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 dont 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 Ive hurt their feelings, Im still waiting to hear what their point is! It is depressing that we are in a world where people can tell you Thats offensive! as if those two words constitute an argument or comment! Not to me, they dont!"
But Rick you are now buying into the Jeff philosophy of changing the points been put and clouding the water.
Fact from Jeff "Art and Academia should not be mixed"
But Jeff mixes them in his points of argument. Anyone that teaches groove, or feel or any of these issues with music is not teaching Academics, but it's art.
Jeff acknowledges the existance of the two, he talks about the need to keep them separate, and then supports his own argument and points by using the rise of the artistic side of learning against the Academic side or learning.
Jeff uses an argument against the art of playing to prove an Academic need.
If groove and all these other things is as he says are "art" then what is his problem?
He will not deal with art and academics together, so can he blame anyone for going to another source that will deal with them?
If Jeff would deal with his "issues" with music aducation as a whole and show positive ways to use art, groove, tabs, metronomes etc, then he can show by example how best to use art and Academia together.
I for instance embrace students that come to me and want to learn with tabs. After a few weeks to a month or so they see that SN is better and far easier to use than they thought and tabs are left behind.
If i said at the start "my way or the highway" they would go and find someone else to indulge them in using tabs and SN would never see the light of day in there life. Now with SN it their musical lives i can show and write music based study for them, which i could not do with tab.
As for personal insults, well in jeffs case who started them?
It seems he can run down and insult other but they cannot have a "right to reply"
So come on, are we discussing music academics or art, because all the examples Jeff asks for and cites to support his point of view come from art, not the academics of music.
As Jeff rightly says "music for musics sake" but as 10cc said "Art for arts sake, money for Gods sake, money talks so listen to it"
