A Broad Bass Education Doesn't Work. A Narrow Education is Superior

[JeffBerlin]

Charlie Banacos was one of the greatest music teachers of the 20th and 21st centuries for various reasons. He could instantly hear the musical deficits in his students and knew exactly what to offer to the students to practice and fix their difficulties. Charlie was also a teacher of the "narrow" philosophy of teaching. He knew that a broad approach to teaching wouldn't improve his students as a broad approach isn't specific. He was right about this!

In my opinion, teaching a broad approach to learn compromises one's musical improvement because learning well is a narrow to-the-point event. If you take any subject that is taught, it is always taught lesson by lesson in a sequential manner. You won't find, say, a golf student learning how to hit a ball and, at the same time taking classes in how baseball players, tennis players or cricket players do it. Nor will golf teachers teach the driver, the wedge, the putter, and hitting out of the sand all at the same time. Teaching a broad philosophy to bass students doesn't work, but a specific piece by piece education is superior. Notice that almost all musicians in the past learned via a narrow approach. The broad approach in music schools didn't exist.

Realize that Charlie taught pianists, guitarists, sax, trumpet, electric and acoustic bass players. Teachers like Charlie show that the notion that there is a right teacher for the right student is a myth. You don't need to find the right teacher, but everyone needs the same teacher that knows how to teach music correctly. One only has to see how most of the great players/composers acquired their skills if the were taught music. They mostly got them from one or two teachers certainly for the first years of their learning. Going from one bass teacher to another to acquire different points of learning bass is also a myth. If a teacher really knows their subject, they will be able to teach practically everyone.

What does a broad education consist of? Almost everything that one is offered to learn other than being offered musical content to practice each and every week.

In my opinion, these classes constitute unnecessary academic offerings to electric bass students.

1. Being taught styles of music such as rock, blues, gospel, R&B, classical.

2. Being taught how to record in a studio and being taught recording techniques.

3. Being taught the playing styles of various other bass players.

4. Teaching the bass style of Jaco Pastorius ( an unnecessary academic offering.)

5. Being taught various playing techniques such as string crossings, muting strings, slap bass, two handed tapping, or various plucking principles.

6. Any emphasis on groove, playing with feel, locking with drummers.

7. Being encouraged to choose your classes and your teachers instead of the musical topics such as arranging.

8. Having a say in how you wish to be taught and what you wish to learn come to mind.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

What is your evidence that a broad bass education does not work?

Clearly you like the idea of a narrow education, but that shows nothing to prove that it is superior or that a broad one doesn’t work. A broad education has nearly always been the process in which artists have been taught and has resulted in nearly every single great piece of art that you enjoy. It’s demonstrably false as a general idea, so what proof is there that it doesn’t work specifically for bass?

 

[Drgonzonm]

@JeffBerlin, are you saying only jazz should be taught?
Beg to differ. Take marching band for example, there are other skills learned in marching band. (I was a band parent). team work, memorization, balancing brilliance with pitch control. And sometimes, going to college on a music scholarship. IMO, if the music stopped there, then the player graduated and became a productive member of society, then the music was worth it.
I see you posted classical as part of the wasted training. I wish you would reconsider.
Whats next, playing fretted bass is a waste of time?

 

[JeffBerlin]

What is your evidence that a broad bass education does not work?

Clearly you like the idea of a narrow education, but that shows nothing to prove that it is superior or that a broad one doesn’t work. A broad education has nearly always been the process in which artists have been taught and has resulted in nearly every single great piece of art that you enjoy. It’s demonstrably false as a general idea, so what proof is there that it doesn’t work specifically for bass?

Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing.

A broad education is the literal heartbeat and blood of a self taught education. But, in academic training, it practically isn't to be found. A little research into what is being taught to musicians other than electric bass players should should you thing.

Take playing a classical instrument within the classical genre: Even today, a classical musician is trained in instrument, ear training and theory, a narrow and specific academic approach. This educational approach works so well that it will be hard for anyone to not find a capable player in this musical genre.

You also won't find, say, a cello student being given a class in the cello playing of Pablo Casals. You won't find a cello student being offered classes in neo classical, modern classic, baroque, baroque or romantic studies. In other words, the deliberate attempt to teach a cellist a broad approach to cello and music doesn't seem to exist, except in each individual piece of music that is being learned.

