they are aiming to achieve without intimidating them. You should also be prepared to explain things as many different ways as it takes to get a student to understand what you are telling them.

Different students learn differently and at different rates, be patient, and encourage your students when they do well. Let them see every now and then certain elements of your playing, but don't over do it. What you really want to show them is that you can do certain things and teach them what you know. Don't turn it into a chopfest though. Teaching takes time and you should really just do what you can as long as the student is coming to you.

[MarkTAW]

I talked to a few Brits recently about the British school system.

It seems that in America we're taught math from a very early age. In the UK you're taught engineering, physics, etc. - Lots of practical applications without any "maths." Maths is optional and at a later stage.

In the US we're taught formulas & told to apply them, and if we're lucky the professor spends 15 minutes giving us the "proof" behind the formula, but we're still told to apply the formula.

What it sounds like is that you're teaching the formula without giving the reasoning. I'd start from the ground up - from Pythagoras to Helmholtz - and then teach the major scale once they know WHY the major scale works.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by MarkTAW

I talked to a few Brits recently about the British school system.

It seems that in America we're taught math from a very early age. In the UK you're taught engineering, physics, etc. - Lots of practical applications without any "maths." Maths is optional and at a later stage.

In the US we're taught formulas & told to apply them, and if we're lucky the professor spends 15 minutes giving us the "proof" behind the formula, but we're still told to apply the formula.

What it sounds like is that you're teaching the formula without giving the reasoning. I'd start from the ground up - from Pythagoras to Helmholtz - and then teach the major scale once they know WHY the major scale works.

+1 This is even worse at the college level most American college teach theory and little application. You have engineering students getting degrees that can't use a solder two wires together. I worked for year doing support computer programming tools. All to common was the call from the guy with the CS degree who's code doesn't work and wants to blame the tools. It was always them trying to spout theory and I have to clue them in to the real world of computer and how thing actually work.

Same thing I see here on TB all the time. Guy learn to say Modes, they learn a handful of fingering patterns and then start saying they know Modes. But you start playing a vamp in D Dorian and sound like a machine running up and down a fingering. Give them a II-V-I and you can tell one chord from the other in their lines, but they know Modes. They aren't sitting and playing the modes and learning how to make music with them, what notes give the mode its sound, what where the chord tones inside the mode are. They know the theory, but not the practice. The theory is important, but the practice is far more important.

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by DocBop

Same thing I see here on TB all the time. Guy learn to say Modes, they learn a handful of fingering patterns and then start saying they know Modes. But you start playing a vamp in D Dorian and sound like a machine running up and down a fingering. Give them a II-V-I and you can tell one chord from the other in their lines, but they know Modes. They aren't sitting and playing the modes and learning how to make music with them, what notes give the mode its sound, what where the chord tones inside the mode are. They know the theory, but not the practice. The theory is important, but the practice is far more important.

Doc, you hit the nail on the head and I think the root of the problem is people can learn a "shape" of a mode on the fingerboard and can only play that same shape over and over. Need to play in a different key? Just move your shape! But not so many guys that are obsessed with modes can actually read standard notation and are completely unaware of the melody. These are the guys with a box of Legos that they sort out the red ones in one pile, the blue ones in another, the white ones in another but if you ask them to build a house or a car they can't put the parts together because the don't know what a house or car looks like.

I think the best bass teacher in the world could start his students off on piano for the first six months and within one year they would be musical monsters, not nuts and bolts experts.

[DocBop]

I think the late great jazz guitarist Ted Greene is the model for music teachers. First Ted wrote all his own teaching materals. Most were only one hand written page he had xerox copes of. What ever the topic he would got to his file cabinet and pull a few sheets out to cover the topic. Sometime he would make a note about something and write something out and be next lesson have a lesson written. All his lessons were a balance of the theory or idea behind what he was showing you and then some practical use of the idea. Some sheets would be complete songs illustrating a concept. Ted's books many have only scratch the surface of all the materials Ted wrote over the years.

