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

[aborgman]

"Basically" does not constitute fact.

Several people have stated that metronomes have improved their playing.

Jeff, after those posts, repeated that metronomes don't improve your playing.

Those are the facts of this thread.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

EDIT: Deleted an older answer that was still in the reply box, but already answered by Quinn. Sorry

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 understand it differently. More like this:
German teachers who established schools in Afghanistan also gave lessons to adults in readin and writing.
They found out that because many adults had never had been in school and have never learned to learn.
They would concentrate for about 15 minutes, but no longer.
Now, a well educated teacher would recognise the core of the problem - a student might not.
The student might end up thinking: "I cannot read and write, but I get lessons every day, so it's fine. And I can't afford spending more time in order to make faster progress."

Now, what happens without addressing the core problem?
The student might not realise at all, that in fact he is wasting most of his time.

I think that what it's about - not telling others they are wrong; but to give them an impulse to think themselves about what and how they are learning; and what could be improved in order to not waste time and effort.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Several people have stated that metronomes have improved their playing.

Jeff, after those posts, repeated that metronomes don't improve your playing.

Those are the facts of this thread.

Alright. People have commented on their life experiences, and Mr. Berlin has stated his opinion on learning. How does this correlate to;

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've not looked back for actual evidence, and my memory is not to serve justice, but those appear as two separate discussions to me; one of experience, and one to sharing another's view points on learning. They just happened to be linked with a related topic.

 

[aborgman]

Alright. People have commented on their life experiences, and Mr. Berlin has stated his opinion on learning. How does this correlate to;

Mr. Berlin has stated his opinion as fact, directly contradicting the personal experiences of others.

He didn't say "I've never found value in using a metronome" he says "metronomes are of no use".

 

[Quinn Roberts]

EDIT: Deleted an older answer that was still in the reply box, but already answered by Quinn. Sorry

I'd be lying if I said I don't do this all too often myself. I'll learn to read ahead one day!
The latter point you made is also very interesting! I hadn't fully thought about this discussion in that aspect, great analogy!

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Mr. Berlin has stated his opinion as fact, directly contradicting the personal experiences of others.

He didn't say "I've never found value in using a metronome" he says "metronomes are of no use".

Yes, but everyone else contradicted him as well. Why is there no rebuttal there?
Edit: Is not everyone saying metronomes are of use just stating a bold fact themselves?

 

[aborgman]

Yes, but everyone else contradicted him as well. Why is there no rebuttal there?
Edit: Is not everyone saying metronomes are of use just stating a bold fact themselves?

Everyone else is saying "metronomes were useful for me"

Mr. Berlin is saying "metronomes aren't useful"

One is an individual claim, the other an absolute claim.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Everyone else is saying "metronomes were useful for me"

Mr. Berlin is saying "metronomes aren't useful"

One is an individual claim, the other an absolute claim.

This absolute claim is directed towards no one though, therefore is merely stating his beliefs. Like those who believe a metronome a helped them. Arguably, anyone claiming to have shown improvement from a metronome is unlikely to have done a scientific test showing there improvement (Please, please show me your lab results if I'm wrong! ). So are these not absolute claims made about themselves without results to support them?

 

[aborgman]

This absolute claim is directed towards no one though,

That absolutel claim isn't directed towards no one - it's directed towards everyone.

Arguably, anyone claiming to have shown improvement from a metronome is unlikely to have done a scientific test showing there improvement (Please, please show me your lab results if I'm wrong! ).

I posted several scientific studies showing use of metronomes to improve temporal sensitivity and synchronization.

 

[gln1955]

This reminds of an issue I've dealt with in my teaching. My primary teaching load is in anatomy, which includes learning a whole lot of names as well as structural and functional relationships. Mnemonics are a popular tool learning this stuff, but they have never been very useful to me. Years ago, when I'd see students inventing mnemonics to learn a list, I'd tell them they were wasting their time and to just learn the real names and be done with it. It finally became apparent that this was the wrong tact to take, because the method did help some students, even though this went counter to my own experience. I also had to accept that my students were not going to learn and internalize this material to the extent that I did. They'll learn what they need to accomplish their goals (say to become a doctor, nurse, etc). The future surgeons will end up learning tons more anatomy than the future dermatologists but none of them will master to the extent I have and that's OK.

I'd say the ability to step away from one's own experience, and the bias derived from that, and see students as individuals can be difficult for many.

 

[Gianni "Orlandez" Orlati]

Can I say someth

Several people have stated that metronomes have improved their playing.

Jeff, after those posts, repeated that metronomes don't improve your playing.

Those are the facts of this thread.

I tend to agree ... I’ve never really needed one ... I find it’s better to start and develop mental singing ... this helps our timing automatically

 

[Quinn Roberts]

I posted several scientific studies showing use of metronomes to improve temporal sensitivity and synchronization.

Arguably, anyone claiming to have shown improvement from a metronome is unlikely to have done a scientific test showing there improvement (Please, please show me your lab results if I'm wrong! ).

I don't see the relation. I may have been too blunt in my original statement however. My quote is directed towards people in this thread (and the ones created before and after this) commenting on their improvement via metronomes. Nonetheless, blunt or not, majority of you "scientific studies" had nothing to do with improvement in a musical sense (at least not according to the titles anyways). And the one that actually had some involvement of music was from 2017, and was the only of it's kind you provided. First off, I'm not going to believe any study that has not had it's results retested at least once (you learn this in middle school, no?). Secondly, and this is personal opinion, I tend to not believe anything that isn't proven as a solid fact (See "Scientific Theories"). Of course there's exceptions to the latter, but theories are theories for a reason. They're not proven scientific fact.

