Jeff Berlin asks - What Is Taught Without Only Teaching the Facts!

[Quinn Roberts]

Those ARE instruction.

Teaching doesn't have to be communicated in person, or with the spoken word.





Not all technique issues involve immediate pain. RSIs often involve irreparable damage over time that only becomes a problem after much of the damage has already been done.

...and upright bass players seem to have a significant issue with this - there is in fact a whole technique book (see: the Alexander Technique for Double Bass) based around this fact.

Would this not be being self-taught though? Reading the books for oneself, or deciphering the information on YouTube? Whose doing the communicating hear? It can't be the book or the computer, they're resources not living, breathing people.

And I'm not informed enough about the latter information to make a sensible point... So touche my good sir! Will still say if one is to read that info from a book though, they are none the less learning for themselves how to avoid injury.

 

[JeffBerlin]

This, in particular, is representative of a flawed mindset:

"I was obliged to be industrious. Whoever is equally industrious will succeed equally well." - Bach

By this logic, the only reason everyone is not Tom Brady, or John Entwistle, or Albert Einstein, is that they just didnt try hard enough. This is not true.

There is a specific human tendency to this - psychologists have studied the rich, and they generally think that they are rich because they worked harder than everyone else. This is a fallacy, and I think equally applicable to those rich in talent and aptitude as well.

Bach was taught musical fact. You don't have to agree with this, but it is still true. He was only taught musical content to practice during his days as a music student.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Bach was taught musical fact. You don't have to agree with this, but it is still true. He was only taught musical content to practice during his days as a music student.

Hi Jeff,

I am not questioning Johann's training, I am questioning the idea that 'anyone equally industrious will succeed equally well'. This i think is wrong on its face. Also, i think that Johann's success was not solely due to his training, else all other students would be as successful as Johann.

All I am saying is that these are complex and complicated phenomena we are discussing.

Thanks for stimulating this often interesting discussion

 

[Quinn Roberts]

I don't see an absolute tone to be honest. People seem to have made this up. I've stated things like "exceptions aside" or, "for the most part" or "nearly 100%." There's always exceptions, but people don't seem to be OK with near absolutes.

Go to the internet today and call up ten musicians at random. You will discover that they are either self taught (in charge of all that applies to their playing) or they were trained in music. Go back as far as you wish in music history. Look at musicians today. See if there are any exceptions to my comments. If you find little or nothing to contradict my views, then simply ponder this fact the next time that one used a metronome to acquire good time because this concept doesn't appear anywhere in music history either. If you don't agree, then do the research. Bass players believe things that are fantasy and a little research might show this to them. I hope so because there is a great way to learn if people are really and truly interested.

I'll mention that, I can surely say any musician I personally know falls into one of the two categories (ranging from musicians with degrees in jazz and pedagogy to the garage heroes I've grown up with). And, while not researching any historical figures, any modern musicians that come to mind, no matter the genre, would fit into one of the two as well.

 

[Mrmatt1972]

Bloom's taxonomy of learning
Redirect Notice

Knowing is only the beginning. This whole thread is a giant Wittgensteinian language game.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Hi Jeff,

I am not questioning Johann's training, I am questioning the idea that 'anyone equally industrious will succeed equally well'. This i think is wrong on its face. Also, i think that Johann's success was not solely due to his training, else all other students would be as successful as Johann.

All I am saying is that these are complex and complicated phenomena we are discussing.

Thanks for stimulating this often interesting discussion

Thank you for your thoughts. But, learning isn't as complex as you think it is. In fact, it is downright simple and best falls into a Simon Sez manner of learning. This is how Bach first learned how to compose and play the organ; he learned music as a Simon Sez. Every educated composer did.

Bach was being supportive of the method of learning which was the imparting of musical fact to be learned. He was being generous in his statement . But there's a bit of truth there and it is the same truth that I've tried to share here.

 

[natobasso]

I still have no idea what you're trying to say?

 

[aborgman]

Research and see if anyone ever stated that they used a metronome where no written music was involved to be practiced. I will bet that no one will find anything. And if you do not, this is important to think about.

