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

[SteveCS]

Yes... and those people are golfers, not 'golfers'. Just like the people you mention are bass players not 'people who own bass guitars'.

Those folks with different aspirations for their playing/golfing aren't better or worse - just different, and thus may have a differing cost-benefit analysis involving instruction and what should come of it.

Absolutely agree, but they should not scoff at those who want a little more or those proposing ways in which a little more might be achieved without expecting a little in return...

 

[Quinn Roberts]

I would extend that to pretty much all of the creative industries. If what you create brings you pleasure, and, very importantly, it's also something you would genuinely want to watch, listen to, read, or look at yourself even if it was created by someone else, then there is an audience for it. How big an audience might depend on how out there your personal taste is, but you need to trust there will be an audience that appreciates it, and so nothing should stop you from creating that art.

I may haven been a tad more blunt than I meant to be with my original post. I'm not to sure how I would restate what I meant by that exactly (Fell somewhere along the lines of the delivery and performance of some piece of art, not the creation of the art itself), but I'll add that this post, and those by Fantastic Four and Mr. Berlin, is something I can completely agree with.

 

[aborgman]

Absolutely agree, but they should not scoff at those who want a little more or those proposing ways in which a little more might be achieved without expecting a little in return...

I agree... and those who want a little more shouldn't scoff at those who don't, or scoff at their value analysis of instruction.

Thing is - I don't see many folks who are happy with their level of play and instruction scoffing at folks who choose to go further, but I do see lots of folks telling people who don't that they're wrong about what has worked for them.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

I agree... and those who want a little more shouldn't scoff at those who don't, or scoff at their value analysis of instruction.

Thing is - I don't see many folks who are happy with their level of play and instruction scoffing at folks who choose to go further, but I do see lots of folks telling people who don't that they're wrong about what has worked for them.

Both very true, IMHO.
In the context of this thread, I see it rather as provoking / giving an impulse to question oneself; do i delude myself by "just aiming at this and that" - wouldn't I be glad if I could learn more for the same effort/money?

So, for example, Jeff Berlin doesn't sound to me like scoffing towards neither teachers nor students - he's arguing why it can be more fun to learn more; not making fun of me who lacks skills and knowledge; nor making fun of any teachers, but encouraging both to question themselves, their aims and methods.

In the end the student decides what's best for him - in order to do that, he must be honest with himself.
I could have ended up deluding myself, thinking to be happy with not training my ears, being happy to feel on an emotional level, only, not on a technical level. Now, since I started learning the violin, I know how valueable and fun it is to not only see intervals in a score and feel their effect when being played - but also being able to hear and play them; just by ears not looking at the fingerboard (which I am still learning, not saying I could do that well enough). Even as beginner, it already hugely helps me on bass when improvising.
Just saying: I then realised that it is fun - whereas before I might have thought "Nah, it's OK for me to skip that."

 

[aborgman]

Both very true, IMHO.
In the context of this thread, I see it rather as provoking / giving an impulse to question oneself; do i delude myself by "just aiming at this and that" - wouldn't I be glad if I could learn more for the same effort/money?

So, for example, Jeff Berlin doesn't sound to me like scoffing towards neither teachers nor students - he's arguing why it can be more fun to learn more;

No - I'd say he is arguing why it is more fun to learn more. Not "can be".

In the end the student decides what's best for him - in order to do that, he must be honest with himself.
I could have ended up deluding myself, thinking to be happy with not training my ears, being happy to feel on an emotional level, only, not on a technical level.

I think that is part of the issue with the communication - his writing implies that he knows better than the student whether or not the student is deluding themselves or being honest with themselves.

Now, since I started learning the violin, I know how valueable and fun it is to not only see intervals in a score and feel their effect when being played - but also being able to hear and play them; just by ears not looking at the fingerboard (which I am still learning, not saying I could do that well enough). Even as beginner, it already hugely helps me on bass when improvising.
Just saying: I then realised that it is fun - whereas before I might have thought "Nah, it's OK for me to skip that."

Yes... but time in this world is finite, so for whatever learning you do there - you've lost time that could have been spent elsewhere. Which is "better" is an individual and subjective opinion for each person to develop for themselves.

