Are self taught players better..or not?

[Fender Bender_dup1]

The logic is thats its a harder road

but the early hardship can lead to

a bigger pay off in terms of style.

 

I suppose the later you start the

less time you have to niggle about

in the dark..

 

Thoughts?

[James-Italy]

I think everyone is "self-taught" to a large degree. If you don't have the discipline and drive to apply yourself, you're not going to learn. Period.

 

Let me explain. If I take a 1 hour class twice a week (2 hours total) but don't practise, what am I learning? Not much. If I don't take formal lessons but spend 15 hours just diddling around, what am I learning? Not much. Either formal training or diddling is not going to take you far if you don't apply yourself.

 

Having said that, I think taking some form of organised lesson is better and should get you to proficiency faster. It can help steer you in the right direction and keep you from spinning your wheels. Formal training is not going to do it all by itself though, you're going to have to "self-teach" yourself as you go along and look to lessons for guidance. Formal teaching should help you from making simple common mistakes, should help you from getting in a rut, and should help you in not forming bad habits which may be difficult to overcome later on in life.

 

So if everyone is "self taught", who is a better player- one with formal training or one without? My answer would be it all depends on the player's natural ability, drive, and self discipline.

[Dave da Dude]

I think it's impossible to be "self-taught". You're always copying (and then adapting to your own) someone's style.

 

If you mean no FORMAL lessons, or not using lesson books, or not being able to "sight read" or something like that, then it's a different question.

 

Dave

[martianrebel]

I don't know if self taught players are necessarily "better", that's largely subjective. But I can say that I have a lot of respect for both those that have studied theory for years and can apply it with passion as well as those that seemingly have an intuitive gift musically and can play without any instruction.

 

I do agree though, that everyone has an influence, whether it is just from hearing other artists play, or from reading their music.

[Caevan O’Shite]

In this day and age, musical eductional material is eveywhere. I don't even have to mention the 'net, right? And a lot of that is "style" and genre specific.

 

So, "self taught" is a very diluted term, and anyone with any potential aptitude should be able to muster a little personal style in their playing. (Some of that is inherent in the strengths and weaknesses of a given player, too.)

 

I'm a "self taught" player, for the most part, and I can tell you that there are great holes in my playing abilities. And, that I should take some good formal lessons, in jazz and classical techniques.

 

I do think that the road I've taken has greatly influenced the content and style of my playing, and that formal lessons, etc. early on would have changed some of that; but so would having lived in different places, worked at other jobs, and knowing different people along the way.

[revolead]

I've only been playing about 1.75 years now. I started off self-taught by simple definition, meaning I had no previous guitar instruction byt a person, but lik everyone here states, I had my influences and my books to help me. I also started subscribing to GP early on which nurtured my interest and I would frequently talk to my neighbor about guitars, and ocassionally went over to his house for a couple pointers. This worked out really well at first, but sooner or later I realized my pervious music knowledge from trumpet and piano was beginning to wear thin, and I took up private lessons. Those helped A LOT! They got rid of my nasty habits, namely my lack of using my pinky, and added a much bigger repertoire of chords and scales and made me realize how much better admitting you need help is a good idea. I've grown so much sine then, and my instructor who was in to very similar music got me hooked on not just talented bands, but musically gifted bands like Dream Theater. I still love my hard rock, but I can no longer sit around and call those guitarists skilled musicians, all though some are.

So to answer your question, I believe there is a certain stigma that you're automatically better if you're self-taught, and you also feel better about yourself. But that doesn't make you a better player in the long run. So, being self-taught has its glory days, but sooner or later, and I know everyone on this forum is guilty, or we wouldn't have anything to talk about, you're gonna hit a wall and need some help.

[henryrobinett]

All great points. James-Italy, Dave Dude and CaevanO'shite. There was a time, pre mid 60s I think, where you really did have players who were self taught. If you came up playing in the 40s, for example, there were no books that taught you how to play jazz or popular music. You couldn't go to school for it either. All education was either by teachers formally, or teachers on the gig/street AND - not "or", records. I think many of these players were better in many ways, because they HAD to have it. Music was a mystery. The future great musician had to know what these great players were doing. But it was internalized. It wasn't learned from a book.

 

Great musicians, specifically today's jazz players I'm talking about, are being churned out at universities and their playing, in many cases technically perfect, don't have that "other thing." OTOH they're more educated and can play in a larger variety of situations. But are they better musicians? Most would say no.

