I have been playing Bass for 15 years now...I learned for the most part similar to B but now I am more interested in A...I am enrolling In Berklee online college in their Jazz bass class just to understand A better..Not that I know nothing about A but just want to fill holes that I feel I have in my understanding. But even though I played for 15 years I am new to this forum so I guess my opinion does not count.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Two Different Pros. Two Different Opinions.
- Thread starter beaglegod
- Start date
Damn, what's wrong with getting influences from existing music??? Onlyclave makes it sound like it's a bad way of learning. Being creative requires inspiration. Music theory *may* be an inspiration, but listening to music is to me way more inspirational. You pick up influences here and there and turn them into your own music. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I study privately with Jim Stinnett- he's a hell of a teacher. Don't let him scare you!
I never said that was a bad way of learning, please don't make that mistake. What I DID say is that it's a bad idea to find a teacher to show you how to play someone elses music note for note and call that music lessons.
Where do you grow more, learning "Teen Town" note for note or analyzing "Teen Town" and how it works and then writing your own music that is in a similar style? We don't need 1000 more people to play "Teen Town". I have the "Heavy Weather" CD, it sounds great there.
I just listened to Christian McBride's "Vertical Vision" today and realized how much it sounds like a Weather Report record. It sounds like that because he listened closely to what Wayne Shorter wrote and analyzed how the band fit together and was able to create a record that makes me say "wow, that sounds like it could be written by Wayne Shorter himself." That kind of musical development is what Teacher A can do for you. Teacher B's method of transcribing tunes and licks let's you play Birdland, A Remark You Made, Teentown, Rhumba Mama, Paladium, and Havona and do it remarkably accurately after a while, but it's not original and if you don't know what you're playing, only how to play it then your musicality will be stunted.
I went to Groove School of Music and also Have an A.A. in commercial music. And I will tell you that I graduated as a serious Jazzer with Russel Ferrante(Yellow Jackets) and Jeff Richman(Fusion artist and Groove teacher) playing in my band in my graduating showcase. And I will tell you that NOTHING compared to learning a ******** of hit songs and playing them in a club 3 to 4 nights a week as my education was concerned. Especially learning to sing and play together and get my tone happening in a variety of situations. It is great to get the informational history of music for the basic tools of playing your bass. But do not forget that it is about playing. And learning the rich history of bass in hit songs is just so important. It is like the oft quoted Jazz philosophy that says "Learn as much as you can and then just forget about it and play"
Link Removed
Link Removed
After all of this discussion, you are still stuck on that huh? Wow. When did anybody ever even remotely suggest that having a teacher "show you how to play someone else's music note for note" would be a good idea. That is a completely ridiculous distortion of everyone else's position in this thread. Yeah, it's a bad idea. I agree. But who in the heck are you arguing with then? How does that statement have anything to do with this thread? Nobody has ever suggested that would be a good idea.
It is good for a teacher to show you note for note some other great players work because they can get you to execute all the nuances and techniques that produced the great performance. Things like this that you can not do on your own easily are why we hire a teacher. How many times did I get a teacher to show me how a line lays back a certain way or is a little louder here or there because how someone attacked the strings. Things I was surprised to learn because I needed the ears of a seasoned pro to point them out to me!
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
that's nowhere near what -i- read in the original poster's post as far as teacher b's approach.
if an instructor for a beginner teaching an hour lesson spends 15 minutes showing a transcription of a song, to put in the student's notebook for study, and discussing the theory behind the song, and then focuses the rest of the 45 minute lesson on helping the student develop their ear by listening to a recording of the song, and develop their techinique by trying to play the parts in the song, i would find that as an excellent lesson for a beginner, and well worth their money.
an absolute beginner is going to have the hardest time - and need the greatest instructor assistance - with the simple mechanical aspects of playing. they've never moved their fingers that way before - they might not have even held an -instrument- before. that's going to take the lion's share of the lesson just to get someone's finger/hand/arm control developed sufficiently to properly execute a note on the instrument.
anybody who has been in school for a more than a day is going to know how to -learn- theory. for the first few lessons, take home materials are going to be pretty self-explanatory, and going over the fundamentals of music theory is going to be better accomplished by the -motivated- student on their own time, to be quizzed at next lesson.
when i was a beginner (25 years ago
heh) , if my teacher spent 45 minutes of my hour lesson going over scales and modes, when he could have given me a handout and let me read it on my own, at the expense of him showing me the mechanics that i did not know and could not teach myself, i would be pretty aggravated.like i said earlier, a balance between the "why" behind the music, and the "how" of the music, is the best approach, i think, for teaching a beginner. after a while, once there is actual -playing- being done by the student, then the mechanical aspects of the playing (i.e. what i am taking to be what the teacher b is specializing on) can be lessened somewhat in favor of more theoretical concerns.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
also, this is an excellent discussion, and a very relevant one.
let's not clutter it with snark and posturing, ok? not directing this at anyone in particular, but it would be a shame if this discussion degraded because of unnecessary irrelevance.
thanks.
let's not clutter it with snark and posturing, ok? not directing this at anyone in particular, but it would be a shame if this discussion degraded because of unnecessary irrelevance.
thanks.
that's nowhere near what -i- read in the original poster's post as far as teacher b's approach.
if an instructor for a beginner teaching an hour lesson spends 15 minutes showing a transcription of a song, to put in the student's notebook for study, and discussing the theory behind the song, and then focuses the rest of the 45 minute lesson on helping the student develop their ear by listening to a recording of the song, and develop their techinique by trying to play the parts in the song, i would find that as an excellent lesson for a beginner, and well worth their money.
