you don't need no teacher...

[delirium]

If, however, the rest of you want to go around sounding like uneducated (but "creative") idiots, more power to you.

Id rather sound like creative uneducated idiot than educated, stubborn moron...

because the former pushes the world forward.

[NoahZark]

Originally posted by delirium:

Id rather sound like creative uneducated idiot than educated, stubborn moron...

because the former pushes the world forward.

It's hard for me to tell if you're serious (for the record, I was not), but are you honestly suggesting that using bad grammar pushes the world forward? I certainly don't regret that we no longer speak like they did in Elizabethan England, but let's not get carried away either. And let's certainly not diminish the significance of musical "creativity" by equating it to "creativity" that manifests itself in the use of "alternative" (read: poor) grammar. Do you hail Ebonics as a creative force for good in the world?

 

Noah

[keysplease]

Originally posted by lerber3:

I suppose that has to do with the fact that the piano is conceptually the simplest instrument to play.

Not quite:

 

http://www.daveheinzel.com/blog/cowbell.jpg

[stepay]

Originally posted by 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.

Dave, this topic will be discussed by people until the end of time, so don't be surprised by it. I also play hundreds of tunes, and I always remember the melody. Music is that way for some people -- unlocks unbelievable memory -- kind of why people sing songs (like the alphabet song) to remember how something goes. For me, it's not even like I spend a lot of time memorizing a melody. If I hear the song once or twice, then I've got it...seemingly forever.

 

Serious value in learning to read though for some people, and even the vast majority depending on the type of music -- I agree with you there.

[mate stubb]

Keysplease,

 

You are going to fit in around here just fine!

 

[NoahZark]

Originally posted by mate_stubb:

Keysplease,

 

You are going to fit in around here just fine!

 

+1

 

Noah

[stepay]

Originally posted by 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.

Noah,

 

An interesting point you make, but to expand that in the other direction, if you go over to the guitar forum, you'll find that most of them are self-taught -- even some damn fine ones. Self-taught doesn't mean without some instruction from some source -- just that you gathered the sources and taught yourself. Jimi Hendrix was self taught...so was Clapton and Stevie Ray Vaughan. Jeff Healey also. Scores of awesome guitarists were self taught.

 

I think the reason that so many orchestral instrument players are not self taught and so many guitarists are self taught has more to do with the culture of the type of music (and the instrument) they play than anything else. I think more classical instrument players...ESPECIALLY those that ONLY play melody...could have taught themselves if it at all were done (and I think it's very possible to do). Many guitarists who decide to teach themselves probably would have had an easier time with a teacher too, so it swings both ways.

 

I work with a guy who plays every weird instrument you can imagine, plus all the normal ones:

 

Piano

Guitar

Flute

Saxophone

Tenor Guitar

Mandolin

Ukelele

Harmonica

Bodhran

Violin (fiddle)

Concertina

Accordian

Button Accordian

Penny Whistle

 

He's amazing at all of them, and he's self taught on all of them. I don't even think he's all that musically gifted either (I think I have a better ear than he does for example, at least based on our playing together several times) -- he just wants to play them all and made it happen. Also, yes he does read sheet music, but he taught himself to read. Most of the music he plays is Celtic, and at least at the Celtic sessions around here, sheet music is frowned upon, so he never uses it.

 

I'm all for teachers as I learned a great deal from two teachers (one a guitarist and one a blues piano player). I though am not a musical genius.

[Jim Alfredson]

Originally posted by NoahZark:

Originally posted by delirium:

Id rather sound like creative uneducated idiot than educated, stubborn moron...

because the former pushes the world forward.

It's hard for me to tell if you're serious (for the record, I was not), but are you honestly suggesting that using bad grammar pushes the world forward? I certainly don't regret that we no longer speak like they did in Elizabethan England, but let's not get carried away either. And let's certainly not diminish the significance of musical "creativity" by equating it to "creativity" that manifests itself in the use of "alternative" (read: poor) grammar. Do you hail Ebonics as a creative force for good in the world?