 

But as relates to today's guitar players, most of whom are dismally under educated, I scream at them to get lessons. Study the instrument. Many players paint themselves into a corner. If those licks they learned when they were in high school from Angus Young are no longer fashionable or don't really apply in the current band they're in or in the direction a lot of music is going in these days, they're sunk. I don't know how many guitar players I've met, students, who didn't have the slightest idea how to count off a tune, or even knew what "1" was.

 

I can't tell how many times I've stepped in a band situation with REAL MUSICIANS; pianists, bass players who read, drummers who read (and even understand chord structure and can read a chord chart), horn players, and what a breath of fresh air it has been for them working with a GUITAR player who can read music and knows something about music. It's often assumed that guitar is a necessary evil. The guitarist might be one of the best soloists and can play that funky thing or give us that "rock thing we need" but boy what a pain in the ass! Plays too loud, gets wierd if he's not playing in A or E or G, can't read, can't spell a chord, only plays by ear, doesn't understand rudimentary theory, plays "wrong" stuff, get's lost a lot . . .

 

I think it's really important to know music. But you can know music by being "self taught". I agree with James-Italy that even when you take lessons you teach yourself. But it's also those big fat holes in your guitar neck you didn't even know were there is where a great teacher comes in handy.

[revolead]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

 

I can't tell how many times I've stepped in a band situation with REAL MUSICIANS; pianists, bass players who read, drummers who read (and even understand chord structure and can read a chord chart), horn players, and what a breath of fresh air it has been for them working with a GUITAR player who can read music and knows something about music. It's often assumed that guitar is a necessary evil. The guitarist might be one of the best soloists and can play that funky thing or give us that "rock thing we need" but boy what a pain in the ass! Plays too loud, gets wierd if he's not playing in A or E or G, can't read, can't spell a chord, only plays by ear, doesn't understand rudimentary theory, plays "wrong" stuff, get's lost a lot . . .

I hear you there. Its very refreshing to actually play with real musicians. My last band was a bunch of "play it if it sounds good" people, and trust me, it didn't always sound good.

[freelance]

While I am basically self taught (I play drums, keys & guitar)I have taken some lessons on each instrument (to help technique) but more importantly I try to study theory books (to understand music).

 

I have worked with a couple of hundred musicians (over 30 years)many self taught, some formally trained (degreed), most were some conbination of both.

 

I've worked with players who had degrees but no heart and I've worked with self taught players that played with such passion that it was a joy to share a stage with them.

 

Knowledge witout heart generates little joy and passion with no technique is too limiting.

 

Bottom line - to be a successful (or at least a well rounded) musician you need both knowledge and passion. Some of this comes from lessons most comes from inside.

[Blue Strat]

The guitarist might be one of the best soloists and can play that funky thing or give us that "rock thing we need" but boy what a pain in the ass! Plays too loud, gets wierd if he's not playing in A or E or G, can't read, can't spell a chord, only plays by ear, doesn't understand rudimentary theory, plays "wrong" stuff, get's lost a lot . . .

Hell, that sounds like me!

 

Yeah, I'm "self-taught", if that's what you prefer to call it. I've learned technique by playing and developed a phrase vocabulary by learning new songs/parts. I can't tell you what key I'm playing in. I can't tell you what chords I'm playing a lot of the time (unless I learned them from a chord chart - mostly I pick 'em up by playing and recognizing it when I hear something I like. ). I don't believe that you need to know a lot of theory to make music, but it's a big help when you want to create and understand more complex musical expressions.

 

I'm not in a band, so it doesn't matter if I'm in key.

[skipclone 1]

bluestrat-

It may not matter if you`re in the same key as someone else, but you should stop when you`re playing and check, where am I? a really helpful thing, if you`re playing lead, is to know your low E string really well. If you want to know where you are, look where your note is in relation to the low E. Then get to know your A string, and so on.

I`m somewhere between playing by ear and-well, competence. I did a lot of improvisation in my early days, had some basic knowledge but not to say in an egotistical way at all, I started playig with people who were really good, literate musicians. They were supportive of what I was doing, thought I had a lot of ability and wanted to do more with me-but the music I was running into was too complex, and I can recall specifically the incident that made me say, alright, it`s time to get a teacher. I was doing a regular gig with a pianist and bass player who were good sight readers. I would show up and we would play progressive-I don`t want to say `smooth` jazz but some of it was that. As long as I knew the song, I could play it. But one night I showed up early, when they were doing standards. Someone dropped a lead sheet for `Green Dolphin Street` in front of me, and it was like I was trying to read heiroglyphics on a pyramid. I`m still not nearly as literate as I`d like to be but even a moderate amount of formal study makes a major difference.

