Jeff Berlin asks - Why Do Some Object to My Educational Views

[JeffBerlin]

This subject seems important to chat about. I have views about learning that are standard fare in the teaching of other instruments. But electric bass education deviated away from teaching in the only validated way that provided everyone the skill to play their instrument for the reason that it was built. Even being self taught, the only other manner to learn by, doesn't guarantee you the musical improvement or acquiring the skills that practicing written music gives you.

People that don't pay to learn how to play are except from any comment about learning that I make because they aren't seeking musical improvement to where what I say has to be embraced. EVERYONE is taught by other people. We are shown music, lines and all kinds of things related to playing. But we aren't beholden to embrace anything we are taught if we don't wish to because neither the teacher nor you have that special agreement that their knowledge must be adhered to, not like there is in a classroom situation.

It always struck me as interesting about how some people not only object to my views but can get downright furious about them. This point strikes me as weird as the idea of learning is anything but based in emotion or spirit. In essence, learning how to play is similar in emotion and passion as doing sit ups or raking the yard; it is a chore, but a chore of our choosing. In this thinking, practicing musical content can be fun as you steadily see the musical improvement that comes to you.

I wrote this post to get right into the heart of this matter (if people wish to do so.) I would invite people that not only disagree with my views but who are angry with me for the manner that I share them. I criticize an industry, never an individual nor a name and I do so because few, if anyone in the educational industry seems interested in seeing how all instruments are taught. I love music and I want to help people and feel that sharing thoughts that have merit is a good thing to do.

You are welcome to share your thoughts and we can chat about this if you wish.

 

[skwee]

I don't know why people get so bent out of shape from reading your (or other teachers') experiences and views on learning. I hope you take it in stride

In my own teaching and life journey, I've found that there are different times for different aspects of making art and learning how to do so. Technical learning and artistic learning. Rudiments and polishing.

Most of my students are already professional or adult avocational singers. Most of them come to me looking for some touch-up on their sound-making technique (if they have found inefficiencies or problem areas), and for coaching on how to be more effective communicators. I can teach both, but am probably better at the latter.

In reading some of your commentary regarding musical learning, it would seem that you believe that just about everyone can learn about audience communication, the languages of different styles, and interaction with other musicians on his/her own.

I wonder if Time may be a big factor here, but it would seem my teaching speciality is in breaking down the steps for students to learn deportment, communication, more advanced creativity, and stylistic guidelines to be more effective artists. In other words, I pick up where the "learning" teacher leaves off. Again, maybe this kind of teaching is speeding up the clock on the "self-learning" side, but since it is a large part of my career, I can't help but think that some musicians do need to be taught these things, or at least to be given awareness of the many factors involved.

I for one am glad you are back here at Talkbass--always nice to get some challenge to my perspectives on this musical journey!

 

[mambo4]

I think unskillful delivery clouds your fundamental point.

 

[Rev J]

I think part of the problem that music and art students face eventually is the purpose of education. I have dropped out of music school and have friends who have dropped out of art school for the same reasons. We have been led to believe that art and music education is there to directly facilitate and stimulate our creativity when it is actually there to give us the technical skills to express our creativity. The purpose of music and art education is teaching what the tools are and how to use them in a practical manner almost the same way that one uses a 3D printer or a CAD machine. When the student expects to learn the art of music and not the craft of music which they perceive as the purpose of music education then you generally get a negative emotional response.

C/S,
Rev J

 

[Spin Doctor]

We have been led to believe that art and music education is there to directly facilitate and stimulate our creativity when it is actually there to give us the technical skills to express our creativity.

So what does this mean? That you expected to be taught how to become creative?

And how is being given technical skills so bad? If it happens that the student is a creative moron, then at least he can still get gigs and/or feed himself.

 

[Gorn]

It's not your views. It's your presentation. It comes off, to some, as preachy and pretentious. You're an accomplished and talented musician and teacher but your attitude, at least in writing, is very holier than thou, in my opinion.

 

[mambo4]

We have been led to believe that art and music education is there to directly facilitate and stimulate our creativity when it is actually there to give us the technical skills to express our creativity.

Not to derail, but Speaking from a visual art standpoint, I saw the opposite. The best artists , skill -wise, do not come from university art departments but from trade schools. Fine art died as a discipline in the early 20th century. It is the lesser "commercial" art actually takes skill to get paid. When I studied commercial art , we had to work hard to master technical ability. In a university fine art class it was more of an experimental free for all.

Perhaps music is different.

 

[Spin Doctor]

It's your presentation. It comes off, to some, as preachy and pretentious.

I think people were expecting the "new and improved"... Nope.

Same ol' same ol'... It's about time folks accepted that some things are never gonna change...

 

[Spin Doctor]

When I studied commercial art , we had to work hard to master technical ability. In a university fine art it was an experimental free for all.

I've always sort of thought that all musicians or artists needed to have a solid understanding of Getting Paid 101. I will admit that it is sad and discouraging that genuine creativity isn't rewarded to a greater degree.

 

[mobdirt]

got to balance the money gigs and the fun gigs ratio for some kind of sanity

 

[Gorn]

I think people were expecting the "new and improved"... Nope.

