Playing the saxophone Are you or were you self taught?

[Targa]

Not gonna let you get away with that, sorry...trying to split hairs between Rock and Rock and Roll.

We’ve had a thread on what is or isn’t Blues now we can have one on what is or isn’t Rock ‘n’ Roll.
Probably after xx pages come to the same ‘conclusion’, your own opinion.

 

[mrblackbat]

Re the op question; I’m not self taught, to begin with. Then later I taught myself some stuff, then later I took some lessons. I still take lessons periodically.

I don’t really get the point, and usually find that folk that glorify being ‘self taught’ do so as some kind of badge of honour and when you pull back the covers it boils down to a couple of things: they’re either not very good, or they discount all the parts where the learnt from mentors, books, courses, transcription and so on.

 

[JayeNM]

We’ve had a thread on what is or isn’t Blues now we can have one on what is or isn’t Rock ‘n’ Roll.
Probably after xx pages come to the same ‘conclusion’, your own opinion.

Just to clarify the initial comment I was addressing was "Rock n' Roll is not swing " I.e "doesn't utilize swing" or "doesn't swing" or "swing not being an attribute of...."....being how I interpreted that

 

[Zasterz]

But what you are saying is hypothetical, and AGAIN your overriding litmus test seems to be "experienced player". Having gigged for 40 years now in various genres, I submit, again that is a questionable litmus test.

How do I conclude that ? After witnessing it around 100 times, and listening to stories from othef players and student twofold that.

Teaching requires the attributes and sensitivities I previously noted. Regardless of playing experience, some humans simply do not possess those attributes. Some of those can be acquired or learned or trained into you, but many cannot.

We are talking about successful teaching, here...what it takes to do it well.

And you seem to be leaving out that in many musical traditions- but especially jazz and blues- passing on what you know via teaching (or master-apprentice) has been the norm since the very beginning without it being treated like a separate vocation a person has to have a special calling for. Monk, Cannonball, Brecker, Mingus, Max Roach, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter, etc etc— lots of the masters (if not the overwhelming majority of them) taught others along the way.

 

[wakyct]

I don’t really get the point, and usually find that folk that glorify being ‘self taught’ do so as some kind of badge of honour and when you pull back the covers it boils down to a couple of things: they’re either not very good, or they discount all the parts where the learnt from mentors, books, courses, transcription and so on.

I think taken to the extreme it's similar to "I don't want anything to influence my personal expression" which is a viewpoint I've never shared or even understood, but at the same time I think there's room for all sorts of takes on that.

 

[LostCircuits]

We are all perpetual learners. Self taught or not and once we stop learning, we rapidly decline.
I just made that up but I believe a wise man once said it, too!

 

[Pete Thomas]

I believe a wise man once said it

No I think it may have been me 🙂

 

[LostCircuits]

No I think it may have been me 🙂

I knew it!

And this song is about you, right?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrqb0373cVs

 

[Targa]

Re the op question; I’m not self taught, to begin with. Then later I taught myself some stuff, then later I took some lessons. I still take lessons periodically.

I don’t really get the point, and usually find that folk that glorify being ‘self taught’ do so as some kind of badge of honour and when you pull back the covers it boils down to a couple of things: they’re either not very good, or they discount all the parts where the learnt from mentors, books, courses, transcription and so on.

Then I’m self taught and nothing you say applies to me.
I wouldn’t claim to usually find anything about any one else especially those I haven’t met, which is strangely enough most of them.

 

[Pete Thomas]

It has as much to do with a person's ability to communicate, ability to read the kind of "learner" the student may be, and ability to come up with a logical, linear lesson plan which is consumable for the pupil.

Then the ability to recognize a student's strengths and weaknesses and adjust the material and pace of your teaching accordingly.

Both of thosde attributes are ideals in a teacher. I was thrown in at the deep end re:teaching as I suddenly found myself teaching at a university for a couple of years.

