you don't need no teacher...

[Billdar]

Originally posted by Cydonia:

Originally posted by Billdar:

It's probably for the same reason that you guys say "about" like "a boat".

 

Or is that just an Ontario thing?

I thought they (in Ontario) pronounced it "a boot"?

Well I think that it is about halfway between "a boat" and "a boot".

[J_tour]

Originally posted by stepay:

"I wish I WASN'T here." When you use the word "wish" you can't say "was" or "wasn't". It must be "were" or "weren't". No plural is involved.

Isn't that supposed to be one of the few instances where the subjunctive mood in English is preserved? I think it's called a contrafactual use or some such in this particular example -- but can be used with plenty of other verbs, including plainchant, as in, "Were I 'King Of The World'" &c. There may be a few other uses as well which don't imply counter-to-fact statements in English, but I'd have to think about that a few moments. (God forbid I think before posting, so I'll save it for later.)

 

In general, this is the sort of banter up with which I will not put.

[Clarke Wyvill]

Originally posted by kad:

My favorite quote of all time: "I have no respect for a man that can spell a word only one way." - Mark Twain

 

Here's a a good one for you: "But if this ever changing world in which we live in..." - Paul

...makes you give in and cry (daDaDAA)...then live and let die!

 

Really dig the Twain quote...thank God for spell check because I never spell words the same way otherwise.

[Jim Alfredson]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

Originally posted by B3-er:

I'm not saying grammar is useless, but like language itself, it should evolve and change. We do not speak or write the way they did back in Elizabethen England, nor should the rules of speech and writing be the same.

True, language should (and does) evolve, but if you have no rules of structure -- that is, no grammar -- then what exactly is evolving? Take nuthin' from nuthin' and you get ...

Again, I'm not saying there are no rules, I'm saying the rules can and should be broken or the language will not evolve. Especially when it comes to double-negatives. So many people use them, why not just accept them? Do you understand what the person is saying when he/she says, "I don't need no change,"? Then what's the problem?

 

Too many times people use grammar as a form of classism. You know, like Shaw's Pygmalion.

 

I get into this argument all the time with my wife. Its fun!

[MidLifeCrisis]

Originally posted by Cydonia:

Still have a hard time to pronounce those "h" and "th" after all those years.

When I hear a Canadian say that it reminds me of the great scene in Slapshot where nobody can understand the golie when he keeps stressing the word hair but it keeps coming out as air.

[Finale]

Hahaha... You mean the movie with the Hanson brothers?

[latchmo]

I learned theory from books. Glad I did.

But I'm a self taught pianist. My teachers are all my favorite players that I listen to and learn from on CDs and in live clubs and all the musicians that I play music with.

I've been a professional musician all my life - playing only the music that I want to play. I've never done anything else. I don't regret not having any formal piano training.

 

I ain't got no need for no book burning though.

[Dave Horne]

Originally posted by kad:

My favorite quote of all time: "I have no respect for a man that can spell a word only one way." - Mark Twain

 

Here's a a good one for you: "But if this ever changing world in which we live in..." - Paul

 

Grammatical errors in the above:

 

1) The sentence begins with a conjunction, which should be strictly relegated to linking independent clauses.

 

2) The final word "in" is superfluous.

 

3) The final word "in" is the ultimate breach of grammatical etiquette in that it causes the sentence to end with a preposition.

 

See... when it comes to grammar, I ain't no dummy!!

I have no respect for a man who ... not that ....

[JeffLearman]

really? It is perfectly proper grammar.

Spoken as a true ignoramus.

 

The statement "We don't need no education" contradicts itself, and I'm sure PF recognized the irony.

 

Evidently you didn't get the benefit of a 3rd grade education in English.

 

Concerning "need" and musical instruction: Correct. We don't need a teacher. We don't even need to play. We don't need to be any good. We don't need anything, really.

 

There are a number of good self-taught players. (I like to think of myself as one of them.) The thing is, we'll never know how much better (or worse) any given player would have been with more training.

 

We do have countless examples of self-taught musicians who then got training and got much better. (Anyone want to own up?) I don't know of any examples where someone was self-taught and got worse from training, but no doubt it happens.

 

The real question is "Is training of any value?"

 

The answer IMHO is "YES", assuming the teacher is any good. I spent a lot of time retraining to get over my bad habits. On the other hand, maybe if I'd had more training early on, I'd sound more like other trained musicians. (There's good and bad in that.)

[Eric Iverson]

Grammar is a necessary evil!

 

It's funny that I should feel that way, since I make a living as a translator and proofreader. But I would much rather not have to think about it at all. Actually, since I translate from other languages into English, it's not a big issue most of the time.

 

But on occasion, yes indeed I have to look up stuff in English handbooks and what not! Just like I resort to music theory when I have to, when the music isn't flowing like I want it to!

[JeffLearman]

Beginning a sentence with a conjunction is acceptable usage. It's a matter of style to avoid overuse.

 

Subjunctive tense is so rarely used these days, only the strictest grammarians still object to "I wish I was" rather than "I wish I were". Most would probably say that the latter is preferable.