 

Noah

Let's think about it this way: If everyone spoke and wrote the same way, wouldn't that be a bit boring?

 

Every language has dialects. Should all southern white folk get rid of their various drawls and slang and start talking the Queen's English? Should folks in Boston start pronouncing their "R"s?

 

Language, like music, is evolving, fluid, and ever-changing. Sure there are rules, but again like in music, the best results come when the rules are broken.

[stepay]

Originally posted by B3-er:

Originally posted by NoahZark:

Originally posted by delirium:

Id rather sound like creative uneducated idiot than educated, stubborn moron...

because the former pushes the world forward.

It's hard for me to tell if you're serious (for the record, I was not), but are you honestly suggesting that using bad grammar pushes the world forward? I certainly don't regret that we no longer speak like they did in Elizabethan England, but let's not get carried away either. And let's certainly not diminish the significance of musical "creativity" by equating it to "creativity" that manifests itself in the use of "alternative" (read: poor) grammar. Do you hail Ebonics as a creative force for good in the world?

 

Noah

Let's think about it this way: If everyone spoke and wrote the same way, wouldn't that be a bit boring?

 

Every language has dialects. Should all southern white folk get rid of their various drawls and slang and start talking the Queen's English? Should folks in Boston start pronouncing their "R"s?

 

Language, like music, is evolving, fluid, and ever-changing. Sure there are rules, but again like in music, the best results come when the rules are broken.

Agreed brother!

[delirium]

Originally posted by NoahZark:

Do you hail Ebonics as a creative force for good in the world?

[/QB]

Im far from approving profanation of English language (as Ebonics is). Grammar is important same way like theory of music has its meaning.

But it doesnt mean you cannot improvise a little and stretch the rules.

This is exactly like poetry. Lets do not exaggerate also, all I did (and Pink Floyd)

was using double negation, which is cool and intelligent use of language to play with.

 

It has nothing to do for me with bending grammar,

or using stupid popular shortcuts etc. like many do.

[NoahZark]

Originally posted by B3-er:

Should folks in Boston start pronouncing their "R"s?

Since you asked, yes!

 

Originally posted by B3-er:

Language, like music, is evolving, fluid, and ever-changing. Sure there are rules, but again like in music, the best results come when the rules are broken.

Sorry, but I think this "language-is-analogous-to-music" thing is a bit silly. Furthermore, where the "rules" at issue are the rules of grammar, I simply disagree that the "best results" come when such rules are broken. (Perhaps it might help if one of you arguing for "grammatical creativity" could provide me an example of intentionally improper grammar that yielded a good result.)

 

As I see it, breaking musical "rules" is not the least bit equivalent to breaking language "rules" (at least where the language rules at issue relate to proper grammar). First, music, almost by definition, has no rules. Has anyone ever been taught that a rock song must use a I-IV-V-I progression or that a concerto written in a major key must include a variation on its main theme using the minor? These may be well-established musical "traditions," but they are not "rules," and I think it's perfectly appropriate for musicians to use them or discard them as they see fit in the name of "creativity."

 

Grammar, however, is simply different. To me, proper grammar is more equivalent to math or (to use perhaps a better analogy) spelling.

 

In math, two plus two equals four. The correct answer is simply not up for debate, and if, in a moment of "inspired creativity," your child answers "five" on a test in school, he of she will get the question wrong, and rightly so. (Anyone care to dispute this?)

 

Similarly, the proper spelling of the word "you" is "you," not "u," no matter how many teenagers insist on using the latter in text messages to friends.

 

Finally, a singular subject takes a singular verb and a plural subject takes a plural verb (e.g., you don't say "They is..."). This is simply not up for debate. You cannot justify discarding this rule in the name of creativity.

 

Call me stubborn if you wish, but I'm quite comfortable not telling my kids that our future progress as a society depends on them answering "five" when the teacher asks what two plus two equals.

 

Noah

[NoahZark]

Originally posted by delirium:

Im far from approving profanation of English language (as Ebonics is). Grammar is important same way like theory of music has its meaning.