In a language class, you won't find a student of Spanish being encouraged to take a class in French in the morning, a class of German in the afternoon, and a class of Italian in the evening. Taking a language is a narrow educational experience, not a broad one.

You won't find a broad education in the teaching of almost any subject that you might think of. They all specify topics to be learned profoundly. Students move on only after the assigned musical topics are learned.

The principle of engaging in a broad education is confined (in my opinion) to electric bass players. Teachers that support this view haven't realized that there barely is any precedence for this approach to teaching. For me, this puts students that invest a lot of money for an education into a situation more like guinea pigs in an experiment instead of recipients of proven methods of being taught. Why experiment with methods of learning that have been proven to educate unless a teacher doesn't know what those proven methods are, or knows what they are but decides to ignore them. This wouldn't give me confidence that my musical well being is in the hands of people that really know their job.

 

[JeffBerlin]

@JeffBerlin, are you saying only jazz should be taught?
Beg to differ. Take marching band for example, there are other skills learned in marching band. (I was a band parent). team work, memorization, balancing brilliance with pitch control. And sometimes, going to college on a music scholarship. IMO, if the music stopped there, then the player graduated and became a productive member of society, then the music was worth it.
I see you posted classical as part of the wasted training. I wish you would reconsider.
Whats next, playing fretted bass is a waste of time?

Thank you for responding.

To begin, playing a fretted bass is an artistic choice. I never voice any opinions regarding one's art and how they wish to realize it.

Regarding your marching band comments, realize that we are talking about electric bass players not members in a marching band. If the requirements of playing in a marching band differ from the requirements of playing an electric bass, you will have to admit that every single member of a marching band were still taught in a narrow academic approach to playing or else they wouldn't have won their spot in the band. This is the whole point of my post.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing.

A broad education is the literal heartbeat and blood of a self taught education. But, in academic training, it practically isn't to be found. A little research into what is being taught to musicians other than electric bass players should should you thing.

Take playing a classical instrument within the classical genre: Even today, a classical musician is trained in instrument, ear training and theory, a narrow and specific academic approach. This educational approach works so well that it will be hard for anyone to not find a capable player in this musical genre.

You also won't find, say, a cello student being given a class in the cello playing of Pablo Casals. You won't find a cello student being offered classes in neo classical, modern classic, baroque, baroque or romantic studies. In other words, the deliberate attempt to teach a cellist a broad approach to cello and music doesn't seem to exist, except in each individual piece of music that is being learned.

In a language class, you won't find a student of Spanish being encouraged to take a class in French in the morning, a class of German in the afternoon, and a class of Italian in the evening. Taking a language is a narrow educational experience, not a broad one.

You won't find a broad education in the teaching of almost any subject that you might think of. They all specify topics to be learned profoundly and ignore most other subjects until the individual topics that are assigned are learned.

The principle of engaging in a broad education is confined (in my opinion) to electric bass players that have not realized that there barely is any precedence for this approach to teaching, if there is any at all.

Okay, there’s a few problems with this.

First, precedence itself means nothing. It shouldn’t be a consideration for anything. It just means that people didn’t do things a certain way for a long time. That has no bearing on whether the way they do things better or worse than a different way.

Second, there are examples of learning broadly everywhere. You chose golf, which is one of the most unathletic of sports, as an example. Look to all of the other sports where the athletes are held to a much higher standard- they all train broadly. Football, basketball, MMA, track and field- they all train the specifics of their sport along with weight lifting, yoga, gymnastics, mental coaching, visualization, etc. The entire history of art education is broad. English and history are vast in what they cover- English includes spelling, grammar, creative writing, non-fiction, poetry, etc. Get a bachelors of science degree and you were going to go over a huge slew of topics. Language is far more often taught outside of school with multiple languages at a time- the most fluent multilingual people are almost always the ones who learn multiple languages at a time. IIRC you mentioned your own father did this. The fact that most schools don’t copy this broad method does not invalidate it- if anything it shows that the schools are not taking the best approach. It’s dogmatic to think that academic method is better simply because it is what people have chosen to teach.