Same ol' same ol'... It's about time folks accepted that some things are never gonna change...

I'm not familiar with the old drama and I'm not familiar with his work. I've seen a handful of videos on youtube and I've seen his recent threads here. So as an outside observer looking at his style, I see someone with a lot of insight and very little couth. Titling each thread as a sentence that speaks about yourself in the third person doesn't help. So I have no problem with the man or his character. Just the way he communicates.

 

[Marial]

How one says things is often as important as what is said. Promote your ideas without contrasting them to others, and without attacks on the thoughts/methods of others. Based on the evidence, this is not something you are capable of doing. Inevitably your educational ideas are presented in an oppositional and antagonistic fashion.

 

[Rev J]

So what does this mean? That you expected to be taught how to become creative?

And how is being given technical skills so bad? If it happens that the student is a creative moron, then at least he can still get gigs and/or feed himself.

It isn't bad. It just breaks down to the difference between what your expectations are and what the realities are. For example when I was in music school I thought I was going to try and mix Jazz with Heavy Metal and thought that I would get some type of reward for doing so. I realized after dissatisfaction and leaving the academic environment that the purpose was to teach me the technical requirements of Jazz.

Not to derail, but Speaking from a visual art standpoint, I saw the opposite. The best artists , skill -wise, do not come from university art departments but from trade schools. Fine art died as a discipline in the early 20th century. It is the lesser "commercial" art actually takes skill to get paid. When I studied commercial art , we had to work hard to master technical ability. In a university fine art class it was more of an experimental free for all.

These are just the observations that I have made in talking to art students especially frustrated art students.

I'll make another comparison. Say your goal is to restore or make replicas of Louis XIV furniture which is very ornate and intricate. The first thing you should be learning is how to use the tools on at least a rudimentary level, how to work with the materials that were used in the construction, what the finishes were, how the ornamentation was done etc. and how these elements combined to make this very ornate furniture.

Now let's say your goal is to learn music. There are certain tools that you need to learn like harmony, melody, rhythm, technique, form etc. and how they fit together to create music.

As I have gotten older my goals have changed. When I was younger my goal was to be a bassist now my goal is to be a musician who plays bass. To me the difference is that a bassist has a job to do in the arrangement and he does his job. A musician understands every ones job in the arrangement and does his job.

C/S,
Rev J

 

[JKos]

How one says things is often as important as what is said. Promote your ideas without contrasting them to others, and without attacks on the thoughts/methods of others. Based on the evidence, this is not something you are capable of doing. Inevitably your educational ideas are presented in an oppositional and antagonistic fashion.

This.

- John

 

[SteveCS]

I think part of the problem that music and art students face eventually is the purpose of education. I have dropped out of music school and have friends who have dropped out of art school for the same reasons. We have been led to believe that art and music education is there to directly facilitate and stimulate our creativity when it is actually there to give us the technical skills to express our creativity. The purpose of music and art education is teaching what the tools are and how to use them in a practical manner almost the same way that one uses a 3D printer or a CAD machine. When the student expects to learn the art of music and not the craft of music which they perceive as the purpose of music education then you generally get a negative emotional response.

C/S,
Rev J

If you understand the difference between art/creativity and the craft so clearly, and you recognise that being in possession and full control of craft is a pre-requisite to creativity, why did you drop out?

 

[Rev J]

If you understand the difference between art/creativity and the craft so clearly, and you recognise that being in possession and full control of craft is a pre-requisite to creativity, why did you drop out?

It wasn't until about 20 years later. Since I can read music and understand theory now I have a greater set of resources to learn on my own. For example I am working through "The Tony Grey Bass Academy" book on my own and Ted Peases "Jazz Composition" book from Berklee College of Music. I was also going to a college with other areas of study and a lot of professional college students. I just got fed up with the environment. I also needed to grow up a bit,

C/S,
Rev J

 

[Ant Illington]

First, I haven't read anything of yours with which I disagree. I picked up bass 28 yrs ago and I'd be much better if I learned your way.

People can attack your ideas for many reasons, most likely reason is because you present things in absolutes, or it comes across as absolute. Your ideas may very well be absolute facts if an Average Joe (not gifted with a great ear) wants to attain a certain level of play in the most efficient way possible.

It is easy for people to disagree for a number of reasons. 1) They just want to be a functional bassist that lays down a groove in simple, diatonic music. 2) They can't comprehend the depth possible in music so they actively dismiss anything that they see no reason to know. 3) They are gifted with great ears and can't understand that other people will need to learn some theory/harmony to open up their ears. I can't emphasize this one enough as they will cite that the world is littered with "masters" past and present who can't read a note or explain the content of a C Dom 7.

So writing off groups 1 and 2 who will argue with you is relatively easy because they don't need/want to go further. The trick is convincing group 3 who are so gifted that they can't even relate to those who don't hear music, particularly advanced music, as well as they do. Maybe some in group 3 even have an interest in teaching in a way that is "less good" than yours- They can nefariously keep students longer for more money or, more likely, keep students around longer doing more fun stuff, more immediately gratifying stuff. "Hey, Kid, would you rather learn to slap or learn YYZ or 24K Magic or should we learn some theory, harmony and reading?" You get the idea. I don't think you will change the minds of group 3 either.