Then Ted kept a file on every student just plain notebook paper but it had the date of the lesson and what was covered written out. When you came for your next lesson whether that be in a week or years later he'd pull the sheet of paper out and know what you had covered and other notes about you. Ted took teaching as serious as he did his playing. That is what a good teacher is to me.

[Chebass88]

I'd recommend making an outline of your lessons and the techniques you cover. You seem to have the basics & teach the same over the first month, so you should be able to re-use it.

An example could include:
I. First Lesson - The Octave & the 12 semitones it contains
A. C Major scale (RN t t smt t t t smt)
1. Exercises to learn the major scale
a. On Piano
b. On Bass
i. Playing up & down neck on C scale notes
2. Application of C major scale
a. Teacher example (inspiration)
b. Example for student (a simple melody, etc.)

Of course, you would have to construct your own outline, mine was just an example based on your description. I like to go from Most General & become more specific with each level (example: Scale --> Major scale --> C major scale --> execution of C major scale on bass --> application of C major scale). If you start out with the specifics - it is hard to see the forest for all the trees!

I've found this technique to work very well, and not just for teaching music. I have spent the last several months studying with Anthony Wellington, and have been able to organize all of the information he taught me in the same fashion - it helps me to maintain a broad picture of the instrument & not get caught up in the little technical bits while losing sight of the overall objective of becoming the best bassist I can be.

Hope this helps!

imp

[Jazzdogg]

When a good friend, a middle-school music teacher, asked me to be his bass coach several years ago, I sat down and started writing lesson plans. In order to save myself a lot of editing time, I started by writing single topics, or sub-topics, on Post-It notes, which I stuck to the wall. With the wall covered, I began rearranging "stickies" into clusters, and began color coding with adhesive dots to identify bass playing "merit badges" with which I could identify goals and acknowledge accomplishments.

Once my stickies were organized I started writing "schema" outlines and talking points so I'd have an individualized lesson grid for each student. The process worked very well for me and my students, and it enabled me to communicate with both my buddy (the teacher) and parents about lesson plans, progress, goals, shortcomings, and so forth.

There's an old axiom that says the teacher hasn't taught until the student has learned, and I found the hardest part was formulating individualized lesson plans for each student. I still find it amazing, in hindsight, how unique and individual each student is. It will take one student an entire semester to learn to tune their bass and name the notes on each string, while another student has inferred the structure of minor scales by studying the circle of fifths in the third week!

In the end, I'm not sure it really matters how much an instructor (or author) knows about a given subject. What seems to matter most is whether they are capable of presenting the information in ways that are congruent with each student's learning style, and keeping each student interested and growing. IME, that's much harder than the subject matter itself.

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by MarkTAW

I talked to a few Brits recently about the British school system.

It seems that in America we're taught math from a very early age. In the UK you're taught engineering, physics, etc. - Lots of practical applications without any "maths." Maths is optional and at a later stage.

In the US we're taught formulas & told to apply them, and if we're lucky the professor spends 15 minutes giving us the "proof" behind the formula, but we're still told to apply the formula.

What it sounds like is that you're teaching the formula without giving the reasoning. I'd start from the ground up - from Pythagoras to Helmholtz - and then teach the major scale once they know WHY the major scale works.

Right on. This is exactly what I am trying to say.

[MarkTAW]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

I think the best bass teacher in the world could start his students off on piano for the first six months and within one year they would be musical monsters, not nuts and bolts experts.

Piano is nice, but it's not perfect. Due to the tonal compromises made in creating the equal tempered scale, you're not hearing a true 3rd or even a true 5th when you're playing one on a piano or on a guitar or bass.

I'd start with the single open string and the idea of harmonic overtones. Like I said, with Pythagoras.

Whole string - root
1/2 the string (12th fret harmonic) - octave
1/3 the string (7th fret harmonic) 5th
1/4 the string (5th fret harmonic) octave
1/5 the string (4th fret harmonic) major 3rd
1/6 the string (just sharp of the 3rd fret) 5th
1/7th the string (just flat of the 3rd fret) minor 3rd

(note: I'm a bit fuzzy on the actual ratios here and where the harmonics fall, etc. etc. - you should research or experiment for yourself before taking my word for it)

Then go on to A=440 and small whole numbered ratios.