And to my initial point, you still haven’t provided any evidence as to why a narrow education is superior or that a broad bass education doesn’t work. You’ve only provided examples of some people training narrowly while in academia, which neither proves its superiority or the inferiority of training broadly. Do you have any facts to back this up that you’ve found when researching it or is it just an opinion?

 

[5thsand4ths]

Speaking of golf, Tiger Woods on his experience:

"The best thing about those practices was that my father always kept it fun," Tiger wrote in an introduction to Training A Tiger. "It is amazing how much you can learn when you truly enjoy doing something. Golf for me has always been a labor of love and pleasure."

Not everyone learns under a boring regimented structure.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Okay, there’s a few problems with this.

First, precedence itself means nothing. It shouldn’t be a consideration for anything. It just means that people didn’t do things a certain way for a long time. That has no bearing on whether the way they do things better or worse than a different way.

Second, there are examples of learning broadly everywhere. You chose golf, which is one of the most unathletic of sports, as an example. Look to all of the other sports where the athletes are held to a much higher standard- they all train broadly. Football, basketball, MMA, track and field- they all train the specifics of their sport along with weight lifting, yoga, gymnastics, mental coaching, visualization, etc. The entire history of art education is broad. English and history are vast in what they cover- English includes spelling, grammar, creative writing, non-fiction, poetry, etc. Get a bachelors of science degree and you were going to go over a huge slew of topics. Language is far more often taught outside of school with multiple languages at a time- the most fluent multilingual people are almost always the ones who learn multiple languages at a time. IIRC you mentioned your own father did this. The fact that most schools don’t copy this broad method does not invalidate it- if anything it shows that the schools are not taking the best approach. It’s dogmatic to think that academic method is better simply because it is what people have chosen to teach.

And to my initial point, you still haven’t provided any evidence as to why a narrow education is superior or that a broad bass education doesn’t work. You’ve only provided examples of some people training narrowly while in academia, which neither proves its superiority or the inferiority of training broadly. Do you have any facts to back this up that you’ve found when researching it or is it just an opinion?

Thanks for sharing.

To say that golf is one of the most un-athletic of sports, you forget that all sports require both the use of the body and knowledge of how the sport is supposed to function. I'm not sure how you would decide that an "athletic" sport requires more broad training when it doesn't. Weight lifting seems to be a part of more physically demanding sports and so I am not sure how this constitutes an element of broad training by adding weightlifting. Golfers won't do it, but athletes engaged in more physical sports might need it.

If you notice, football players engage in scrimmages, or running specific plays in order to learn them. There is little in sports as narrow in regards to learning as running a play again and again, learning the specific moves exactly as the football players are taught to learn by their coaches. Also, baseball players engaged in batting practice are working on the details of their swing often assigned by the coaches. How much more narrow a point of learning can there be if a bass ball player turns his wrist "like this" in order to improve his swing. This happens all the time in sports training and it surprises me that you weren't aware of this.

 

[Drgonzonm]

Thank you for responding.

To begin, playing a fretted bass is an artistic choice. I never voice any opinions regarding one's art and how they wish to realize it.

Regarding your marching band comments, realize that we are talking about electric bass players not members in a marching band. If the requirements of playing in a marching band differ from the requirements of playing an electric bass, you will have to admit that every single member of a marching band were still taught in a narrow academic approach to playing or else they wouldn't have won their spot in the band. This is the whole point of my post.

It's easy to say bass playing and marching band are dissimilar, very few band instruments are playable by themselves, individual instruments can be used as solo instruments. Most play single notes. I gave list of similarities. Imo the marching band experience is useful for bass players.

Okay, there’s a few problems with this.

First, precedence itself means nothing. It shouldn’t be a consideration for anything. It just means that people didn’t do things a certain way for a long time. That has no bearing on whether the way they do things better or worse than a different way.