 

"world in which we live in" is one of Paul's worst penned lines. He should be ashamed, especially since there's an easy workaround: "world in which we're living". Furthermore, in one of his recent albums, he even goes so far as to use a word with improper stress to fit the rhythm. My goodness, Paul, only a few hundred songs and look what you've fallen to!

[delirium]

Originally posted by learjeff:

really? It is perfectly proper grammar.

Spoken as a true ignoramus.

 

The statement "We don't need no education" contradicts itself, and I'm sure PF recognized the irony.

 

Evidently you didn't get the benefit of a 3rd grade education in English.

Gush... another one...

I bet you play same way like you think about grammar - predictable...

And I don't really want to get into what benefits din't you get at some grade.

 

And I repeat what I mentioned above already, I used that form intentionally to have double meaning effect. I really cannot understand why

"musicians" here who supposed to have imagination and creativity in their blood cannot get it!

 

I wanted that statement to contradict itself, tritone was not allowed some time ago either, so what?

 

[stepay]

Just for some grammatical clarification (I'm not adamant about this, so write however you'd like, and you'll get no guff from me).

 

The use of the words "if" and "wish" require the what's called the "past subjunctive" (sometimes called the "were subjunctive").

 

Correct - If I were to go to bed now...

Incorrect - If I was to go to bed now...

 

Correct - I wish I weren't so smart.

Incorrect - I wish I wasn't so smart.

 

Correct - I wish I were on a tropical island.

Incorrect - I wish I was on a tropical island.

 

Yes, language is evolving, but for now if you WERE to write any of the incorrect things above in a college English class, you'd be up for public humiliation. As this is just a casual message board, no humiliation is needed.

[JeffLearman]

Originally posted by delirium:

Originally posted by learjeff:

really? It is perfectly proper grammar.

Spoken as a true ignoramus.

 

The statement "We don't need no education" contradicts itself, and I'm sure PF recognized the irony.

 

Evidently you didn't get the benefit of a 3rd grade education in English.

Gush... another one...

I bet you play same way like you think about grammar - predictable...

And I don't really want to get into what benefits din't you get at some grade.

 

And I repeat what I mentioned above already, I used that form intentionally to have double meaning effect. I really cannot understand why

"musicians" here who supposed to have imagination and creativity in their blood cannot get it!

 

I wanted that statement to contradict itself, tritone was not allowed some time ago either, so what?

 

I didn't object to you using the colloquial form. I only objected to your saying that it's proper grammar. I regret my tone and apologize for it; I must have been in a nasty mood.

 

BTW, your statement doesn't contradict itself as PF's does, since your subject was limited to music training. It's just a colloquial form that happens to be poor grammar. But it probably does convey the tone you intended.

[Ed Coury]

Originally posted by stepay:

Of course if we go by what musicians sing in songs, then we're all in a heap of trouble.

 

"Just the two of us, you and I" -- Grover Washington

hmmm....

 

-Just the two of us

-We can make it if we try

-Just the two of us, just the two of us

-Just the two of us

-Building castles in the sky

-Just the two of us, you and I

 

Do we say:

 

-I can make it

-I can build castles or:

 

-Me can make it

-Me can build castles ? :-)

 

The lyrics consist of fragments and phrases, but in this context it seems the grammar may be correct.

 

The following usage is also correct:

 

-It's a quarter to three,

-no one in the place,

-except you and me...

 

We say

 

-(There is) no one in the place except me -- not

-(There is) no one in the place except I

[SpaceNorman]

I ain't gonna weigh in on the raging grammar debate. My take on the whole teacher/no teacher discussion is that it all depends on how much time you have and where you fall on the practice/improvement continuum. Some folks practice for an hour and get an hour better. Others practice for 15 minutes and get hour better. Unfortunately, there are more than a couple (myself included) that practice for an hour and only come away 15 minutes better. Unless you're up in the practice little / get alot better bracket - or have time to burn - working with a teacher is definitely the way to go. Perhaps a thread about what makes for a good teacher would be interesting.

 

The SpaceNorman

[Eric Iverson]

I am aware of "correct" grammar because I NEED to be... I make my living as a translator and proofreader!

 

But I don't object to "wrong" grammar in songs, since most are supposed to be in the vernacular, and not sound like a college professor pontificating. (Though some college professors I have known are perfectly capable of expressing themselves "in the vernacular"!!)

 

Would "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" have worked as "I Cannot Get Any Satisfaction"?

[Ed Coury]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

IBut I don't object to "wrong" grammer in songs, since most are supposed to be in the vernacular

You are absolutely right...other tunes come to mind:

 

I Don't Need No Doctor

 

It Ain't Me

 

...and most of the works of Vanilla Ice ;-)

[delirium]

Originally posted by learjeff:

I regret my tone and apologize for it; I must have been in a nasty mood.

Learjeff,

no problem, I wasn't in a mood either.

It's all right

[Dave The Rave]

Originally posted by Jazz+:

It was a real struggle for Erroll Garner every time he tried to learn a new tune. Learning to read would have been an asset for him.