For every benefit, there is a cost.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

No - I'd say he is arguing why it is more fun to learn more. Not "can be".





I think that is part of the issue with the communication - his writing implies that he knows better than the student whether or not the student is deluding themselves or being honest with themselves.




Yes... but time in this world is finite, so for whatever learning you do there - you've lost time that could have been spent elsewhere. Which is "better" is an individual and subjective opinion for each person to develop for themselves.

For every benefit, there is a cost.

I think we both may mean the same, just with different assumptions in mind.
Your point seems to be based on the assumption that the student does know and is aware of what he wants.
My point is: that may not always be the case, at least not consciously.
In that case, I might be tempted to make excuses and feel OK with learning "less" or being narrow minded - but I may discover that in fact I am more narrow minded than I want to be.

Like your golf example; who really aims at a specific Handicap like 30?
OK, let's assume I really aimed at that handicap for whatever reason, like I don't aim at PGA, just wanna have fun.
Being able to feel and foresee where the ball would land more precisely - would that be an improvement? To me: yes.
And even if it did not improve my handicap, it still would be more fun to me.

So, the other way round that means: If I had told myself "I am happy with my current handicap - no need to get a better feeling where the ball lands," then wouldn't I have made an excuse, or even lied to myself?
This is what I meant; not in the sense of scoffing, or judging others - but making me judge myself; am I honest with myself?

 

[Michael Schreiber]

P.S.: I forgot something important: Since the golf player in that example would play, anyway, he could incorparate learning to get a better feel by just playing, with no extra effort. So, he could play to just have fun - or he could play and learn and getting more fun; without having to spend more time.

 

[aborgman]

Like your golf example; who really aims at a specific Handicap like 30?
OK, let's assume I really aimed at that handicap for whatever reason, like I don't aim at PGA, just wanna have fun.
Being able to feel and foresee where the ball would land more precisely - would that be an improvement? To me: yes.
And even if it did not improve my handicap, it still would be more fun to me.

Even if it took 8 hours per day, and meant you had to forego interaction with your family and give up playing bass?

Most everyone would like to be better at everything they do - but every benefit has a cost, and sometimes the benefit isn't worth the cost and you're happier NOT paying the cost to get the benefit.

I could be a much better bass player if I devoted more time to it... but that would mean being worse at my other hobbies, spending less time with my family, and/or having less leisure time. Would I enjoy being a better bass player enough to make up for that cost? In my evaluation - no. I'd be less happy.

So, the other way round that means: If I had told myself "I am happy with my current handicap - no need to get a better feeling where the ball lands," then wouldn't I have made an excuse, or even lied to myself?

Not necessarily. You may have been absolutely correct... while your golf happiness may have been increased, your total happiness may have been reduced.

...and that is a judgement only each individual can make for themselves, and any claim to have a better handle on it than the individual in question is presumptuous and insulting.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

No - I'd say he is arguing why it is more fun to learn more. Not "can be".





I think that is part of the issue with the communication - his writing implies that he knows better than the student whether or not the student is deluding themselves or being honest with themselves.




Yes... but time in this world is finite, so for whatever learning you do there - you've lost time that could have been spent elsewhere. Which is "better" is an individual and subjective opinion for each person to develop for themselves.

For every benefit, there is a cost.

It is fun to argue isn't it?

 

[aborgman]

It is fun to argue isn't it?

Absolutely. Debate is a competitive activity for a reason.

It's also a very good way to suss out the difference between what is supported by evidence and what is unsupported opinion, as well as hone beliefs with the grindstone of evidence.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

Even if it took 8 hours per day, and meant you had to forego interaction with your family and give up playing bass?

No, absolutely not - point taken. I realised that exactly that was missing in my example.
That's why I added the P.S. post. I'm sorry, I should have thought more before posting.

Here's the P.S. post I added:

P.S.: I forgot something important: Since the golf player in that example would play, anyway, he could incorparate learning to get a better feel by just playing, with no extra effort. So, he could play to just have fun - or he could play and learn and getting more fun; without having to spend more time.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Even if it took 8 hours per day, and meant you had to forego interaction with your family and give up playing bass?