Second, there are examples of learning broadly everywhere. You chose golf, which is one of the most unathletic of sports, as an example. Look to all of the other sports where the athletes are held to a much higher standard- they all train broadly. Football, basketball, MMA, track and field- they all train the specifics of their sport along with weight lifting, yoga, gymnastics, mental coaching, visualization, etc. The entire history of art education is broad. English and history are vast in what they cover- English includes spelling, grammar, creative writing, non-fiction, poetry, etc. Get a bachelors of science degree and you were going to go over a huge slew of topics. Language is far more often taught outside of school with multiple languages at a time- the most fluent multilingual people are almost always the ones who learn multiple languages at a time. IIRC you mentioned your own father did this. The fact that most schools don’t copy this broad method does not invalidate it- if anything it shows that the schools are not taking the best approach. It’s dogmatic to think that academic method is better simply because it is what people have chosen to teach.

And to my initial point, you still haven’t provided any evidence as to why a narrow education is superior or that a broad bass education doesn’t work. You’ve only provided examples of some people training narrowly while in academia, which neither proves its superiority or the inferiority of training broadly. Do you have any facts to back this up that you’ve found when researching it or is it just an opinion?

your point regarding bachelors of science. There is a lot of information taught that is not required to be competent in a field. All one needs to do is to look at admiral zumwaldt's nuclear engineering program. 18 months of intensive training equivalent of a bachelor's
The university that provide BS's agree to require certain courses. For example the institute I attended required History majors to have 9 hours of calculus with analytical geometry the extra classes raised one engineering degree to 147 semester hours, another to 142 hours.

@JeffBerlin, maybe you can tell us if the schools that have music programs have the rigorous requirements that universities providing BS's have.
Lors

 

[JeffBerlin]

@JeffBerlin, maybe you can tell us if the schools that have music programs have the rigorous requirements that universities providing BS's have.
Lors

I would see schools like Manhattan School of Music, Juilliard, and other schools that teach music as its priority to its bass students as fabulous schools to attend. These institutions will prepare you for life for a career in music.

There are truly great music schools in the world where some don't recognize the electric bass as a valid instrument to be included in its teaching curriculum. They are aware of the popularity of the instrument. But, a tradition of teaching mandatory methods of music counts more with these schools instead of the shameful attempt to accommodate bass clients in musically poor ways instead of teaching them as a Loyola, or an Eastman School would do. I've seem too many schools alter their curriculums to accommodate the bass clientele, for me, a signal that music education has been compromised.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Thanks for sharing.

To say that golf is one of the most un-athletic of sports, you forget that all sports require both the use of the body and knowledge of how the sport is supposed to function. I'm not sure how you would decide that an "athletic" sport requires more broad training when it doesn't. Weight lifting seems to be a part of more physically demanding sports and so I am not sure how this constitutes an element of broad training by adding weightlifting. Golfers won't do it, but athletes engaged in more physical sports might need it.

If you notice, football players engage in scrimmages, or running specific plays in order to learn them. There is little in sports as narrow in regards to learning as running a play again and again, learning the specific moves exactly as the football players are taught to learn by their coaches. Also, baseball players engaged in batting practice are working on the details of their swing often assigned by the coaches. How much more narrow a point of learning can there be if a bass ball player turns his wrist "like this" in order to improve his swing. This happens all the time in sports training and it surprises me that you weren't aware of this.

I am aware of that. I plainly said that they must learn the specifics of their sport. But you’re pretending that’s where it ends. You’re ignoring all the elements that they must take on to reach the top of their field. “I” don’t decide that an athletic sport needs a broad education- the sport does because those who don’t learn that way fall behind. They learn broadly if they become good, plain and simple. You don’t become great at boxing by only boxing, you don’t become great at football but only playing football, etc. And your example of learning to turn your wrist just so, which is important too, is very specifically technique, which you advise against and is and important part of learning for many things including many sports and arts.

A broad approach very plainly works and works better than a narrow approach in many fields and has done so for centuries. Lots of great bass players learned broadly and teach broadly. You are claiming that it does not work for bass but still have not shown anything to give that idea credence. Is there any evidence or is it just hyperbole for an idea you believe strongly in?

 

[Mechanical]

Having a family member who played sports at a high level I have to disagree that there is a broad approach to sports.

There are many fundamental exercises that are drilled over and over again to the point of exhaustion.

Ask a football player how many times he's hit a tackling dummy or a blocking sled.

