Scales/teaching etc

Hey Aaron..thanks for the post; again, I'm gonna write a brief reply, not commenting on each topic, just some sort of general thoughts. You mentioned teaching; I too am very concerned with unqualified teachers, and from the manymany students I've taught over the years, I'm convinced that most guitar teachers aren't very good. I get students telling me all sorts of bizarre things about teachers they have had, and I often have to do a lot of remedial work. I have a number of guidelines for teaching: first, they are hiring me to perform a service for them, so I always ask what they want to learn...and since I play a very wide range of music, I can usually accommodate whatever direction they want to go. But, the most important thing is this: always start a student right where THEY are at, not where I think they ought to be, or where I want them to be. And, to try and push a student into something they are not ready for can really mess them up, so it's vital to know how much info to give them. And, after all these years, I think I've got that down ok. I have a wonderful rapport with my students, and have had some of them for years.
As far as scales, the Harmonic Series, tuning systems, and my concept of all that, I have a few different ways of looking at all that. If, for example, I have a student that wants to learn a particular style, say jazz, well, if you want to play jazz, then you have to look at what the jazz players do, how the music is structured, and what you have to do to sound like a jazz player. So, since jazz is based around the concept of harmonized scales and the chord/scale relationships (not to mention the rhythmic concepts), that's what I teach them. If you don't understand how chords are built from scales, you'll have a hell of a time playing "Donna Lee," that's for sure. So, whatever style someone wants to learn, I try to show them the way the style is constructed, the fundamental scalar/chordal/rhythmic concepts, and then proceed from there. I also try to get them interested in the history/social evolution of a style, cause a lot of important info is contained there...how did blues develop, under what social conditions, where did musicians play (a lot of Delta guys played house parties, for instance), all that kind of stuff. Again, you have to teach a style the way it IS, so whatever scales/rhythmic concepts are contained in a style, we work with those ideas, otherwise you cannot really play with the folks who are proficient in said style. And, if I can integrate tuning concepts into my teaching, I do..and many of my students understand the basics of tuning (overtones, spiral of 5ths etc), and I try and show them how the 12 tone eq tempered system came about, and it's similarities/differences from the tuning of other cultures.
But, I see scales/chords/arpeggios/tuning systems etc. only as TOOLS to reach a much more important goal, which is the making of some real and profound music. And this is where my real concept of music comes into play. I see the Universe as a giant field of frequencies, basically...it appears that hydrogen is the basic building block of all matter, and it's pretty amazing to see all of the physical entities that came from such a simple origin. How hydrogen atoms became galaxies, stars, planets, moons, and then human life is a big time mystery, and, to me, the only real game in town. I see the whole Universe as a giant musical instrument of sorts, and there are zillions and zillions of radio waves, x rays, gamma rays, and such, all zooming around and interacting in myriad ways. The Earthly concept of overtones, and the scales that we can construct from combining different intervallic structures, is pretty teensy compared with the magnitude of the vastness that we live in, so when I think of scales and such, I believe that there may be manymany cultures throughout the Universe who are doing things with sound and frequencies that we cannot yet comprehend. Perhaps there are beings who can hear tones far beyond our limited abilities, and they could create a music of vastness that dwarfs anything we can imagine...why not? The term interval, for example, doesn't just mean whole and half steps...to me, it could be the distance from a nucleus of an atom to an electron, or the space between two galaxies...and maybe there's some music to be made there.
So, I certainly don't limit my musical concepts to what we have achieved here on this planet...all the musical concepts we have developed here on Earth are only one tiny part of a rather unbelievable cosmos, which we have only recently even started taking pictures of (of course, Europeans just discovered galaxies about 85 years ago, but they were there for a long time). My way of thinking about music is fairly unlimited, and I'm always open to new ideas and am delighted if somebody shows me something I hadn't yet thought of. As long as it's done in a peaceful and respectful way, learning is the greatest gift I can think of...and that's why I'm honored to be a musician, cause there is no end to what we can discover...best...HHH
microstick.net

Neil,

Thanks for an excellent post. While I've been teaching for 6 or so years, I've
only recently had a really large load of students. Previously I was too busy in
school and such. I'll grant that I don't have a ton of experience relatively so,
but I've been a teacher and mentor since elementary school, when I helped
tutor other students. Teaching has always been a major part of my life.