an absolute beginner is going to have the hardest time - and need the greatest instructor assistance - with the simple mechanical aspects of playing. they've never moved their fingers that way before - they might not have even held an -instrument- before. that's going to take the lion's share of the lesson just to get someone's finger/hand/arm control developed sufficiently to properly execute a note on the instrument.
anybody who has been in school for a more than a day is going to know how to -learn- theory. for the first few lessons, take home materials are going to be pretty self-explanatory, and going over the fundamentals of music theory is going to be better accomplished by the -motivated- student on their own time, to be quizzed at next lesson.
when i was a beginner (25 years ago
like i said earlier, a balance between the "why" behind the music, and the "how" of the music, is the best approach, i think, for teaching a beginner. after a while, once there is actual -playing- being done by the student, then the mechanical aspects of the playing (i.e. what i am taking to be what the teacher b is specializing on) can be lessened somewhat in favor of more theoretical concerns.
Funny how tastes differ. My taste has always been the opposite. i always figured, playing my instrument and listening to music is something I can do on my own time. Hearing a lick and trying to reproduce it may not be easy for a beginner in an absolute sense, but it's not conceptually difficult. I at least understand what's involved. Not that that stuff shouldn't be part of a lesson, but for me a big part of what the teacher was getting paid for was explaining the stuff I didn't understand at all--conceptual stuff, primarily but not entirely.
I think this proves you're missing the point here that others are trying to explain to you. I read teacher B as sitting down, putting on a song and playing along to work out what notes go where, how to play the song. This can be a lengthy process. 75% of the lesson is doing stuff like this. Then the same teacher spends the remaining 25% explaining the theory behind this kind of exercise - the note names, the intervals and key for starters, then move onto how to figure out the chords using the same analytical process. Not only are they working their ear, they then go into the what, why and how of what they've spent from time CLOSELY listening to music and figuring out the notes by ear - something people who don't play music, and even a lot that do, never spend time doing. There was nothing alluding to "handing them a sheet of licks to memorize" or anything of that nature. Teacher A is going through the constructs of music. This is great too, but for a beginner the teacher B would be more appropriate IMO so as to first develop the ear in the first place to hear what they later learn as music theory. Most people learn from experience first and theory later as the have a point of reference for the theory. When a student has many points of reference to build from (ie. experience playing and listening to music) then the theory should be the main focus. But it's all subjective to both teacher and student.
IMO both should take an approximate 50/50 split as both are equally important.
It might be worthwhile for all of us to look back at what the initial post actually said:
"I rescently corrosponded with two different bass teachers, both excellent in there own right. Each seemed to have a great knowledge of theory and could sight read very well. However teacher :
A. Would have a begginer initially focus on scales,arppegios, and sight reading, while graddually demonstrating how bass lines are constructed. Lets say 75% of the time would be spent on these things the other 25 could be spent on learning some music by ear.
Teacher :
B. Is quite different. The time spent on theory ,scales, rythm exercises , sight reading etc,would be 25% and learning songs and bass licks by ear would take up 75% of the students time."
I think in your post above you might be projecting onto B a bit, as i can't see from the OP any clear signs that teacher B would be as painstaking as you imagine. Though the fact is, we can't know from this description just how good either teacher is. Maybe teacher A would turn out to be a confusing bore.
Still, the general approach of A sounds like a more sensible mix to me. i could easily imagine an interesting lesson in which teacher A introduces certain concepts, then has the student spend time learning by ear tunes that directly illustrate and make use of these concepts. For instance, if you were looking at scales, find a simple tune that uses scalar patterns in the bass; ditto for arpeggios or what have you. If the music is well chosen, this could reinforce both aspects of instruction.
You note the comment about "bass licks," so onlyclave's comment about a sheet of licks to memorize is not exactly coming out of nowhere. I don't know about you, but when I see an emphasis on "licks," I wonder to myself about the quality of the instruction method. Of course that could have been beaglegod's interpretation and not what the teacher actually said.
I think either approach can work. It's more a factor of how the individual student learns. Some people need the structured guidance of approach (A), and others will do better with approach (B).
I think the bottom line (no pun intended) is that both approaches have their merits, and one would hope that a sensitive teacher would be flexible and adapt to each student's progress, learning style, and goals over the course of time.
cheers,
Asher
I think the bottom line (no pun intended) is that both approaches have their merits, and one would hope that a sensitive teacher would be flexible and adapt to each student's progress, learning style, and goals over the course of time.
cheers,
Asher
It is indeed hard to gauge what is really going on with both teachers here as we are discussing what is essentially second hand information. Maybe the teacher B does do it the way I described, maybe teach A is a bore. Maybe teacher A has a really great way of explaining theory that anyone could easily understand and assimilate into their playing, maybe teacher B just sits around playing songs and is lazy. We simply don't know.
In my mind both are valid teaching methods. What would be best would be a combination of the two. So, one lesson might be spent more on learning and figuring out music via ear alone to reinforce a theory intensive lesson from the week before, and vice versa. It's quite probable that both teachers use both methods. Some of my students we've spent 95% of the lesson time on theory in the past few weeks so now we need to move back towards some playing music and lighten up on the theory somewhat. It's good to mix it up from time to time to keep things fresh.
That's what I said three pages ago!!!!
True, you did, but the larger issue we've been wrestling with is, which method of instruction, irrespective of the teacher applying it, is likely to yield better results in general, all else being equal? It's been an interesting discussion....