Really? I'd heard (on NPR) the exact opposite. I distincly recall them saying that people were amazed how quickly he picked up new tunes. Within a matter of a few minutes of hearing them, he would play his version with re-voiced harmony and all....

 

:DTR

[mate stubb]

Originally posted by Ed Coury:

You are absolutely right...other tunes come to mind:

 

I Don't Need No Doctor

This post prompted me to google Humble Pie, which led to YouTube:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZMmV6xXYFw

[Finale]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

Would "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" have worked as "I Cannot Get Any Satisfaction"?

No need to pronounce English perfectly to make a hit.

[delirium]

http://plod.popoever.com/upfiles/img/050901/google_book_burning.jpg

 

what would be the first title to burn ?

how about "Play piano in one hour"

[stepay]

Originally posted by Dave The Rave:

Originally posted by Jazz+:

It was a real struggle for Erroll Garner every time he tried to learn a new tune. Learning to read would have been an asset for him.

Really? I'd heard (on NPR) the exact opposite. I distincly recall them saying that people were amazed how quickly he picked up new tunes. Within a matter of a few minutes of hearing them, he would play his version with re-voiced harmony and all....

 

:DTR

Yes, I had heard the same about him. Dude was a musical genius. Pretty sure he wouldn't have benefitted much if at all from learning to read. The two skills are so different that one could say he would have benefitted from learning to do the Cha Cha. This doesn't mean other people don't benefit, but he was a musical genius. The vast vast majority of people are not. If you're not a musical genius, then you probably ought to learn to read at least a little bit. Of course, I still greatly value the ability to play without sheet music, but that doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T be ale to read it if someone gave you some. Just be prepared to play without it.

[Dave Horne]

We're still discussing whether some folks would benefit from being musically literate?

 

You might have a great ear but you still have to reply on your aural memory for everything - very inefficient. I know and play hundreds of tunes but I like to be able to glance at a lead sheet to be sure the melody is nailed correctly.

 

I write phone numbers and addresses down because I don't feel like memorizing everything. Why should music be any different.

 

I am amazed that this is still discussed. Being able to read music is a tool, a valuable tool. You can go places without that tool, but you can't go everywhere.

[ITGITC]

http://membre.megaquebec.net/skriabin/0.gif

 

Cydonia, that's got to be one of the best avatars I've ever seen.

 

Excellent creativity.

[Finale]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Cydonia, that's got to be one of the best avatars I've ever seen.

Well, thanks but it's just a still pic of a controller.

 

If you're seeing anything more than that, it's probably a flashback from some past drug use.

[delirium]

Originally posted by stepay:

Dude was a musical genius. [/QB]

there are no geniuses, just guys who didn't get any lessons...

[NoahZark]

With respect to the original question about the value of music teachers, I think it's interesting that we're having this debate in a keyboard forum, where many of the contributors are jazz and/or blues players. Frankly, if this were a violin or cello forum populated mainly by classical musicians, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone arguing in favor of going the "self-taught" route. I don't have any hard evidence supporting this, but my guess is that, if you looked at the musicians in the US's greatest orchestras (e.g, the New York Philharmonic, the National Symphony, the Cleveland Orchestra), you won't find a SINGLE musician who was self-taught. (Actually, if someone has evidence to the contrary, let me know, because I think that person's story would make a great movie.) So, if a young violinist -- even one who exhibits "musical genius" at a very early age -- dreams of playing for the New York Philharmonic, it would be a big mistake in my view for an adult to advise that child not to get a qualified teacher. For goodness sake, even world-class solo artists like Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman studied with teachers well after their "genius" became known.

 

Noah

 

P.S. One quick comment on the grammar debate: In my opinion, it's important to use proper grammar. If, however, the rest of you want to go around sounding like uneducated (but "creative") idiots, more power to you.

[lerber3]

I suppose that has to do with the fact that the piano is conceptually the simplest instrument to play. Every note is visible, and each note can only be played on exactly one key. Any moron can press a note softly or hammer to evoke the exact same sound that the most highly-trained virtuoso can make... perhaps not the desired volume or the correct sequence/combination of notes.

 

The learning curve for piano starts very shallow... plink out a tune with one finger within minutes. This is very encouraging for a motivated person... not to mention that vacant pianos can be found in many places. The learning curve gradually steepens as more advanced techniques are needed to advance.

 

Now pick up a trumpet or a violin (if you can convince a musician to let your touch their instrument, Never mind spitting into it)... the initial learning curve is pretty much vertical. Simply playing a note correctly might require months or years of training and practice.

 

An entry-level guitar is cheap (usually free) and with a few minutes of instruction, you can be kumbaya-ing a 3 chord song. It is likely that in the guitar forum, this discussion would be ridiculous as a high fraction of the forumites are self-taught, and there are some basic guitar styles that do not require extensive training.

 

Drums and learning to drum has similar characteristics to guitar... many drummers are self-taught.

 

Does that explain why this discussion occurs in a keyboard forum?