To each his own, maybe some find family in music. Some spend thirty minutes a day, an hour, or more, and they all improve as musicians.

Most everyone would like to be better at everything they do - but every benefit has a cost, and sometimes the benefit isn't worth the cost and you're happier NOT paying the cost to get the benefit.

And many also find the "cost" to be more than worth the benefit received. What is your point here?

I could be a much better bass player if I devoted more time to it... but that would mean being worse at my other hobbies, spending less time with my family, and/or having less leisure time.

Here's where you personal experience comes into play. Some may not have much family (or maybe their family is a family of golfer's or musicians ), and some haven't any other hobbies. Some also have no jobs and can devote hours of their time to anything they wish. Some work eight hours a day, work eight hours a day learning music, and spends the rest with their family hardly getting any sleep. Some may just spend an hour or two a day working at music, and then continue on with their lives. They might make it farther than anyone else. Or not. This is all irrelevant.

Would I enjoy being a better bass player enough to make up for that cost? In my evaluation - no. I'd be less happy.

Excellent point. Happiness should be one's number one pursuit. It is music and learning that makes me happy. What about you?

Not necessarily. You may have been absolutely correct... while your golf happiness may have been increased, your total happiness may have been reduced.

Or was it?

...and that is a judgement only each individual can make for themselves, and any claim to have a better handle on it than the individual in question is presumptuous and insulting.

I'm glad we both share this view!

 

[aborgman]

And many also find the "cost" to be more than worth the benefit received. What is your point here?

...and that is a judgement only each individual can make for themselves, and any claim to have a better handle on it than the individual in question is presumptuous and insulting.

When someone says "that instruction is of no value" (or poor value) - they're presuming the value of it to someone outside themself, and thus claiming to have a better handle on it than the individual in question which is presumptuous and insulting.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

When someone says "that instruction is of no value" (or poor value) - they're presuming the value of it to someone outside themself, and thus claiming to have a better handle on it than the individual in question which is presumptuous and insulting.

Can I direct you to my mouthwash argument? What would you say if I told you it was my opinion that choking up on the club makes you a worse golfer? If you stop doing this you'd be better.
That's my opinion, take it or leave it. To me, I do have a better handle on the situation because I only know what worked for me, and can only express this. Hopefully you'd go out and prove me either right or wrong by doing what you choose to do with this information. Then it'd be a teaching experience for us both!

 

[aborgman]

Can I direct you to my mouthwash argument? What would you say if I told you it was my opinion that choking up on the club makes you a worse golfer? If you stop doing this you'd be better.
That's my opinion, take it or leave it. To me, I do have a better handle on the situation because I only know what worked for me, and can only express this. Hopefully you'd go out and prove me either right or wrong by doing what you choose to do with this information. Then it'd be a teaching experience for us both!

The argument Jeff is making is more akin to:

You: Choking up on the club makes you a worse golfer.
Me: I tried it, and it improved my game.
You: No it didn't.

 

[Son of Wobble]

The argument Jeff is making is more akin to:

You: Choking up on the club makes you a worse golfer.
Me: I tried it, and it improved my game.
You: No it didn't.

I choked up on my club, and thought I would share the impressive result:

 

[aborgman]

I choked up on my club, and thought I would share the impressive result:

View attachment 2869724

Nice...

they don't grow that big around here. Biggest Largemouth I caught this year was 18.5"

 

[Quinn Roberts]

The argument Jeff is making is more akin to:

You: Choking up on the club makes you a worse golfer.
Me: I tried it, and it improved my game.
You: No it didn't.

Is this presented as fact, or as your opinion? I'm not inclined to agree with this view myself.

 

[aborgman]

Is this presented as fact, or as your opinion? I'm not inclined to agree with this view myself.

See: metronome use

Several people have stated that metronomes have improved their playing, and Jeff basically says "No they didn't".

 

[Quinn Roberts]

See: metronome use

Several people have stated that metronomes have improved their playing, and Jeff basically says "No they didn't".

"Basically" does not constitute fact.