[pauldil]

I don't know that one way is better that another. I've know too many great musicians that have learned on the job, while others have studied formally. I've had both: formal instruction for long periods of time, then spent long periods of time trying to make sense of what I'd been taught. Then more instruction, then more on my own, and on and on...

 

When I was younger, I used to spend a lot of time looking for the book that would have "the secret" to being a great guitarist. Never found it, but I accumulated lots of books I think where I went wrong was that I did not follow through on any one approach. I'm not saying you shouldn't try different methods of learning, just stick with one for a while before moving on to the next. It's kind of like trying to lose weight by going on a different diet every day. Some days you'll feel full, some days you'll feel hungry, but you'll seldom feel satisfied. I think that regardless of formal training or "self" training, you must focus, set realistic goals, and get experience playing with players better than you.

 

Paul

[whitefang]

Semantics aside, "self-taught" is both a misnomer, and the wrong road. Misnomer in that anyone who claims to be self taught would have had to do so with absolutely NO input from friends and aquaintances. Some would say that I'm "self taught", but I can't read music, don't know the names of half the chords I play, and anyway, somebody or other has ALWAYS showed me a new chord or riff along the way. The best benefit of formal training is that if you have a question about something you don't quite fully understand, the instructor is there to clear it up for you. If you're trying to accomplish the same thing on your own, who do you turn to? And then again, if you turn to ANYBODY, then you're really NOT "self taught", now ARE you?

 

Whitefang

[Dan South]

It all comes down to dedication. You could have the best faculty in the world, but if you won't apply yourself, you'll never be a good player. If you have the drive, you can learn to play without ANY outside help. The difference is that, a person with the drive, the desire, the hunger will outperform a person who doesn't have that same drive, regardless of whether a teacher is involved.

 

A teacher can expose you to new musical ideas. A teacher can explain how music works. A teacher can help resolve technical problems that could slow your progress. A teacher can inspire you and lift your spirits when the work seems unrewarding. But a teacher can't give you the dedication that it takes to learn an instrument. That has to come from YOU, from your desire to PRACTICE, from your courage to EVALUTE yourself and your dedication toward IMPROVING your weaknesses (there are ALWAYS weaknesses).

 

Dedication makes all the difference.

[Fender Bender_dup1]

A teacher cant give what you dont have..

[magicman]

Originally posted by Fender Bender:

A teacher cant give what you dont have..

But a good teacher can help you focus on your weak spots and make improvements. Gotta go, boss is calling but we live in a quick fix society and some think the more instruction I get the better which isn't true. you got to put in hard work on your own too. but for some a teacher helps and others it doesn't. but I don't think there's any proof that learning with or without a teacher is better. its hours of practice and dedication that decide that.

[pauldil]

Originally posted by Fender Bender:

A teacher cant give what you dont have..

True, but a good teacher can help you find things you weren't even aware you had.

 

Paul

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by pauldil:

True, but a good teacher can help you find things you weren't even aware you had.

 

Paul

Yes. Plus it's hard to believe but a good teacher has perspective that the good student can't see. A good teacher, who's actually also made a career, at some point at least, of playing music for a living, can see so many things the student simply can't and therefore can provide those things for the student the student may need in order to make a career out of it.

[NMcGuitar]

I believe there is a bit of myth about the self-taught being "better".

 

The way I see it, the more you learn, the more tools you have at your disposal to make music. Lessons/training is how you learn more.

I think the "problem" is that a lot of training and lessons can make someone with very little (or no) feel/talent a competent technician .

It's the difference between being an artist and being an artisan .

[DC]

I took lessons for two or three months and then gave it up and learned by playing along with records. I later learned a bunch more by being one of the only bass players in town and jamming with a bunch of older sh*t hot guitarists and just watching and listening to them.

 

Where I really learned how to play and sing was hundreds and hundreds of hours playing in front of people. You can practice forever, but when you gig, you're forced to play songs all the way through no matter what and that's what makes you good IMO.

 

The problem I've got with a lot of formally trained musicians is that they seem to be devoid of feel. Like it takes the 'jungle' out of them. There are some music majors out there that just simply can't play with a band; they can't feel time.

 

I don't know if the formal training leads you into a math mentality or how it works exactly.

 

There's also a big difference in folks that mainly read chord charts and those that read the little notes on staffs.

 

At any rate, me and all my favs don't read properly. We know our chords and can read charts, but know little if any theory. We use our ears.