Let me turn the tables on the guys who want to learn to groove and be "tight" or who are proponents of that stuff before learning music generally:

LEARN TO GROOVE? Ha. Are you kidding me? That's the easy part. Music is generally divided into nice, convenient, concrete beats and subdivisions thereof. Usually no worse than 16th notes- that's only 4 different places within a beat. How hard is that to learn? Even with all of the permutations, it's not that hard once you can see/feel/hear a few combinations of note/rest patterns that you can teach yourself extremely quickly. It is very concrete stuff. Google Cliff Engel Sight read for bass and you can see. On the other hand, any one pitch can go to any one of 11 other pitches at any time. Notes can be added on top of any other note and each of those notes can go to any one of another 11 notes. It is orders of magnitude more complex than learning rhythm or slap or fast plucking. Yeah, people have been inventing, implying, playing crazy harmony forever, self-taught, even. However, it is much easier to "reinvent" the slap/speed/rhythm wheel at home by yourself and with some recordings than it is to reinvent for yourself the wheel of theory and harmony. Therefore, if you want to be great like that, which would you be better off paying a teacher to teach you- mechanics or music?

And to those who say "oh, if grooving is so easy why do so many suck at it?" Maybe the answer is lack of time spent playing, listening and/or serious contemplation of those 4 subdivisions within any beat? "What about 'feel?' You know playing precisely on the beat all of the time is so sterile and boring?" I guarantee that something as nebulous as that comes with time spent playing, or you naturally have it. Keith Richards and Ron Wood laid down slinky lines because they feel it in themselves. And playing on the beat is no more boring to a good ear than is playing the same old harmonically-boring, diatonic/pentatonic-with-added-blue-note crap all of the time. Regardless, it's a false premise to resort to saying groove and feel are more important than learning music (remember monster-ear guys we are talking about people who don't have a god-given great ear- most of us) if one wants to do much more than rock and roll.

The summary, Jeff, is that the average person is average. 49.99999% are below average. Many of the rest are not very much above average. None of them can even fathom the depths of music that are possible. An other many know that there is more but they don't care to even wander outside I ii iii IV V vi and that other one notated with the circle with the slash thru it and a 7 They will never understand and, instead, some of them will prod you. Then there are some of the geniuses (not said sarcastically) who don't need to understand any of what you teach, they just hear it (the number 3 people above). This leaves you with a relatively small audience. Enjoy THEM.

Simply make your case (repeatedly even) and do not engage with naysayers- the naysayers either don't understand or they don't need to understand. Nobody can LOGICALLY argue that you are wrong. Some of them probably readily agree with you to a large degree but their feelings may be hurt that you are somewhat dismissive of their methods, their methods which put food on the table- teaching paying customers what the customer wants to learn- remember who their average customer is. Average and aims for nothing more.

I wish I learned your way. I should be a much better bass player after 20+ years but my foundation has holes in it because I learned too much technique and song-learning rather than music-learning.

You are probably a tortured-genius, or something akin to that. Remember that when you try to change the world the world usually changes you. You have all of the respect of the people who matter to you. Enjoy it. Keep putting your word out but don't engage the naysayers. The right students will continue to find you.

 

[mobdirt]

good ears need to be combined with an observant mentality that tests what is being tried to achieve kind of like an auditor
the need to learn needs to be relentless and without ego and broadminded
times have changed and so have the ways of learning and in turn so have the ways of teaching
they are a changing

 

[JW56789]

Jeff, I have great respect for your accomplishments and your teaching endeavors. BTW, those new Corts look great (though I wish five had that red wood face like the four . . . . ).

You'll excuse me for asking, but what exactly is your method that seems to have generated such consternation in certain quarters? Somehow I've not run across exactly what it is that has 'em out with torches and pitchforks. Couldja gimme the USA TODAY summation ? ? ? I'll admit I've not followed everything you do, so I'm not current on what the rub is . . . .

I studied classical piano from kindergarten through 12th grade, taught by two North Texas graduates, and one had also been to Julliard. I learned to read, count the music I was reading, with some harmony and scale and sight singing and metronomes until I could hold my own internal clock, and worked up the usual Bach, Beethoven, etc., pieces you'd think. If you're along those lines (the way, you point out, most instruments are taught), I'm there. I see lots of BS Bass Methods about The Groove and Super Slap, and on and on, which to me are useless. Am I getting it?

Thanks ! !

 

[buldog5151bass]

A number of people are just unwilling to admit that music is a discipline - no different than medicine, history, or anything else. They think it is something you can just "feel". These are often the same people who say that knowing music theory is an impediment be being a good musician, or that smoking marijuana or taking other drugs improves their performance.

Also, to be honest, you are rather outspoken about your opinions. As a result those who agree with you will agree more strongly, and those who disagree will disagree with the same vigor. Nothing wrong with that - human nature is what it is.