Gary Karr - widely known as "the world's leading solo bassist" in orchestral/classical playing:

"When I was young, I used to start every practice session with a metronome and a bow and just played long tones and harmonics for 20 minutes a day. 8 slow clicks from the frog to the center of the bow. 8 slow clicks to the end and the same going back."

"The most important reason for practising with a metronome is to keep you slow. As string players, we are always engaged in multitasking and if you leave out any of these tasks, the music and technique both suffer. Being able to think of as many tasks as possible is one of the main reasons why it's important to practise slowly. It is a proven fact that the more tasks you are able to perform at the same time, the quicker you will benefit from the process of osmosis. Because we all have the tendency to play too fast, we need an outside influence to keep us slow."

"There is nothing that helps us progress more quickly than the metronome, because it's a technical way of measuring your development systematically"

 

[aborgman]

Would this not be being self-taught though? Reading the books for oneself, or deciphering the information on YouTube? Whose doing the communicating hear? It can't be the book or the computer, they're resources not living, breathing people.

The person that wrote the book, or made the video is doing the communicating.

If I sit down and write a letter to my grandmother I am communicating with her.

Will still say if one is to read that info from a book though, they are none the less learning for themselves how to avoid injury.

By that metric - if one is learning something from an in person vocal communication with a teacher, they are learning for themselves.

If the intention of the book, or video, or performance is to instruct - then you are being "taught" by that method of communication.

One who reads a book explaining the Theory of Relativity has been taught by the writer of that book.

One who reads Einsteins original treatise on Relativity and develops an understanding on their own is self taught.

 

[FantasticFour]

The person that wrote the book, or made the video is doing the communicating.

If I sit down and write a letter to my grandmother I am communicating with her.



By that metric - if one is learning something from an in person vocal communication with a teacher, they are learning for themselves.

If the intention of the book, or video, or performance is to instruct - then you are being "taught" by that method of communication.

One who reads a book explaining the Theory of Relativity has been taught by the writer of that book.

One who reads Einsteins original treatise on Relativity and develops an understanding on their own is self taught.

I was going to argue just that : aren't self-taught and teacher-taught one and the same thing, since you will pick up what makes sense for you in your teacher's discourse anyway? The problem is rather being able to establish a hierarchy between relevant and irrelevant elements. That's where a good teacher can come handy: they will do a good pre-selection for you.
To me the dichotomy would be playing vs knowing what you should play. That's why you should be taught contents first.

 

[SteveC]

..learning isn't as complex as you think it is. In fact, it is downright simple...

Jeff, can you please share your educational background again? I am curious what your "opinions" that we can take or leave are based upon. Our district, for example, is using an evaluation model based on Dr. Marzano's work. A respected education professional who has spent years researching how people learn and how we evaluate that learning.

I still have no idea what you're trying to say?

I have read both threads and I must admit, I still don't really understand what Jeff is trying to say.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

The person that wrote the book, or made the video is doing the communicating.

If I sit down and write a letter to my grandmother I am communicating with her.



By that metric - if one is learning something from an in person vocal communication with a teacher, they are learning for themselves.

If the intention of the book, or video, or performance is to instruct - then you are being "taught" by that method of communication.

One who reads a book explaining the Theory of Relativity has been taught by the writer of that book.

One who reads Einsteins original treatise on Relativity and develops an understanding on their own is self taught.

A formal letter and an information resource are to very different literary bodies. My question is, who is there to help for the person to decipher the information they read and then internalize it? Just because I give someone a step-by-step manual on how to build a rocket doesn't mean it'll teach them anything. You last two statements seem contradictory, wouldn't Einstein's original treatise be his own explanation of this theory in writing?