My biggest foundation of my teaching is not to present something as more
than it is. And that includes not claiming to know things or styles that I don't.
And I think that in the end, it is one reason I feel I do a good job.

Beyond that, I feel it is more important for me to teach the attitudes and
skills that are used in learning than to teach specific elements of some
structured style. Maybe part of it is that I have very few students who
really know what they want to learn already. Most of my students simply
want to play music and don't have a lot of direction really. Since I am a
mediocre guitarist beyond my classical trainging (mediocre by my very
high standards), I don't advertise that I can teach subtleties of shredding
or jazz comping. I advertise that I can teach students to explore the
creative side of music and learn skills that will help them blaze their own
trail in their musical lives. That's what I'm good at. I can teach classical
guitar, and beginner pop/jazz/folk/rock/blues styles. I can teach composition
and general musicality and improvisation and artistic interpretation, those
are my strong points. And I understand enough about all the styles to
know how NOT to teach anything really wrong that will have students
learn bad habits.

Anyway, I'm not against teaching the rules of jazz chord/scale construction
to a jazz student. But I feel it is a disservice to not add the comment that
this sort of structure is only one of many ways to look at how chords and
scales are constructed, and to also encourage the student to listen closely
and decide for themselves whether these ideas fit with how they perceive
the music. I don't like seeing someone accept things by rote without
question. And since SOME of the theory out there was written by people
who accepted things without question, we are stuck with a world where
some aspects of theories really don't coincide with what forces really
drive the music. And I just think it is important to teach students that
this questions and conflicts and uncertainties exist. Then I'll leave it to
them if they want to get interested in that or would rather just learn the
easiest way to be a practical player and not worry about it.

It's like Gene said about his teacher saying about 7 note scales "that's just
how it is" like it had to be that way. I bet the teacher didn't even know.
And I guess I rebel against that sort of teaching a bit. So I tend to be
a bit relativistic, and emphasize to students that "it doesn't have to be
a seven note scale!"

-Aaron

Yo!

I've been teaching guitar (off and on) for 25+ years, and lately
very basic clarinet, sax, percussion, and musicianship, to beginners.

I pretty much love it all, and a glance at my (sadly neglected,
lately) personal library should make it obvious I'm somewhat of a
Theory Geek...Which means yeah, I'm into it, and I'll certainly try
to help someone understand and learn it, if they're so inclined.
But I see my job as helping them to enjoy life more, not less.

My "agenda" is to try to tap into whatever gets the student excited
about practicing (and studying). I try to be especially careful not
to impose MY taste in music on my students, OR what I think has been
important in the history of music. (If they get serious, they
figure it out themselves, and most of my students have at least
gotten more serious about what they listen to, to my great and
enduring satisfaction. Then all I have to do is point them to the
sources, because they directly (!) ask me to. Lovely.)

After that, I try not to impose my worldview on them, except to
maybe (!) try to get them to think once, if not twice, about their
particular likes and dislikes, in a gentle way. There's usually
some point at which a prejudice has to be addressed. Not
necessarily overcome, just acknowledged, I guess. [It was Harry
Partch and tuning science that probably eventually led me to
reconcile with my own cultural "traditions", and to move on from
them, and within them. But maybe that's another story.]

The best thing I think I do is to make the connections between many
different styles and techniques, and to try to connect young
students to the relationships between music and the other things
they're compelled to study, where possible. (Not to mention what
they're really into!) Often just being the 'music guy' means that
they look to me for fun OUTSIDE their other lessons, or if they're
older, to relieve the pressures of "work". Which means supporting
their "outlaw" impulses, encouraging them to be (somewhat?)
outrageous, and just basically having a good time with it, while at
the same time (surreptitiously?) working very hard. I hope. That's
generally how _I_ work, in any case.

I get VERY happy when I've got them laughing and joking AND working
their asses off, and it's happened enough to keep me doing it, for
now. Whether it's about Mozart, Bird, Steve Vai, Ali Akbar Khan,
Bata, Gustav Holst, Albert Ayler, gagaku, or The Dixie Hummingbirds,
what matters is, IT'S FUN. For me, it is. They are.

Cheers,

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...>
wrote:
>
> Neil,
>
> Thanks for an excellent post.