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

[gln1955]

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

That made me laugh. I'm amazed at how much faster some my students learn the vocabulary than I did when I was their age. It took a long time before I could teach without having to review before every class. What helped me most was learning what the latin and greek-derived names meant and drawing the structures. That, and actually teaching others. When students struggle, I recommend drawing and teaching each other as ways to internalize the material. But relevant to the discussion, when I talk with students about how they learn, they have wide variety of approaches and we encourage them to try different things and see what works. These are already high performing students, but med school is pushing them to their limits.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

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

Me too - I started using it at conferences; I made up a little storyboard in my mind; like a movie script with pictures which I then recalled while speaking, in order to not miss anything due to nervousness and also to know when it was time to proceed to the next part to meet the time constraint.

Later, I recognised that this works well when learning parts of music I don't really like as listener.
With other music it's easier, since there automatically would pop up pictures in my mind.

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

Yeah, I am impressed that gln1955 is an anatomist. I just wasn't sure if I could follow his post.

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

I agree

 

[Quinn Roberts]

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

This notion struck me the other day actually. Hearing my instructor use the word "groove" nonetheless. While I've seen many hear typically refer to "groove" as the ability to flow along with another person/backing tack, his meaning of this word was towards my mental counting of subdivisions in a certain piece.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

But relevant to the discussion, when I talk with students about how they learn, they have wide variety of approaches and we encourage them to try different things and see what works.

Very cool!
Also that the kids are learning fast.

My impression is a bit different, in general, not about the kids you mentioned, of course
It seems people in general can learn as long as they want to learn and not (unconsciously) refuse to learn. For example, they get used to use smart phones very quickly - but in other fields they can get quite lazy; too lazy to learn anything; be it how to check what might be wrong with the printer again, or, related to this topic, how to improve playing.

Just saying: "wanting to learn" is also a factor, I'd throw into the equation.
And one of Jeff Berlin's examples I found very easy and striking; when one of the audience played a tune he liked; and then was asked to repeat it but playing it all legato. Simple thing; if I play it anyway for fun, I can also toy a bit and learn while playing and having fun. All it took was the hint to do so, and the will to try it out.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Also, I'm starting to feel a mass majority of confusion came from (and I don't mean to point you out by this, am just using a verbal example and you're the first I saw!)

But relevant to the discussion, when I talk with students about how they learn, they have wide variety of approaches and we encourage them to try different things and see what works.

I'm thinking Mr. Berlin isn't really saying "how" to learn, but instead "what" to learn. Maybe this view would help with getting the point across in these threads?

 

[Michael Schreiber]

I'm thinking Mr. Berlin isn't really saying "how" to learn, but instead "what" to learn. Maybe this view would help with getting the point across in these threads?

Good point. Sounds reasonable to me; just thought about it: Some methods and methodologies have the same goal.
But while there are different methods to improve timing, and even assuming they were equally effective for one person; do they really serve the overall goal equally well? What is "improve timing?" And there we would be back at what you wrote - so, I agree, in effect it would be more about the what (in the sense of what is the personal goal?) than how.
And this might explain the shambles in this thread; when one was throwing a portion of "what" into discussion, it might have been followed by a merry-go-round about why specific "hows" would work for different "whats."
So, very good point, IMHO.

 

[matthewbrown]

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?

Learning is essentially creating associations, both conscious and unconscious. Since learning is synaptic change, creating more associations with what is to be learned strengthens neural connections. At the same time, "pruning" neural connections is needed, too -- we can't commit EVERYTHING to memory and still recall information efficiently.

While general principles apply, individuals learn in different ways. A more visual learner might remember a song structure using a visual template; a more verbal learner might use a narrative structure or a verbal summary committed to memory. MRI studies provide evidence the improvisers are using the language centers of their brains when they improvise music, much more than classical musicians do when playing music from memory. Obviously, auditory and motor memory come into play, too. You learn the same song on a number of different levels and in different ways, all of them operating at once when you play the song from memory. And when you improvise over a form, even more comes into play.