1/1 - root
2/1 - octave
3/2 - 5th
4/3 - 4th
5/4 - major 3rd
6/5 - minor 3rd

Which is NOT what you're hearing on a piano or any fretted instrument. I'd also play these intervals while I explained them or use pieces of classical or choral music to punctuate.

This gets a) the sounds firmly rooted in their ears and b) teaches them the reasoning behind the scales.

THEN I would go on to teaching the major/minor scales and all the classical stuff.

[onlyclave]

Originally Posted by MarkTAW

Piano is nice, but it's not perfect. Due to the tonal compromises made in creating the equal tempered scale, you're not hearing a true 3rd or even a true 5th when you're playing one on a piano or on a guitar or bass.

I think you missed the point. Piano is the standard by which music is taught. Every college music major, regardless of performance medium is expected to have and/or develop a certain amount of keyboard proficiency. All theory courses and ear training courses are taught with piano as the reference. Because all 88 keys are laid out in a logical chromatic order it gives you a much better visual perspective of how the notes work together.

And there's no tablature for it either.

[peterpalmieri]

Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly but most of you are teaching theory and scales before a beggining student has proper right and left hand technique and knowns where the notes are on the fret board.

I guess this could work ok but doesn't a student need to know where a "C" on the D string is or a "G" on the E string? Once you know half position notes on the E, A and D string you can teach them the F major scale. When they've added the G string notes in half position you can add Bb major and so on. As a seperate exercise you can teach rhythmic exercises using open strings.


In terms of right hand technique using open string exercises from Rufus Reid works well. And for the left hand some variation of "Bass Fitness" works well.

I also find that Ed Friefland's Bass Methods book is a great introduction to the fret board.

[MarkTAW]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

I think you missed the point. Piano is the standard by which music is taught. Every college music major, regardless of performance medium is expected to have and/or develop a certain amount of keyboard proficiency. All theory courses and ear training courses are taught with piano as the reference. Because all 88 keys are laid out in a logical chromatic order it gives you a much better visual perspective of how the notes work together.

And there's no tablature for it either.

I'm not contradicting you. What I'm saying is before you even learn what a major scale is you should learn what a single note is. What harmony is all about. I was responding to this statement from the original poster (in a later post).

My first two lessons consist of demonstrating the organisation of the octave into 12 semitones and subsequentally (spelling?) the RN-t-t-smt-t-t-t-smt shape of the major scale using the piano.

I'm saying start before the major scale - work up to the major scale. Give the logic of the major scale. Give the logic of the minor scale, heck give the logic of the idea of scales and modes in general and THEN teach the major scale.

Then get to whatever it is you're going to teach the actual music on. Give the reason first before the pattern.

I read somewhere that a music professor found that either his students came to him with a good ear or they didn't & the ones that had a good ear thrived, while the ones that didn't struggled. So he decided his first task as a teacher would be to teach the ear.

[peterpalmieri]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

I think the best bass teacher in the world could start his students off on piano for the first six months and within one year they would be musical monsters, not nuts and bolts experts.

WHAT?

You have to keep in mind that a music student in advanced thoery class in High School or a college music major who is taking "Intro to Keyboard" or advanced theory has many years on an instrument under there belt.

I can agree basic keyboard skills and theory are very valuable but when we are talking about a young kid starting out on the bass or any other instrument learning keyboard also is overwhelming.

I truley believe that the Simandl method "for upright bass" translates well in concept, by that I mean learning the notes in a position, then playing exercises and scales that fit in that position, you can then move on to the next position. When that is complete you can practice exercises and/or scales in which you need to shift between those positions. There are other commonly used theories that work well also of course.

I am staring to get the idea that some not formally trained bass players are trying to invent their own methods as opposed to adopting already established methods.

