• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Jeff Berlin Discussing Music Ed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Henderson took one guitar with him when we recently played in Asia. Mike Stern goes wiht one guitar. I've seen a lot of guys trvel with one guitar. It comes from our belief that nothing will go wrong. and usually this bears out. Last night I got my bass basck in perfect condition. The case is beat up, but the guitar is fine. So, once again, things are OK with me and travelling. I'm still of the miond that I only need one guitar because had I brought two of them, they both would have been in a specially prepared flight case carrying two guitars, They I would have lost TWO instruments in stead of one.

Yeah, most of the time everything goes well, and I'm very thankful your bass is safe. It's hard to lose an instrument you've played for years, even if you can get a new identical one.

The only solution is to have a bass as hand luggage, plus the one in the case. I'm assuming you're not travelling with a crew this time, like bands do. That of course makes it harder, I understand that. I just wish you had some kind of backup.

Hey, who am I to lecture someone who has played and toured since long before I was born...:hiding:

Ok, speaking of horror stories; What's the worst or most embarrassing thing you ever experienced onstage? :D

Sorry for all the un-musical content..
 
Jeff, this is probably a vague question but how does one actually bridge the gap between artistry and the academic? I often fill in with groups where i read unfamiliar charts so i don't always hear the changes in my head. This question applies more though to pieces that i'm familiar with. Most are simple and well known standards where i know the changes and relevant harmony aspects but i rely so much on that knowledge and feel i'm just relaying academics instead of being creative. I'm striving to actually create music rather than re-hash licks from my existing library. I occasionally get "in the zone" and think my playing is inspired but that is most often not the case. Thank you.
 
Jeff,

How do you feel it's best to use the half hour in a lesson, for the harder working students. Those who put in the practice time to work on a few concepts every day.

I realize you can divide the time between a piece to read, chords, and soloing or arranging etc.

I believe Sandole broke his lessons up into a rotating schedule, an A week, B week and C week, each giving the student a different concept.

My first teacher broke things up into courses (he was quite competent and a student of Sandole) You'd 1. learn to read 2. learn the chords all up and down the neck and arrange chord melody. 3. learn comping, reading chord charts, studying advanced chord melody concepts, 4. learn soloing concepts. This obviously took years, and was quite thorough.

I've had some teachers, give very long lessons (quite generous with their time, not wasting either of our time.)

So, some students would benefit from longer lessons, but in the studio situation I have to deal with the half hour time constraint (and the fact that few parents would pay for the hour) is a given.
 
Jeff,

How do you feel it's best to use the half hour in a lesson, for the harder working students. Those who put in the practice time to work on a few concepts every day.

I realize you can divide the time between a piece to read, chords, and soloing or arranging etc.

I believe Sandole broke his lessons up into a rotating schedule, an A week, B week and C week, each giving the student a different concept.

My first teacher broke things up into courses (he was quite competent and a student of Sandole) You'd 1. learn to read 2. learn the chords all up and down the neck and arrange chord melody. 3. learn comping, reading chord charts, studying advanced chord melody concepts, 4. learn soloing concepts. This obviously took years, and was quite thorough.

I've had some teachers, give very long lessons (quite generous with their time, not wasting either of our time.)

So, some students would benefit from longer lessons, but in the studio situation I have to deal with the half hour time constraint (and the fact that few parents would pay for the hour) is a given.
i wonder if a half hour a week is enough to do more than expose a student to music.as a parent i found that it was just one of several activities in a student week sandwiched between soccer and hockey practice,social activities and so on........often the students had no time in the week for any practice of anything as the events themselves and the driving,school,homework etc. left little time for anything else....it's interesting that a parent will pay hundreds or thousands to encourage sports,but balk at the relatively inexpensive music lesson(s)
 
i wonder if a half hour a week is enough to do more than expose a student to music.as a parent i found that it was just one of several activities in a student week sandwiched between soccer and hockey practice,social activities and so on........often the students had no time in the week for any practice of anything as the events themselves and the driving,school,homework etc. left little time for anything else....it's interesting that a parent will pay hundreds or thousands to encourage sports,but balk at the relatively inexpensive music lesson(s)

I pay for music lessons for my kids and they practice double the required time. We are also involved in baseball (almost year round) and they make the honor roll. It can be done. TV is limited.
 