 

[KJMO]

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



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

Hey, can you link back to where you posted the studies? It seems to me it has to be shown that those results generalize to other conditions. No good scientist would ever assume they do. Not to mention Jeff made it clear that even if using a metronome made you a perfect metronome, he doesn't feel that is a worthy goal. If that's what he's saying, your studies don't address that at all.

As far as I know, Newton's Laws are not a "theory". I would say they're models/equations, but at any rate, laws aren't the same as theories. Maybe a physicist can chime in, but I thought that you being a stickler for accuracy might want to check on your assertions, because that's not what I understand to be true. I doubt most would say Newton's Laws are "wrong" either. From what I understand what Einstein did was explain some of what Newton didn't.

 

[Michael Schreiber]

As far as I know, Newton's Laws are not a "theory". I would say they're models/equations, but at any rate, laws aren't the same as theories. Maybe a physicist can chime in, but I thought that you being a stickler for accuracy might want to check on your assertions, because that's not what I understand to be true. I doubt most would say Newton's Laws are "wrong" either. From what I understand what Einstein did was explain some of what Newton didn't.

From what I understand, it depends: Newton's laws seemed to work, so far - but only within specific boundaries. For example, it assumes a constant time. Yet, time has been proven to be relative, in accordance with both of Einstein's theories of relativity. (Like that the light of a far away star explosion takes longer to fade away due to time dilation.)
In general, it is also hard to tell if anything proven here works everywhere, even in the deepest corners of the universe.
But, within boundaries, Newton's laws are proven to work very well, also in near space, say the moon, the ISS and the MIR. And you are right: Beyond these boundaries is where Einstein's theories of relativity would come into play. Or any potential successor. As bassist I am quite fond of a String theory

 

[aborgman]

As far as I know, Newton's Laws are not a "theory".

Correct - theories posit an explanation for the observed phenomenon, laws merely the reduction of the results of repeated observation.

I would say they're models/equations, but at any rate, laws aren't the same as theories.

Actually they're just distilled observations that are assumed causal without any model. Things like "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Theories are models.

That is what science is in the business of - providing the best, predictive, falsifiable model for the existing evidence.

I doubt most would say Newton's Laws are "wrong" either. From what I understand what Einstein did was explain some of what Newton didn't.

They're approximations that are only accurate at non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

If you are looking to simply and scientifically prove the advantages of a metronome, it's quite easy.

Record something without a metronome.
Record the same part with a metronome.

You now can look at the recorded wave files, it will become very obvious.
Well I suppose unless you completely disregard the metronome. LOL

Dirk

 

[Michael Schreiber]

If you are looking to simply and scientifically prove the advantages of a metronome, it's quite easy.

Record something without a metronome.
Record the same part with a metronome.

You now can look at the recorded wave files, it will become very obvious.
Well I suppose unless you completely disregard the metronome. LOL

Dirk

I think in the range of this thread it was more about: Why would you still need a metronome to record, if it helps improving timing as a practice or learning measure?
(EDIT: meaning, if practicing with a metronome did improve timing, it wouldn't be needed for recording a song - that's what I had in mind)

 

[JeffBerlin]

"Basically" does not constitute fact.

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.

I don't scoff at anyone that chooses their musical path. In fact, I support their choice by giving it a title, that of being self taught. I neither scoff at music educators for their choices in how they teach. I outright state that the bass educational system is flawed and that it isn't fulfilling its promise to its students, even if everyone seems happy in its experience.

 

[JeffBerlin]

If you are looking to simply and scientifically prove the advantages of a metronome, it's quite easy.

Record something without a metronome.
Record the same part with a metronome.

You now can look at the recorded wave files, it will become very obvious.
Well I suppose unless you completely disregard the metronome. LOL

Dirk

Your post raises a thought that I've thought of for a long time.