[Tnavis]

Originally Posted by peterpalmieri

I am staring to get the idea that some not formally trained bass players are trying to invent their own methods as opposed to adopting already established methods.

I think the problem is that there isn't an established electric bass method. There are several great starts, but there's nothing that compares to the Simandl for upright, or the trumpet book (the name escapes me).

When I started playing 17 years ago, I received three months of lessons from a guitar player. Everything else along the way I've picked up from watching other bass players, studying method books, reading magazines, listening, and playing.

I taught for several years at the college level, and still have private students. I base my lesson plans (I try and plan out a rough guideline for a few months at a time) on several different criteria. For college students, who are taking the lessons for course credit, I tought what the course description described. For non majors, it was simply improving their skills. For performance majors, it was more specific, involving specific scales, knowledge of genre, walking lines, etc.

For private lessons, I'll set up a plan based on what goals the student has.

The essential problem, as I see it, with teaching beginning bass students is that they usually pick up the instrument to emulate a popular artist or band, while beginning trumpet players, for example, set out to play the instrument itself.

Looks like I picked a good day to come back to Talkbass!

[peterpalmieri]

Tnavis,

I think you have some good ideas of what's going on.

I have studied upright in college, majoring in music and have studied privately with local classically trained players. I play both electric and upright.

I will share the lesson sheet outline that has been used almost universally (by teachers I've studied with) and some texts used.

1. Left Hand Exercises
2. Bowing or Right Hand Technique
3. Scale and chord types
4. Texts
A
B
C
5. Bass Lines

Here is some detail
Left hand exercises - Bass Fitness An Exercise Handbook by Josquin Des Pres. For the upright or younger students who need to use a 3 finger technique (1,2,4) I have had these same exercises written out by one of my teachers and use it with students to this day.

Right Hand / Bowing - For DB there are many well documented books, in terms of the electric bass I use The Evolving Bassist by Rufus Reid pages 24 - 38 focusing both on the rhythms as well as alternating fingers with the right hand, racking etc.

Scales - To first learn the fingerboard I use Hal Leonard Bass Method by Ed Friedland. Once the student has learned what he refers to as 1st position on the E, A and D strings we can then learn the F major scale. Along with that scale the student needs to play arpeggios major & minor. For more advanced students we'll also cover 7 chords, aug and Dim chords. This method takes on the same progressions as in Simandl F major, Bb, G. As we move in half steps up the fingerboard a student will learn the appropriate scales, arpeggios and the proper technique for shifting between them. We may also cover scales later as Jerry Jemmot terms harmonic patterns (scales played using scale degrees 132435465768) There are many permutations he outlines in his book. This again is not his originally but is outlined well in "Theres music in everyone".


Text and bass lines - The text consists of The Friedland Bass Method as I stated in the scale book. With specific etudes or "songs" to be played along with the CD that is included. Along with that we may add in Walking Bass lines or Rock bass lines both by Friedland. In addition at some point for a jazz student we may cover Maiden Voyage (Volume 54 Aebersold) and learn to read heads, walk and solo over the changes. For more advanced study we may look at solo pieces Bach cello suites, The Bass Tradition ( solos transcribed by Todd Coolman, Ron Carter bass lines etc.)


In addition to all of this each exercise will be accompanied by a tempo marking (if it is not accompanied by a CD)

Probably to much info already but if anyone wants more specifics I'd gladly share what I've accumulated from some great teachers over the years..

[Tnavis]

Hey, that's a lot of the books I learned out of/teach out of! Funny how that works, really. I use Bach cello pieces all the time for performance juries.

DocBop and onlyclave had some great points about learning the modes, but not learning what to do with them. In my experience, though, i think there is some value of getting students to understand the "geometry" of the fretboard... then again, that may be my own personal approach.

Relating back to the original posting, I begin my first lesson with every student by explaining that learning to play an instrument requires a lot of time and effort, and that results don't happen overnight. Learn a bit at a time, and build on it.