You know must of the time a half hour lesson is enough, it is up to the student to put in more time. I seem to have a knack for teach 2nd graders to 6th graders, so 1/2 hour a day practice and 1/2 hour lesson is usually enough, there is only so much to work on. By the same token I've got some really talented art school students in High School who put in an hour and a half a day and it shows. So if they devote 20 minutes to chords, 20 minutes to reading, twenty minutes to academics of soloing they still have time to pursue whatever interests them musically.

I've got half an hour to evaluate progress, explain a concept or two and answer questions, to the harder working students. (obviously a few get an hour lesson)

You're correct on sports, I can't see why there isn't room for both! I work out and have a marathon and 16 one hundred milers on the bike so I'm an advocate for both in life. In fact the classical education was Math, science, langauge, social sciences, sport and music.

Woops! what Freddels said!
 
Hey Jeff-
Will a metronome improve my fly-fishing, flying and water-skiing capabilities?;)

LOL! If you remember the movie "A River Runs Through It" then you might remember that the father in that film taught his boys to flyfish (in time) using a metronome. A great movie (and book) that I recommend to all if you haven't seen it. Features a very young Brad Pitt!

There is NO DOUBT that the metronome would also improve your flying, water-skiing, skydiving, snowboarding, parallel parking and your love life :smug:
 
I pay for music lessons for my kids and they practice double the required time. We are also involved in baseball (almost year round) and they make the honor roll. It can be done. TV is limited.
interesting tho' i would think that you being a player yourself might set your kids apart from the non musician's .....given the general trends to cut music and art programs these days i wonder where most parents rate music ed in the overall scope of things.....many that i knew in the married days seemed to view it as an activity that most will grow out of and there seems to be too few avenues for kids that show an aptitude for it unless they are fortunate enough to have players as parents.....i may be veering ot here but the subject interests me anyhow
 
interesting tho' i would think that you being a player yourself might set your kids apart from the non musician's .....given the general trends to cut music and art programs these days i wonder where most parents rate music ed in the overall scope of things.....many that i knew in the married days seemed to view it as an activity that most will grow out of and there seems to be too few avenues for kids that show an aptitude for it unless they are fortunate enough to have players as parents.....i may be veering ot here but the subject interests me anyhow

I am 32, and have 3 kids, the oldest being 4. My plan, is to have them all study Piano for at least ten years. I'll start them when they are 6, and tell them that if they give me ten years, I'll buy them a car when they turn 18 (also assumes good grades)
There is no better preparation for a life in music than studying Piano. You learn independence and agility of each hand, how to read bass and treble cleff, and quite a bit of theory. I have never met anyone (including myself) who said, I am sure glad I quit studying piano... Then, if they want to add instruments, guitar, bass, tuba, drums, whatever, they will have a better foundation in music than most. I have also considered Suziki violin. I plan to make music a huge priority in their education. Not because I want them to be musicians professionally, but because studying music develops the whole person.
I also plan to have them in baseball and soccer and whatever sports they want to do.
 
There is no better preparation for a life in music than studying Piano...

I agree.

...I'll start them when they are 6...

When it comes to developing LANGUAGE skills, there is a LOT of science that supports starting children at an early age. This includes MUSIC (a language) and there have been recent studies that have shown the brains of children who were started at an early age learning the LANGUAGE of music develop quite differently and measurably from children who did not.

This means that children who were taught to read, write, and perform music as young children - not just being exposed to music passively. This also influences how they interpret many other things too, like puzzles, math, literature and more. The areas of the brain that developed to interpret the patterns in music are leveraged to interpret patterns in math, reading and other areas as well, where children who were not taught music use very different areas of the brain for these functions.

Much if this is tied to neuroplasticity - or the brains ability to create synapses and the fact that when the brain is in early stages of development, synapse-connecting is significantly different than when the brain is in later stages of development.