[skipclone 1]

I got into a big debate about this before, which I really don`t want to repeat...but IMO if you take, say, ten beginning guitar players, give them all a full course in music, a good percentage of them will become knowledgable musically but their voice may well not be heard-no feel, no originality. Great in an orchestra pit, maybe. But two or three of them will keep their character. They`ll finish their education not only being literate but having touch, sensitivity and personality in their playing. Those are the people I really like to hear, even if there`s only a handful of them.

[henryrobinett]

Yeah Skip, but being educated had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with some folks who have no feeling.. That's a myth. I don't THINK you were saying that. That guy who played with no feeling would've played with no feeling whether he read or knew anything about music or not. Knowing what music is doesn't destroy ones ability to play with feeling.

[skipclone 1]

No no, I wasn`t saying that-it may change a person`s interests in music but not their ability. I`m making a point that several people have mentioned in other contexts. I even have the same problem teaching English.

For example, my guitar teacher and I used a book called Melodic Rhythms-I still have it. Well some of those practice pieces are darn good, my teacher even talked about doing a few of them live together. But we never got to it, we had to move on to other things. I never got a chance to make them my own. It`s the same way that, when a new music program comes out, by the time someone gets really good with it, it`s obsolete. Someone mentioned before that they took some formal study and then stepped back, worked on their own, absorbed what they learned. That`s more what I`m trying to get at. Music is such a vast area, you could take part of it and really explore it in depth. But most people end up not doing that, they just repeat what they learned, which ends up being a rather dry affair for most listeners.

[skipclone 1]

Maybe to put it more simply, don`t play something just because you can or worse, like Malmsteen or some others, just because other people can`t.

 

Frankly, every time I see some technically accomplished player getting trashed on this forum it pains me a little-what could be wrong with being great at your avocation? leave it to guitarists to pound on somebody for being accomplished. But I can relate-so many musicians can recycle their knowledge but they don`t DO anything with it-why am I going to pay $25 for a CD to hear somebody`s warmup exercises?

In writing it`s called the Alembic-like the bass guys. It`s the difference between what you take in-the raw material-and what you produce-YOUR work, not just repeating what you study.

[djwayne]

I really like instructional video's. I have a few of them, from Roger McGuinn, Buddy Guy, Joe Walsh, and Nancy Wilson. Each one shows different ideas and techniques, maybe not earth shattering, but it's nice to get a lesson from these folks. The VHS tapes are nice as you can play them as much or any time you want.

 

It also great to just go to jam sessions or open mics, and trade ideas.

[Squ]

Everyone musician should have a healthy dose of theory, regardless of what unstrument you play. Once you have a good grasp of theory, everything else can come quicker.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

 

Frankly, every time I see some technically accomplished player getting trashed on this forum it pains me a little-what could be wrong with being great at your avocation?

There's a slacker mentality that drives me nuts. There's this sense I've seen in some musicians over the last 10-15 years or so that hopes everybody is lame. Nobody should be good. "We're all slackers! We are all the same. We all suck!" I mean there's been this movement AGAINST being accomplished. It's a put down to have technique and know what you're doing or know how to read. What it is is a resentment of having to be accomplished themselves. They don't want anyone to be better than they are. The way one handled that problem used to be to practice hard to get really, really good. This way there was a progression - like atheletes who get better every generation or so. But now the reverse is happening. Instead of getting better, you name call those who are good and try to make everyone equally lame so you don't HAVE to get better.

[skipclone 1]

Yeah, because there`s this cultural thing of identifying with the underdog. That we`re the ones left out, the ones the overlords would love to see rotting in a cell somewhere, the ones that can`t afford to have $10,000 guitars and amps custom made in zero gravity on the space shuttle. Well guess what-that still describes everyone here. I don`t know about you but none of the big record comglomerates have been pounding on my door. If anyone here qualifies as a musical overlord, just chime right up. We ARE the underdogs, being literate isn`t going to change that.

Actually, make that underdoggs-

[michael saulnier]

I think a willing LEARNER, a person who WANTS to gain knowledge they don't have will learn some things from almost ANY teacher, book, friend, cd they like, and so on...

 

On the other hand...

 

An unwilling or uncommitted learner won't get much from ANY of that.

 

I completely disagree that "learning" music theory, sight reading, or whatever... restricts, kills or lessens your ability to play with feel...

 

Nope. Too many examples of people who are GREAT players who have a solid technical music background.

 

The fact that there are many players who are great who DON'T have formal training is also NOT a valid point in favor of NOT being a "LEARNING" musician.

 

Grow or decline.

 

Your PERSONAL choice.

 

guitplayer

[James-Italy]

Guit for president!