Many bass players state how playing with feeling is one of the most important aspects of their being a bass player. Many often mention having heard other players that have schooling or a lot of technique but who play without feeling.

Can anyone share why they are dedicated to practicing with a metronome, a device that reduces the element of human time (hence feeling) out of bass playing? If people feel that other bass players' playing sounds stiff and cold, can you tell me why you think that this won't happen to you if you practice with a metronome to make your notes to become as evenly spaced as a quantized bass part?

 

[JeffBerlin]

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".

Correct! I feel that metronomes are of no use because they don't fulfill the goal that bass players believe that practicing with them will fulfill; you won't acquire an improved sense of time because time never came from a box that clicks and neither speeds up nor slows down.

 

[aborgman]

Correct! I feel that metronomes are of no use because they don't fulfill the goal that bass players believe that practicing with them will fulfill; you won't acquire an improved sense of time because time never came from a box that clicks and neither speeds up nor slows down.

Metronomes can improve both temporal sense (consistency of internal timing) and synchronization (ability to "lock in" with a beat source) according to scientific, peer reviewed studies.

 

[JeffBerlin]

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.

Smoking kills. But not everyone absolutely dies from it.
Drinking and driving causes crashes. But not everyone absolutely will crash.
Democrats are wrong in their philosophy. Republicans are wrong in their philosophy. But, not every Republican and Democrat are absolutely wrong.

Try to go with the general vibe of my thoughts because I am not addressing absolutely every single human being that used a metronome, but practically all the rest of them.

Here is a story that some may recall.

There was a time when people were taking a lot of vitamins. They were in excellent health. Researchers did tests and concluded that even while many people took lots of vitamins, they vitamins didn't actually positively affect their healthy status. The conclusion was that they would have been healthy with or without taking those vitamins.

When this study was published, many vitamin advocates were furious and rejected the study outright. Opinions and beliefs often outweigh logic and a willingness to include new information into their lives.

I know that that almost everyone will play in time no matter if you use a metronome or not. You just have to learn where good time actually comes from. Good luck in your thinking and what you decide to conclude for yourselves.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Also, I'm starting to feel a mass majority of confusion came from (and I don't mean to point you out by this, am just using a verbal example and you're the first I saw!)

I'm thinking Mr. Berlin isn't really saying "how" to learn, but instead "what" to learn. Maybe this view would help with getting the point across in these threads?

Makes sense to me! Some people earn faster than others. Some learn more slowly. Some can only tolerate ten minutes of uninterrupted practice while other can go for two hours. But if musical content isn't the very core of what you are assigned, then I see a deficit for people doing the practicing.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Metronomes can improve both temporal sense (consistency of internal timing) and synchronization (ability to "lock in" with a beat source) according to scientific, peer reviewed studies.

Great! Post those links here. I am interested to read them.

 

[aborgman]

Can anyone share why they are dedicated to practicing with a metronome, a device that reduces the element of human time (hence feeling) out of bass playing?

I'm not dedicated to practicing with a metronome... but metronomes can provide useful improvement and feedback.

They can be very useful for diagnosing WHERE in a particular piece of music you speed up/slow down/lose tempo.

They can be very useful for forcing you to play things which are easy, slowly.

They can approve your ability to synchronize with a beat source - including a human beat source like a drummer.

They can improve your "human" time keeping ability. Some people don't need this, and have good internal rhythm. Some people DON'T have good internal rhythm and can reduce their rhythmic wandering.

If people feel that other bass players' playing sounds stiff and cold, can you tell me why you think that this won't happen to you if you practice with a metronome to make your notes to become as evenly spaced as a quantized bass part? And finally, isn't playing with feeling best viewed as playing with expression, the very element that puts humanity into music?

Because there is a happy medium between "perfectly quantized" inhuman robot and "wildly varying unable to hold tempo".