Two Different Pros. Two Different Opinions.

[beaglegod]

I rescently corrosponded with two different bass teachers, both excellent in there own right. Each seemed to have a great knowledge of theory and could sight read very well. However teacher :

A. Would have a begginer initially focus on scales,arppegios, and sight reading, while graddually demonstrating how bass lines are constructed. Lets say 75% of the time would be spent on these things the other 25 could be spent on learning some music by ear.

Teacher :

B. Is quite different. The time spent on theory ,scales, rythm exercises , sight reading etc,would be 25% and learning songs and bass licks by ear would take up 75% of the students time.

Which approach do you feel is best and why.

[onlyclave]

A. This teacher is teaching you how to speak Japanese. The grammar, syntax and vocabulary of the language is all being covered.

B. This teacher is teaching you how to memorize something written in Japanese. Your pronunciation and recitation of it might be perfect, but you're just regurgitating what someone fed you. You can't really speak Japanese.

See the difference?

I don't learn songs. I play music. I speak Japanese.

[Fred19137]

I say learn from both, just see them less often. Also trust your own ability to learn. Combine all three youll be a pro in no time!!!!!!!!

[Stumbo]

Here's a link to a thread on sight reading pro/con:
do you really have to learn how to read music to be a good bassist?

In a few months, with sight reading will allow you to access thousands upon thousands of songs. It's like learning the A B C's before you start reading books. Put in the time now and you never regret it.

That being said, learn to play by ear as well. IMO, Ear training is just as important.
Here's a link to a great, free downloadable ear training program: http://www.miles.be/

Also, here's a link to a thread that may help you with all kinds of learning info:
Hey, Am N00b

Good luck.

[beaglegod]

A. This teacher is teaching you how to speak Japanese. The grammar, syntax and vocabulary of the language is all being covered.

B. This teacher is teaching you how to memorize something written in Japanese. Your pronunciation and recitation of it might be perfect, but you're just regurgitating what someone fed you. You can't really speak Japanese.

See the difference?

I don't learn songs. I play music. I speak Japanese.

Wow! That illistration really helps to make me understand where each path eventually leads. Definitely something I will keep in mind.

[dmusic148]

Actually, that's a pretty poor comparison, as clever as it sounds.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by beaglegod

I rescently corrosponded with two different bass teachers, both excellent in there own right. Each seemed to have a great knowledge of theory and could sight read very well. However teacher :

A. Would have a begginer initially focus on scales,arppegios, and sight reading, while graddually demonstrating how bass lines are constructed. Lets say 75% of the time would be spent on these things the other 25 could be spent on learning some music by ear.

Teacher :

B. Is quite different. The time spent on theory ,scales, rythm exercises , sight reading etc,would be 25% and learning songs and bass licks by ear would take up 75% of the students time.

Which approach do you feel is best and why.

There's no universal best or second-best. They each have their merits. And each approach could be most appropriate for a particular student - based on his/her attention span, motivations, etc.

Strictly speaking, Approach A will give the most thorough grounding in the fundamentals most quickly - if the student has the patience and discipline to keep with it - until the fun part really starts. But notice that even Approach B still has a portion of time devoted to theory, scales/arpeggios and reading - so the student should eventually achieve competence and even mastery in these things, albeit perhaps more slowly - while perhaps learning how to actually groove more quickly.

It's instructive to note that very young children, when they're first learning to speak - Japanese or any other language for that matter - don't typically start off by learning their alphabets. They start by listening to the sounds they hear from others - and trying to mimic those sounds - until they begin to decipher the meaning of those sounds from the contexts in which they occur. Then they learn how those sounds relate to the predominant language of their culture - and learn how to represent them as spoken - and then written - words.

MM

[cowsgomoo]

I think the most important thing a bass player can have is a great ear... everything else, including theory, is secondary

so, I would recommend B

edit:

I was in a rush this morning, so i'll expand on this...

I think the Japanese analogy is poor too... if you're 'learning Japanese', it presupposes you already know another language and the basics of how languages work... what you're actually doing when learning a new language is learning how it works in comparison to what you already know about languages

learning to play an instrument as a total beginner to music is absolutely nothing like this... you have no point of reference whatsoever, so you learn it as you did your very FIRST language... now, do Japanese families start off little Koichi in his first steps in speaking by sitting him down and explaining adjectives and verbs? no.. they get him to say whatever 'ball' and 'daddy' are in Japanese... you start with simple, practical use of the language... theory comes a little later

I think theory is a lot more easily digested if it can be related to real-world musical occurences that you already can recognize by ear to some extent... you should learn some songs specifically chosen by a knowledgable teacher for their 'nutritional value', and THEN sit down and go through WHAT's going on and why it all works... I defy anyone to say that's not the best way!