 

[aborgman]

I don't see the relation.

Temporal sense and synchronization are controlled by the same brain structure no matter their use.

Secondly, and this is personal opinion, I tend to not believe anything that isn't proven as a solid fact (See "Scientific Theories"). Of course there's exceptions to the latter, but theories are theories for a reason. They're not proven scientific fact.

There is no such thing as proof in the scientific method. Gravitation is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Newton's Laws are a theory (one that we know is wrong).


... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.

-Karl Popper

 

[Michael Schreiber]

There is no such thing as proof in the scientific method. Gravitation is a theory. Relativity is a theory.

I think I understand what you mean in your post, in general, and tend to agree.
Just for the record: To my knowledge, Gravity is proven - every child can prove gravity; that it exists, I mean. What it is - that's a different story, true

Now, back to the thread... how does all this relate to it?
Maybe it's worth considering on what all parties do agree, so far.
Such as, that each individual shall be free to decide for himself? I think, so far, no one has disagreed with that, right?
What else?

 

[BBQisgood]

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

All interesting papers and abstracts. The second link is really, really interesting.

Also interesting is the fact that a particular type of stroke damage can reduce or eliminate the ability to perceive auditory rhythm but may leave tactile rhythm intact.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Now, back to the thread... how does all this relate to it?

I can attest that nothing I've stated recently can relate at all. Sorta just rolling with it now that Mr. Berlin decided to start a new thread.

As for your question. I believe each party is for the betterment of bass all players. Needless to say as that may be.

 

[BBQisgood]

I think I understand what you mean in your post, in general, and tend to agree.
Just for the record: To my knowledge, Gravity is proven - every child can prove gravity; that it exists, I mean. What it is - that's a different story, true

Now, back to the thread... how does all this relate to it?
Maybe it's worth considering on what all parties do agree, so far.
Such as, that each individual shall be free to decide for himself? I think, so far, no one has disagreed with that, right?
What else?

I have not had time to read much and never cared much about it before this thread, but here is what I have found out so far (some of this may need to be amended or corrected)

Getting to the nitty gritty:

1. The ability to perceive rhythm is tied to specific areas of the brain, in particular certain parts of the basal ganglia and the temporal areas. The left and right temporal lobes behave differently in this regard.

2. Musical training does alter fMRI results when dealing with rhythm. Musicians noggins light up the same as no musicians, but sometimes display activity in other areas.

3. Rhythmic perception and planning are different things. Reproduction of rhythmic pattern and just playing along are separate neurologically and it is possible to be good at one and bad at the other. Can you groove but you are no good at playing that line by yourself??? It's science!

4. Auditory vs tactile vs visual perception of memory are different things neurologically

5. Basic rhythm seems to be something most of the population would grasp (duh.... look how much money gets spent on music)

 

[matthewbrown]

This reminds of an issue I've dealt with in my teaching. My primary teaching load is in anatomy, which includes learning a whole lot of names as well as structural and functional relationships. Mnemonics are a popular tool learning this stuff, but they have never been very useful to me. Years ago, when I'd see students inventing mnemonics to learn a list, I'd tell them they were wasting their time and to just learn the real names and be done with it. It finally became apparent that this was the wrong tact to take, because the method did help some students, even though this went counter to my own experience. I also had to accept that my students were not going to learn and internalize this material to the extent that I did. They'll learn what they need to accomplish their goals (say to become a doctor, nurse, etc). The future surgeons will end up learning tons more anatomy than the future dermatologists but none of them will master to the extent I have and that's OK.

I'd say the ability to step away from one's own experience, and the bias derived from that, and see students as individuals can be difficult for many.

I teach AP psychology, and recommend that students develop their own mnemonic devices precisely because the method is actually a very good one for many students. Visualization (including the method of loci, used by the ancient Romans) is also an excellent method, although not for me. Using motor activities also works for some things (I teach my kids "the cortical dance" along with the mnemonic FTOP at the beginning of the chapter on the nervous system).

 

[Michael Schreiber]

I teach AP psychology, and recommend that students develop their own mnemonic devices precisely because the method is actually a very good one for many students. Visualization (including the method of loci, used by the ancient Romans) is also an excellent method, although not for me. Using motor activities also works for some things (I teach my kids "the cortical dance" along with the mnemonic FTOP at the beginning of the chapter on the nervous system).

Like when learning a new song, to see it as a story; creating pitcures in mind for every part of the song, with connections; like a comic strip, in order to remember the song structure?
Or more generally: stimulating additional senses in order to facilitate the learning process?
And that this can be understood scientifically?
And that it still might depend on the individual; like because one's brain might be used to different training, some method would work for some people only, while other methods work for others better?

Does that basically sum up what @aborgman , @gln1955 , @BBQisgood and you are pointing out?

 

[BBQisgood]

Like when learning a new song, to see it as a story; creating pitcures in mind for every part of the song, with connections; like a comic strip, in order to remember the song structure?
Or more generally: stimulating additional senses in order to facilitate the learning process?
And that this can be understood scientifically?
And that it still might depend on the individual; like because one's brain might be used to different training, some method would work for some people only, while other methods work for others better?

Does that basically sum up what @aborgman , @gln1955 , @BBQisgood and you are pointing out?

Associative memory is something I have to use all the time. The older I get, the harder it is to memorize things.

In my view, all mnemonics are similar to the method of loci.

Also, @gln1955 is an anatomist and you won't find anybody with a better steel-trap memory. See what he says/said.

I regard to rhythm, I think we get hung up on disagreements because we all use the same words to mean different things.