In baseball there are thousands upon thousands of ground balls fielded, tons of batting practice, etc.

Weightlifting and running are means to doing the fundamentals of the sport well, and certainly are not the focus of practices. If there weren't the drills for the fundamentals of the sport, you'd just have an athletic person who can't hit a baseball or tackle a RB.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Having a family member who played sports at a high level I have to disagree that there is a broad approach to sports.

There are many fundamental exercises that are drilled over and over again to the point of exhaustion.

Ask a football player how many times he's hit a tackling dummy or a blocking sled.

In baseball there are thousands upon thousands of ground balls fielded, tons of batting practice, etc.

Weightlifting and running are means to doing the fundamentals of the sport well, and certainly are not the focus of practices. If there weren't the drills for the fundamentals of the sport, you'd just have an athletic person who can't hit a baseball or tackle a RB.

Again, I said you need to learn the specifics of the sport. Name all the great football players and basketball players and boxes out there right now who don’t also train other things like weightlifting, running, yoga, stretching, meditation, mental focus, etc. You’re going to come up with very few. That’s the point- very few endeavors exist within a vacuum, and other things inform and better those endeavors. Your painting will improve if you know how to draw and sculpt and know color theory, etc. Same with sports. Who has the best footwork and movement in all of boxing right now? Lomachenko, and he got it from dance. Tell him that he would be better off only focusing on boxing itself and you have made a worse athlete. The general idea that one cannot achieve greatness using broad learning, let alone the idea that it doesn’t work at all, is patently, demonstrably false. So to claim that it is true with bass playing will require some very solid evidence. I’m waiting to see any.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Again, I said you need to learn the specifics of the sport. Name all the great football players and basketball players and boxes out there right now who don’t also train other things like weightlifting, running, yoga, stretching, meditation, mental focus, etc. You’re going to come up with very few. That’s the point- very few endeavors exist within a vacuum, and other things inform and better those endeavors. Your painting will improve if you know how to draw and sculpt and know color theory, etc. Same with sports. Who has the best footwork and movement in all of boxing right now? Lomachenko, and he got it from dance. Tell him that he would be better off only focusing on boxing itself and you have made a worse athlete. The general idea that one cannot achieve greatness using broad learning, let alone the idea that it doesn’t work at all, is patently, demonstrably false. So to claim that it is true with bass playing will require some very solid evidence. I’m waiting to see any.

I think that this will be my last comment about this with you.

I used to box a little. To merely function in sports required various physical additions to training other than stepping into the ring. These training methods such as running, jumping rope and doing pushups and crunches, were mandatory. Without them, it would have been impossible to box with either skill or stamina. Thus, the broad approach that you mentioned regarding sports training doesn't apply, nor does it exist for the most part.

In being taught how to play, it isn't required that a student receive a broad education. Precedence in being taught music (something that I see you don't believe in) shows this. If precedence doesn't resonate with you, then you won't know what I know, that there exists a manner to learn by that still works today as it has worked for a long time.

Also, I don't think that you read my comment in other posts (or maybe here. I don't remember) that being in a self taught environment is precisely the place where a player supposed to experience a broad and limitless education in all the elements of playing that do not require being taught in a music school.

I see that we will have to agree to disagree Wishing you well.

Jeff

 

[JeffBerlin]

Having a family member who played sports at a high level I have to disagree that there is a broad approach to sports.

There are many fundamental exercises that are drilled over and over again to the point of exhaustion.

Ask a football player how many times he's hit a tackling dummy or a blocking sled.

In baseball there are thousands upon thousands of ground balls fielded, tons of batting practice, etc.

Weightlifting and running are means to doing the fundamentals of the sport well, and certainly are not the focus of practices. If there weren't the drills for the fundamentals of the sport, you'd just have an athletic person who can't hit a baseball or tackle a RB.

I agree! Engaging in these extra physical exercises are not examples of a broad approach to playing sports. They are a part of the narrow and specific methods of training necessary if one wants to play those sports in the first place. But, bass education, which deliberately adds classes and encourages students to participate in them for the purpose of aiding their playing or musicality (hence, a broad education) doesn't work to do either, for the most part.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

I think that this will be my last comment about this with you.