One very plausible conclusion being that early-age music kids think differently than non-early-age music kids in many areas because their brains actually process the world very differently.

These programs that I caught on PBS a while back were very eye-opening and worth checking out if any of this interests you.

Invalid Link Removed

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/musicinstinct/video/music-and-the-brain/are-humans-wired-for-music/54/

Bottom line - and I believe this to be 100% true - Kids who are taught to read and understand music at an early age are give an extra set of tools to process far more than just music.

...if they give me ten years, I'll buy them a car...

When if comes to getting kids to stick to things that a little bribery doesn't hurt...

But I believe very strongly that exposing children to formal music training (especially piano) pays of BIG, not only in musical terms, but in general.
 
To reference TZER, I heard a great story on NPR with a neurophysician, who did extensive study about how intensive music STUDY causes some area of the brain (can't remember which) to actually grow larger. It has been scientifically demonstrated that children who learn instruments and study music, have increased brain matter in this area.
That really clinched it for me. Our kids can't be too involved in music. I also forgot to mention that I would want them to study singing as well. My inability to sing well is definitely a hindrance. All bands want a bass player who can sing backup, play like a mofo, and look sexy on stage. I only have 1 of the 3. You want to guess which one?
 
...I only have 1 of the 3. You want to guess which one?

Let me guess... You're too sexy for your bass, right? :p

I've always been fascinated with how similar 'everything' is to everything else - and ultimately how I can almost always find analogues to everything in music. From writing computer code to graphic arts to architectural drafting to cooking to... You name it... Anything that has a process and patterns - which is essentially everything.

For me, being able to 'see the similarities' has been key in being able to pick up on new things very quickly. This, as opposed to a process of learning in a linear fashion, by rote - or by stuffing your brain with things to remember and repeat. Once I can see the pattern, learning whatever it is becomes a simple mechanical exercise. You can all but 'forget' the specific details and simply apply what you know and count on your ability to handle what comes up as it happens.

And to tie it back to a topic of hot contention here, by studying new things 'off line' or 'out of time' (which many times means simply sitting back and contemplating things - running trials in your head and making connections/establishing synapses) means when I am back in a position to apply such knowledge, I am that much better prepared to execute it with fluidity.

I never considered that early music education and the way the brain grows and wires itself had anything to do with all that - until I saw those programs.

They draw such clear connections between how the brain grows and develops to accommodate music knowledge and how that manifests itself in so many other areas that it's hard to ignore.

And even if it's total hokum - boy is it an ego trip and a half to think those of us who were lucky enough to be taught music as kids have more brains that those who weren't! ;)

But watch those programs if you have a chance and I guarantee you'll find them extremely interesting at the very least.
 
And even if it's total hokum - boy is it an ego trip and a half to think those of us who were lucky enough to be taught music as kids have more brains that those who weren't! ;)

But watch those programs if you have a chance and I guarantee you'll find them extremely interesting at the very least.

Great links, and certainly not hokum, but not yet fully understood. The one thing we do know is that the brain and certain abilities, if they have a physical use, do not develop together. It may take a million years or so for either one to catch up with the other.

They are not new ideas, just un-explored or left alone because of social pressures or beliefs of the times. In the link Plato discussed such things in Greek life two and a half thousand years ago with Aristotle, and they are relevent in todays life.....strange that they are being re-discovered again, but why were they forgotten about in the first place? ;)

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Pa-Re/Plato-427-348-B-C-E.html
 
i wonder if a half hour a week is enough to do more than expose a student to music.as a parent i found that it was just one of several activities in a student week sandwiched between soccer and hockey practice,social activities and so on........often the students had no time in the week for any practice of anything as the events themselves and the driving,school,homework etc. left little time for anything else....it's interesting that a parent will pay hundreds or thousands to encourage sports,but balk at the relatively inexpensive music lesson(s)

Being a student myself:

My parents will pay $100 every two seaons MAX on sports (unless there's a circumstance, like me NEEDING better soccer gear for highschool. Got $50 on $cleats (we're good like that.) and next season im going to get a $70 pair of keep gloves next season. Im paying the other 20 probably.) But my dad will pay $15 a week for 15 minute music lessons.