But it doesnt mean you cannot improvise a little and stretch the rules.

This is exactly like poetry. Lets do not exaggerate also, all I did (and Pink Floyd)

was using double negation, which is cool and intelligent use of language to play with.

 

It has nothing to do for me with bending grammar,

or using stupid popular shortcuts etc. like many do.

My comments were in response to the debate regarding grammar that followed your original post, not your specific use of a double negative in that post. To me, as is perhaps obvious from my previous posts, it's unquestionably wrong (grammatically speaking) to use a double negative, but if a double negative is intentionally used as an artistic tool (for example, to create a sense of irony, as Floyd clearly were doing in Another Brick In The Wall Part II), then more power to you. That said, it's still wrong (again, grammatically speaking), and it shouldn't become "right" just because it was used creatively.

 

Noah

[delirium]

Originally posted by NoahZark:

To me, proper grammar is more equivalent to math or (to use perhaps a better analogy) spelling.

 

In math, two plus two equals four. The correct answer is simply not up for debate, and if, in a moment of "inspired creativity," your child answers "five" on a test in school, he of she will get the question wrong, and rightly so. (Anyone care to dispute this?)

[/QB]

Very bad comparison, math over the years changed very little in oppose to language which is floating all the time. Comparing

math to language is rather silly, if youd like your bank to count your money

with language accuracy youd be very surprise.

 

Besides it's got to be pointed out that

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 so rounding to the nearest integer, 2+2=5

[Jim Alfredson]

Again, grammar is concerned with the structure of speech and writing, not spelling. I'm not advocating spelling you "u" (although there are some words which people use in emails and non-formal communication that are better, like nite instead of night, etc.)

 

If equating language and music is silly, then equating language and math is completely ridiculous. The rules of grammar were determined by a group of people that used another specific group of people to form the rules around. They could've chosen any number of groups of people that all talk differently and have different grammar but they based it on a certain group of higher class people.

 

Math is universal and crosses all cultures, languages, backgrounds, etc.

 

Bad analogy.

[ProfD]

Originally posted by delirium:

Besides it's got to be pointed out that

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 so rounding to the nearest integer, 2+2=5

Noah didn't use 2.4 in his example. 2 was his magic number.

[delirium]

Originally posted by ProfD:

Originally posted by delirium:

Besides it's got to be pointed out that

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 so rounding to the nearest integer, 2+2=5

Noah didn't use 2.4 in his example. 2 was his magic number.

OK, here is better proof that 2+2 is not 4:

 

Around A.D. 1200 Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci) discovered that a few weeks after putting 2 male rabbits plus 2 female rabbits in the same cage, he ended up with considerably more than 4 rabbits. Fearing that too strong a challenge to the value 4 given in Euclid would meet with opposition, Leonardo conservatively stated, "2 + 2 is more like 5 than 4."

[NoahZark]

Whatever. I'm giving up on you guys. Go forth and butcher the English language if you please. In the meantime, I'll be holed up in my own little circle of Hell pointing out that B3-er should have used the word "that" instead of "which" in the following phrase: "although there are some words which people use in emails and non-formal communication that are better."

 

An unapologetic conformist,

Noah

 

P.S. ProfD: Thanks.

[Jim Alfredson]

::

[Jim Alfredson]

::

[Jim Alfredson]

Yes, just like a fellow musician (whom I respect greatly) recently told my guitarist that I shouldn't have played a Ab7 chord with both a major and minor 7th (separated by an octave of course) as a "passing" tone to the fifth (G7) of an original tune in C7 because that's not "correct".

 

But I did it anyway and I'll do it again because I like it and it sounds good to me!

 

People have been "butchering" the English language since the rules were written. And thank God for that!

 

Another example to further prove my point: If you've ever studied a foreign language (like in high school I studied German) and then actually went to that country trying to talk like you were taught, you were in for a big surprise.

 

EDIT: Sorry for the triple post. Apparently I do need a teacher for this software!