I used to box a little. To merely function in sports required various physical additions to training other than stepping into the ring. These training methods such as running, jumping rope and doing pushups and crunches, were mandatory. Without them, it would have been impossible to box with either skill or stamina. Thus, the broad approach that you mentioned regarding sports training doesn't apply, nor does it exist for the most part.

That’s just moving the goalposts. You certainly can box by only boxing- the end result will likely just not be as good. Lots of people used to do just that. The education was broadened when outliers who used different methods were becoming more successful at boxing itself. Weightlifting is a relatively new movement in boxing- instructors used to tell you not to do it. Holyfield was one of the very first. Dance? Ludicrous. But now look at Lomachenko. Head coaches bring in mental coaches. Players use mediatation and sensory deprivation tanks. All of these things are outside of the endeavor itself and work to better it. A broad approach absolutely exists and applies to most sports, along with arts, etc. you may not like them or think people are better off not doing them but that doesn’t change the fact that they are extremely common.

In being taught how to play, it isn't required that a student receive a broad education. Precedence in being taught music (something that I see you don't believe in) shows this. If precedence doesn't resonate with you, then you won't know what I know, that there exists a manner to learn by that still works today as it has worked for a long time.

Not being required neither shows that something doesn’t work nor that it is inferior. And precedence on its own without something to contrast it to means nothing. Not for me, but for everyone. If an ant is crawling across your hand, you can kill it by hitting it with a hammer. Every person in history could get rid of ants on their hand by hitting them with hammers. Then someone comes along and squishes the ant with a napkin instead. The mere existence of a precedence for doing something different doesn’t show that the new method is inferior even if the old method has been proven to work.

Also, I don't think that you read my comment in other posts (or maybe here. I don't remember) that being in a self taught environment is precisely the place where a player supposed to experience a broad and limitless education in all the elements of playing that do not require being taught in a music school.

This is in direct contrast to the thread title. You said that a broad bass education does not work. So it can’t work in a self-taught environment either if it does not work. It can’t be both. If being self-taught is an example of a broad education by your definition, then there would be no good self-taught musicians if a broad education didn’t work. We all know that’s absolutely untrue.

I see that we will have to agree to disagree Wishing you well.

Jeff

I’m sorry if it bothers you that I’m taking issue with this, but you yourself have repeated that you have a real issue with teachers spreading misinformation. This thread is absolutely misinformation- you’ve shown nothing thus far to prove that a broad education doesn’t work or that a narrow education is superior. Forget prove- there’s not evidence that has even been presented. If you want us to hold those other teachers to the high regard of not spreading any misinformation, you need to be held to it as well.

 

[5thsand4ths]

Look at the diverse coaching skillsets in NHL hockey. Long gone are the days when a guy with a tweed hat coached every aspect of a team. The head coach might be the best big-picture guy but he isn't an expert at everything. There could be assistant coaches, a skills development coach, a strength and conditioning coach, a skating coach, a goaltending coach, a video and analytics coach, a special teams coach, a special assignment coach, a nutritionist, a psychologist etc. I saw one team that even had a "tactical aggression consultant". All of this just to help players be better at shooting vulcanized rubber past other players.

People who act like they know it all are kidding themselves. There is more to the world than just one person's point of view on any topic.

 

[JeffBerlin]

That’s just moving the goalposts. You certainly can box by only boxing- the end result will likely just not be as good. Lots of people used to do just that. The education was broadened when outliers who used different methods were becoming more successful at boxing itself. Weightlifting is a relatively new movement in boxing- instructors used to tell you not to do it. Holyfield was one of the very first. Dance? Ludicrous. But now look at Lomachenko. Head coaches bring in mental coaches. Players use mediatation and sensory deprivation tanks. All of these things are outside of the endeavor itself and work to better it. A broad approach absolutely exists and applies to most sports, along with arts, etc. you may not like them or think people are better off not doing them but that doesn’t change the fact that they are extremely common.