Sorry, OT.

I take lessons from a local Jazz professional and, if you have a good teacher, 30 minutes a week is plenty of time. Sometimes he runs over into an hour. He really makes me a learn an amazing amount in just thirty minutes (My first session, lasted an hour, I could construct any major chord, learned Maj, Min, Dominant 7th, and 1-3-5 chord shapes and how to construct them.) And he would give me a week to work, then come back and teach me more.

All the while he's been teaching me to read sheet music with things like autumn leaves (a little more than roots, of course, not the full out melody he plays. That, although is 5 notes or so a second, is not overplayed.)

He has told me I will learn to read with this, and by the time I get my reading fluent, I will be able to play the full melody he does, and i'm going to read that, where he works on sight reading.

Been learning theory in between all of this. AL is my "homework" if you will. I took a few months off of lessons to do school soccer, get an amp and cab and 5/6 string and enjoy it, learn to tap, and play my own stuff. Now that i'm highly content and proud of my abilities i'm going back, to do more.

Being a Jazzer, he doesn't know tapping. And due to his lessons, I am able to construct my own tapping riffs with theory and some of my own studies combined.

Every lesson he learns a good amount of some of the things I know that he doesnt, I get the lesson free.

Hehehe..

Oh yeah, that was OT too! :D
 
I agree.



When it comes to developing LANGUAGE skills, there is a LOT of science that supports starting children at an early age. This includes MUSIC (a language) and there have been recent studies that have shown the brains of children who were started at an early age learning the LANGUAGE of music develop quite differently and measurably from children who did not.

This means that children who were taught to read, write, and perform music as young children - not just being exposed to music passively. This also influences how they interpret many other things too, like puzzles, math, literature and more. The areas of the brain that developed to interpret the patterns in music are leveraged to interpret patterns in math, reading and other areas as well, where children who were not taught music use very different areas of the brain for these functions.

Much if this is tied to neuroplasticity - or the brains ability to create synapses and the fact that when the brain is in early stages of development, synapse-connecting is significantly different than when the brain is in later stages of development.

One very plausible conclusion being that early-age music kids think differently than non-early-age music kids in many areas because their brains actually process the world very differently.

These programs that I caught on PBS a while back were very eye-opening and worth checking out if any of this interests you.

Invalid Link Removed

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/musicinstinct/video/music-and-the-brain/are-humans-wired-for-music/54/

Bottom line - and I believe this to be 100% true - Kids who are taught to read and understand music at an early age are give an extra set of tools to process far more than just music.



When if comes to getting kids to stick to things that a little bribery doesn't hurt...

But I believe very strongly that exposing children to formal music training (especially piano) pays of BIG, not only in musical terms, but in general.


Interesting, I didn't start to learn bass until I was 12. I did orchestra at 11 but, we didn't learn any theory, just how to play what's on paper in time for the assembly..

I think I spent maybe two months learning tool songs and other stuff, then I dove into lessons.

Also, because of my Geometry class, and the way I interpret math (only because I never pay attention in class) I think things backwards, and have developed some unique techniques.

What I actually do in class is NOT pay attention to the teacher, just understand the goal (find the area.) and make my own formula.

For example, in geometry, when you find the area of a sector in a circle, you would do some 6 part-proportion that involves the arc measurements, diameter, and.. well, idk the formula.

me? Say it's 60 degrees arc on the sector.

I take the area and divide by 6. 1/8th a sheet of paper saved, and a lot of time.

I guess what i'm trying to say it that I believe the best time to do this is directly after Geometry. Because, although I'm the only one the teacher who's seen do this..

Geometry has a curriculum written now that totally contradicts everything you've ever learned. The whole GOAL of geometry is to teach you logic and to RESHAPE your thinking. While your brain is learning to reshape all this, you can tie this with music and you'll progress much much faster.
 