[Projectile]

I'm a college educated theory nut, but I find theory and scales way less important than knowing how to groove and having a good ear. If you are really disciplined, then A could work, but it's also a recipe to lose interest and not practice as often. So, I would definitely say B!

I completely disagree with onlyclave's analogy. You don't learn japanese by conjugating verbs out of a textbook. Many of the greatest bassists in history never learned much theory.

[Fergie Fulton]

The answer to your question is which one suits you. Both have their merits in so many ways but apply them to your situation...which one fits me best..and you will learn more and benifit more from it.
Once your up and running you can choose the balance of theory against learning by ear by applying what you learn to work out what your playing if you so wish

IMO onlyclave is right on the money with his analogy, but look at that closer. If you are going to Japan for a week on holiday, is it worth your time and effort to learn Japaneese or just phrases?

[emythefretless]

I teach English. Learning (teaching) should involve a mixture of methods. Try to see the shades of gray between black and white.

Easy...

[WarriorJoe7]

Both... I like the balance in the 2nd one better (for me) though I definitely have an appreciation for approach A

[Jefenator]

I'm going with B because IME ear skills are massively important to any player. It is of course good to learn and work on the building blocks, but it's also vital to develop a good intuition for how to apply the stuff out in the world.

IMO approach B is not analogous to rote learning. To me it's analogous to immersing yourself in the culture to get a feel for how the language gets spoken on the street. (I can tell you there's my classroom French and there's the way they spoke it when I visited France and they're two very different things. )

I'm not sure about 75/25 - I'd probably go 60/40, bump up the theory & scales some. (Which would likely aid the riff/song learning process. )

[JtheJazzMan]

learning your scales and arpeggios, and working on rhythm exercises IS aural training

by putting sound patterns and information into your mind, you are more likely to recognise those patterns when you hear them.

by doing the 75% groundwork, the 25% transcription is piss easy.

[JimK]

Originally Posted by cowsgomoo

I think the most important thing a bass player can have is a great ear... everything else, including theory, is secondary

so, I would recommend B

I agree 100%.
At the end of the day, it's going to be your ears that save your ass.

[JustOpenYourMind]

Being a musician, the most important thing is having a good ear, being able to hear a part in your head before even knowing what's the theory behind it is the most important.

Again it all depends on what you want to do.

Once you have a musical ear, and that you have creativity, then it's a good time to learn the mecanics behind it and to start scales and theory, at that point you make links with what you know and you can apply it in a musical way.

Music is about playing by ear. After-all, that is how it all started, people making beautyfull sounding noises and then trying to explain why some notes work together and why some don't.

You must show the love of music and the creative side of it before you start showing the mechanical side and the rules.

To take the language example further,

Someone who goes into total immersion in a country is going to learn to speak a language way faster than someone that sits in a classroom learning grammar.

We all know someone who went in another country for a year then came back being able to fluently speak the language as much as we know people that took years of classes and can barely hold a conversation.

[Ed Fuqua]

Originally Posted by JimK

I agree 100%.
At the end of the day, it's going to be your ears that save your ass.

But he's NOT working on ear training, he's working on "learning songs and bass licks by ear". Which isn't the same thing.

In my assessment, Teacher number 1 sounds like he's going to give a firm foundation in musical fundamentals. And that's the best foundation to build your musical house on.

[JimK]

Damn, I just KUNGFUQUA'd myself.

[lunker]

2 questions for you.

1. How old are you, ballpark? People learn very differently at different ages.

2. Any music background at all? Piano lessons? Singing? Anything? Most aspects will translate.

People will be able to better answer your questions with a bit more background. Also, what kind of music are you into? what do you ultimately want? have fun and play in a band? write music?

Anything you can mention


Also, keep in mind a few things. Teachers will (should) work with you and adapt and evolve to do their best job for you. There is no tried and true method for everyone. If whichever teacher you choose believes there is a single method: run.

You can supplement your lessons with individual work. What would be easier for you? Making yourself learn theory on your own or learning bass parts?


Personally, if I were a beginner, I would go with teacher A. I have noticed in many people who learned by ear that when they try to go back and learn the theory behind it, it's harder for them to achieve the appropriate mentality.

[Ed Fuqua]

Originally Posted by lunker

Teachers will (should) work with you and adapt and evolve to do their best job for you. There is no tried and true method for everyone. If whichever teacher you choose believes there is a single method: run.

I would agree with one caveat: Don't confuse methodology with goal. While it's true that the best teachers will come up with different methods to best communicate principles to students, the end goal remains constant. There may be a multiplicity of ways to get students to learn to hear with clarity and understanding, but THAT'S always the goal- hearing with clarity and understanding. Etc.