Not being required neither shows that something doesn’t work nor that it is inferior. And precedence on its own without something to contrast it to means nothing. Not for me, but for everyone. If an ant is crawling across your hand, you can kill it by hitting it with a hammer. Every person in history could get rid of ants on their hand by hitting them with hammers. Then someone comes along and squishes the ant with a napkin instead. The mere existence of a precedence for doing something different doesn’t show that the new method is inferior even if the old method has been proven to work.



This is in direct contrast to the thread title. You said that a broad bass education does not work. So it can’t work in a self-taught environment either if it does not work. It can’t be both. If being self-taught is an example of a broad education by your definition, then there would be no good self-taught musicians if a broad education didn’t work. We all know that’s absolutely untrue.



I’m sorry if it bothers you that I’m taking issue with this, but you yourself have repeated that you have a real issue with teachers spreading misinformation. This thread is absolutely misinformation- you’ve shown nothing thus far to prove that a broad education doesn’t work or that a narrow education is superior. Forget prove- there’s not evidence that has even been presented. If you want us to hold those other teachers to the high regard of not spreading any misinformation, you need to be held to it as well.

OK! This will REALLY be my last comment on this.

I know that the idea that music education based on historical precedence doesn't count with you. Still, as a simple chore, choose ten or twenty or a hundred musicians in music history and research how they were taught. You will discover that practically everyone no matter their instrument or period in history were taught via a narrow and specific approach to both playing and composition.

Here are three examples of three musicians over the span of a century that learned music in the same narrow manner as all musicians were taught.

"One area of intense scrutiny in Beethoven scholarship concerns the composer’s education and its impact on his identity as an artist. Mann, however, emphasizes Beethoven’s strict training in species counterpoint, rule-based exercises in which melodies are composed against a given line." In other words, a narrow involvement in learning music itself.

Debussy's piano teacher, Mme. Maute (she was the only teacher Debussy had for years) had been a student of Frederic Chopin. His also was a narrow academic experience. In that Mme. Maute knew Chopin, I checked on Chopin's music training.

From 1823 to 1826, Chopin attended the Warsaw Lyceum, where he received organ lessons from Wilhelm Wurfel, one teacher teaching a narrow and specific training. In the autumn of 1826 Chopin began a three-year course with composer Jozef Elsner studying music theory, figured bass and composition, all taught via narrow musical instruction.

Finally, Louis Armstrong was given musical training by Professor Peter Davis by instilling discipline and providing musical training to the otherwise self-taught Armstrong. He was taught specific and narrow ways to play the horn yet again by having only one teacher.

Again, I know that the idea that music education based on precedence doesn't count with you. Because it doesn't, there isn't a way for me to relate with you about this subject of narrow vs broad teaching. Just know that you won't find hardly anyone who was taught via a broad approach to teaching. Shouldn't electric bass teachers be influenced to teach their students as other musicians on nearly every instrument have been taught?

This time, (on this topic) I won't respond anymore. Cheers.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

OK! This will REALLY be my last comment on this.

Choose ten or twenty or a hundred musicians in music history and research how they were taught. You will discover that practically everyone no matter their instrument or period in history were taught via a narrow and specific approach to both playing and composition.

Here are three examples of three musicians over the span of a century that learned music in the same narrow manner as all musicians were taught.

"One area of intense scrutiny in Beethoven scholarship concerns the composer’s education and its impact on his identity as an artist. Mann, however, emphasizes Beethoven’s strict training in species counterpoint, rule-based exercises in which melodies are composed against a given line." In other words, a narrow involvement in learning music itself.

Debussy's piano teacher, Mme. Maute (she was the only teacher Debussy had for years) had been a student of Frederic Chopin. His also was a narrow academic experience. In that Mme. Maute knew Chopin, I checked on Chopin's music training.

From 1823 to 1826, Chopin attended the Warsaw Lyceum, where he received organ lessons from Wilhelm Wurfel, one teacher teaching a narrow and specific training. In the autumn of 1826 Chopin began a three-year course with composer Jozef Elsner studying music theory, figured bass and composition, all taught via narrow musical instruction.

Finally, Louis Armstrong was given musical training by Professor Peter Davis by instilling discipline and providing musical training to the otherwise self-taught Armstrong. He was taught specific and narrow ways to play the horn yet again by having only one teacher.