They are not new ideas, just un-explored or left alone because of social pressures or beliefs of the times. In the link Plato discussed such things in Greek life two and a half thousand years ago with Aristotle, and they are relevent in todays life.....strange that they are being re-discovered again, but why were they forgotten about in the first place? ;)

The program on Music and Instinct brought up what I think is a very interesting idea; that interpreting and understanding music is actually NOT simply a sub-set of spoken language, but an entirely separate function of the brain that actually pre-dates spoken language when it comes to interpersonal communication and forming social groups.

We used music to communicate BEFORE we learned to grunt and eventually speak to each other.

What I took that to mean was that modern thinking has relegated music, as a language, to second-class citizenship status behind verbal and written communication. That it was a byproduct and therefore a subset - not it's own entirely unique system - that it came AFTER we learned to communicate verbally.

The new thinking is that music as a form of communication is a world unto itself and entirely independent of simple speaking and writing. That the brain centers that are used are completely separated from those used for everyday speaking and reading. That music is a fundamental instinct probably responsible for bringing people together BEFORE people could talk or write.

Consider that primitive man, without the din of modern society (cities, people talking, etc...) was probably far more tuned into the songs of nature as a way of interpreting and negotiating everyday life. He was not using 'language centers' and reconfiguring them to interpret those sounds - he was understanding the songs of nature on a 1 to 1 level - innately. Literally talking with the animals, so to say.

The idea is that we've never lost that connection but the din of modern life and the advent of written and spoken communication has taken a front seat and we've reasoned away our relationship to nature. We don't necessarily see ourselves as the same thing as birds and fish - we're man... We talk. We don't sing to attract a mate or warn of danger - well, at least we don't THINK we do, anyway... We think of music as more of a novelty than a necessity or a fundamental part of our nature.

There could be drawbacks to being such "intelligent" creatures, huh?
 
T
The idea is that we've never lost that connection but the din of modern life and the advent of written and spoken communication has taken a front seat and we've reasoned away our relationship to nature. We don't necessarily see ourselves as the same thing as birds and fish - we're man... We talk. We don't sing to attract a mate or warn of danger - well, at least we don't THINK we do, anyway... We think of music as more of a novelty than a necessity or a fundamental part of our nature.

There could be drawbacks to being such "intelligent" creatures, huh?

The thing about human development is we still have fuctions from primate times that show in modern life. As "intelligent creatures" we place our own values on things that only have relevence to us as humans. We see a bass for example, other animals do not, they see what it is.. a piece of wood. In the development of learning and this includes music we have not had anywhere near the time to devlelop music as a value so we cannot lose it.

The saying "music calms the savage beast" is based on some long lost observation in time, but must have a relevence in fact somewhere along the way.

For us as players without the development of say the hand we have now, the music we play and listen to would not exist, that's a fact. Without brain development to support this new hand function as it developed millions and millions of years ago, again the hand would not develop into the one we have now. The brain would have to grow in size, new muscles, nerves and anatomical functions need to develop to support this simple new hand, because it is more complex than the one it replaces.

But not all primate or hominid life developed it, that's why the discovery of Lucy, who was australopithecines, the earliest of human ancestors to walk up-right with a better hand function than those before, would develop it further as the hands were now free from being used in supporting walking. This in turn would develop a new shoulder movement, which needs more new functions so a bigger brain as so on.

Again the brain is pivital in this as it has to control and use these functions as they develop, but what develops first the function or the brain? It is believed we had the brain capacity to comunicate, but not the vocal chords to make use of it, to form words, so maybe that is where song (which we call music) came from in our past.

To cut a very complicated subject short, learning is indeed genetic, we cannot stop ourselves from learning, it is in us to learn, you can take away the tools of learning, books, tools music, etc, but you cannot stop us from learning. The best way to learn is from experience and information in small or short pieces. This is why for most, long study does not work well, it needs to be broken down, to make the best use of not how we learn, but how we retain what we learn.

Everyone i'm sure has had an answer on the tip of their tongue, or knew an answer, but could not recall it till it was prompted at some point, that information was learned but not retained in a way that could be used when needed.
:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.