 

[Gianni "Orlandez" Orlati]

I basically agree with Jeff but, and maybe this is a common condition amongst TB users (for sure it is my condition), fact is that starting to be taught after having acquired a good dexterity level and having grasped, even in an intuitive fashion, some basic harmony concepts, allowing to follow well known progressions, is extremely boring ...
Many teachers tend to start from scratch but there’s often no need of proceeding in this way, at least, I’d like a teacher asking me: how do you want to express yourself? What do you listen to? What do you like to play?
In my case the answer will be very close to what Jeff actually states as I’d really like to be taught in jazz improvisation, not really in bass technique(s), but starting immediately with tangible and playable examples of what the musical harmony theory can show... problem is that I can’t read music and this would surely be a significant hindrance but .. I believd there should be ways to deal with this handicap ...
What I’m talkInbassing about is that at 45 years, working around the world as an engineer, I can’t start a full time musical course to take a diploma, but there may be ways acquiring a solid theory knowledge without following the full academic route ... or not? Maybe it’s a bit ranty but ...

 

[5thsand4ths]

I've played bass for over 40 years. I can read music. Oh i could learn a helluva lot more but i play and even come to this site for social reasons. I have no interest in having to be better. I have a life and can't imagine spending all of my energy and mission in life preaching to others what to do to find the holy learning grail. Plus I'm not interested in running teachers into the ground. Everyone is free to make a buck if they can, and if the students are having fun.. Wonderful.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

I don't see an absolute tone to be honest. People seem to have made this up. I've stated things like "exceptions aside" or, "for the most part" or "nearly 100%." There's always exceptions, but people don't seem to be OK with near absolutes.

I am not sure what an "absolute tone" would be - I guessed it means making a claim, naming a fact, or presenting an experience/thought/impression as fact.

If that is correct, then you also made absolute claims - and why not?
Absolute tone has the advantage of coming quickly to the point
I don't see it as something bad, and think it's up to each reader himself to see it as good or bad.
That is what I tried to describe.

If I was asked, I'd say: Keep an "absolute tone"; doesn't waste energy on words, but focuses on meaning.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

I basically agree with Jeff but, and maybe this is a common condition amongst TB users (for sure it is my condition), fact is that starting to be taught after having acquired a good dexterity level and having grasped, even in an intuitive fashion, some basic harmony concepts, allowing to follow well known progressions, is extremely boring ...
Many teachers tend to start from scratch but there’s often no need of proceeding in this way, at least, I’d like a teacher asking me: how do you want to express yourself? What do you listen to? What do you like to play?
In my case the answer will be very close to what Jeff actually states as I’d really like to be taught in jazz improvisation, not really in bass technique(s), but starting immediately with tangible and playable examples of what the musical harmony theory can show... problem is that I can’t read music and this would surely be a significant hindrance but .. I believd there should be ways to deal with this handicap ...
What I’m talkInbassing about is that at 45 years, working around the world as an engineer, I can’t start a full time musical course to take a diploma, but there may be ways acquiring a solid theory knowledge without following the full academic route ... or not? Maybe it’s a bit ranty but ...

Thanks to the internet, books are a more than a plenty now. Both an endless amount modern and historic content is out there for you to indulge in!

 

[aborgman]

My question is, who is there to help for the person to decipher the information they read and then internalize it?

Not who - what.

Just because I give someone a step-by-step manual on how to build a rocket doesn't mean it'll teach them anything.

It does mean that. They may not LEARN anything, but they have been TAUGHT.

You last two statements seem contradictory, wouldn't Einstein's original treatise be his own explanation of this theory in writing?

I think it comes down to intent - an intent to inform versus an intent to educate.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

What I’m talkInbassing about is that at 45 years, working around the world as an engineer, I can’t start a full time musical course to take a diploma, but there may be ways acquiring a solid theory knowledge without following the full academic route ... or not? Maybe it’s a bit ranty but ...

I am in a similar position, so I can relate to that very well
To me, this thread reinforced the idea to find a personal coach from a totally different genre.
An advantage would be that I can chose the schedule, and budget - and since I know what I want to achieve, I am optimistic the lessons could get to the point quickly without wasting time.
Maybe that might be an idea for you, as well?

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Not who - what.



It does mean that. They may not LEARN anything, but they have been TAUGHT.



I think it comes down to intent - an intent to inform versus an intent to educate.

Yes.
Here's my formal surrender. Couldn't share the video at a certain start time, but go to 22:20 if you wish.
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Gianni "Orlandez" Orlati]

Thanks to the internet, books are a more than a plenty now. Both an endless amount modern and historic content is out there for you to indulge in!

Some suggestions?