I know that the idea that music education based on precedence doesn't count with you. Because it doesn't, there isn't a way for me to relate with you about this subject of narrow vs broad teaching. Too bad! But, I have to say that you won't find barely anyone in music who wasn't taught via a narrow regard of music and instrument itself. Shouldn't electric bass teachers be influenced in how to correctly teach their students by learning how practically everyone on practically every instrument in practically the entirety of music have been taught?

I would ask you to do as you ask us to do and think about things logically, not emotionally. You’re responding emotionally because you truly believe in this, but it isn’t logical thinking. Nothing here is an example or evidence of a broad education not working. Look at every single doctor that cured an infection before the advent of penicillin. If I gave you three examples of great doctors that were taught to cure infections over a century without the use of penicillin, would that influence you to not take it if you needed it? Does that precedence count to you? Every great musician throughout all of history prior to 1885 got to their gig without using a car. Are you going to follow that long-standing precedent? Traveling by horse absolutely worked and was shown to work for centuries and centuries. That means it’s better right? Of course not. It’s not discussing any specifics of what it is comparing to, so it cannot be shown to be better nor to show that cars don’t work.

If you really think that no one was taught with a broad approach throughout history, then you would really have no chance of coming up with any evidence of it not working as you would have literally no examples of it not working for people. There wouldn’t even be a need for this topic as no one would be teaching broadly.

Precedence without comparison means nothing. If you have to believe in a system to be able to prove that it’s true and superior, then you are without any real evidence. This is exactly like saying that Shinto is the one true religion and superior to Buddhism, but the only way you can relate it to me is if I already believe in Shinto. Saying that “this thing is right because other people did it and it worked for them” is an appeal to authority and relies on faith, not evidence.

This time, (on this topic) I won't respond anymore. Cheers.

This is your choice. But please remember this is in contrast everything you’ve asked of us. You tell us to question everyone. You tell us to dismiss people advising things they have no evidence for. You wonder why people are not open to your teachings. If you are not holding yourself to questioning everything that you believe in and putting it under a microscope to see if it really holds water, how can you expect others to do the same?

You may indeed be right, but you’ve done nothing to show it here. I’d be happy to continue discussing it and we can go over solid facts that could actually prove or disprove these ideas.

 

[Alper Yilmaz]

Bryan,

I find most of Jeff's comments and views on electric bass education revolved on the discussion around "crafts" versus "arts." I believe his approach more focuses on the "crafts" side of playing an instrument, and he has mentioned a couple of times that he is not talking about creating "art" but rather he cares about the mechanics of playing an instrument, again not from a specific technical perspective but rather its musical aspects. Actually, that can be achieved by a "narrow" sort of education to me, the way Jeff describes. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is superior. In contrast, I think that sort of narrow focus leads most musicians being just musicians, but not artists. One can play the hell out of his/her instrument, but I find most such examples quite tasteless and it really does not appeal to me. Again, this is just my preference; one can like some of the stuff I find lame, and I won't get into that discussion. All good...

I believe reaching a level of certain aesthetics can be achieved either way; you can be extremely focused on your instrument, learn it to its fullest possible extent within a musical context, and then start looking for going over boundaries of the instrument and/or music. Most classically trained musicians who I can also refer to as artists fall in this category for me. Or you can approach the instrument just as another tool to create art. In this second approach, you are fed not only with music and music theory or the specifics of the instrument, but other subject matters (including, but not limited to, philosophy, literature, other forms of art, etc.) that would enhance your intellect and hence contribute to the way you create art. To me, the whole question is revolved around if I want to be an artist or a craftsman/woman.

I might have digressed from the topic a bit, but this is how I read most of the discussion, myself. Sometimes, I believe electric bass players take their instruments way too seriously! I do too, I take my instrument quite seriously. But I try not to get lost in some of the details of the instrument. Who cares? Some of the "artists" I respect a lot that use bass as their main instrument cannot even tell the most basic chord progression, let alone functional harmony. I personally picked a way for myself that is heavily involved with music theory, so day after day, I started caring less about my instrument... Maybe that is why I seldom listen to bass player albums, most of which I find distasteful.

Anyway, this is not to start flame wars but rather to share my two cents...

Best,

Alper