Part of the difficulty was that I was self taught so had very little idea of what a teacher was "supposed" to do. I found very quickly though that different methods were requited for different students - some needed and preferred a lot of telling what to do and when, others were better off just getting on with it themselves mostly. I had been like that myself. After two or three years of self teaching (via records and A Tune a Day) I arrived at college with a lot of issues (reading concert pitch being one of them) but my teacher soon realised I may be better left to my own decides so most lessons were very short and ended up going down the pub.

None of those qualities are ones which are necessarily possessed by a respectable or even Great "player". Those "skill sets", to use a term which I abhor, do not necessarily overlap. In some they may, in some they may not...just a thought.

Exactly, you don't necessarily have to be a great player to be a great teacher. But maybe it helps.

 

[Hoosierken]

OK, I think this is where we get into divergent definitiions.

I would ask "were any of those online resources skype or live video type lessons ? Where someone on the screen held a horn and could hear you play and you had back-forth interaction ?" If you did those, I dunno, say a half dozen or more within a reasonable regularity, then I'd say you can say "I am not just self-taught".

But if such materials were "book lessons", one-way audio of vid lessons (prerecorded , not live), printed lessons, etc...then what you did was seek out learning materials and utilize them, which would be, IMHO, self-teaching...

I learned at the very first using a course called, Learn Alto Saxophone-Complete beginner course by Simon Currie. Simon would respond to chats. I learned to read notes with a app on my cell phone. To me, self taught would have been to sit down and just figure out tunes, maybe learning to play along with recorded music. That would be self taught, no help from others who created lessons of some sort. Nowadays there are so many lessons of one sort or another online. It might be Yasuhiro Fuji or Paul at the, Online Sax Academy. Though I have never had any sort of personal lesson from them, I cannot take credit for the learning that they provided.

 

[turf3]

Thing there is, is that good teaching ?

Any player can show a non player a few things, I mean probably two or three lessons worth of material.

But being a decent Teacher..is a Gift, honestly.

It has as much to do with a person's ability to communicate, ability to read the kind of "learner" the student may be, and ability to come up with a logical, linear lesson plan which is consumable for the pupil.

Then the ability to recognize a student's strengths and weaknesses and adjust the material and pace of your teaching accordingly.

None of those qualities are ones which are necessarily possessed by a respectable or even Great "player". Those "skill sets", to use a term which I abhor, do not necessarily overlap. In some they may, in some they may not...just a thought.

Exactly. The idea "oh, anyone can teach" is where a lot of poor instruction comes from.

One point in teaching people stuff, is that a good teacher (of whatever subject) has multiple approaches to a particular concept. If a student isn't grasping it when explained one way, they are able to pivot and use a different way of explaining or showing. That's a skill that has to be developed (and there has to be some degree of underlying talent and aptitude on the part of the teacher in order to develop such skills). I've found that I can explain quite well how I do something, but if the listener doesn't get it from my explanation, I'm tapped out.

Could I become a good music teacher? I think I could; but unless I were to put time and effort toward learning how to do that, I'm not a good music teacher. Hence, my statement that I can't teach music, not because I'm somehow inherently deficient, but because I've never learned how. Same thing with the statement "I can't play clarinet". It's not because I'm somehow lacking the "Clarinet gene"; it's because I have not gone thorugh the process of learning how to play the clarinet.

Assuming that someone who can DO something is inherently qualified to TEACH it is a big mistake.

 

[turf3]

Respectfully not gonna let someone get away with that... ...trying to split hairs between Rock and Rock and Roll. I mean,
I get that there's some separation between Chuck Berry and Queen, but one is going down a very slippery slope to try to pigeonhole Rock and Rock n' Roll as separate genres with their own signature attributes.
Swing feel/swing beats are part and present in "both"....

Return to Sender
That'll Be the Day
School Day (Ring, Ring)
Chantilly Lace....
Blue Suede Shoes
The Wanderer

...i can keep going...bit difficult to claim the above aren't Rock n' Roll tunes....

You stated Rock n' Roll doesn't swing, but by my estimation a lotta R&R did use swing beats, whether ride swing or shuffle swing...same feel....

For that matter (and a new thread just started up with it):

Who can define the actual objective standard of measure that puts Big Mama Thornton on one side, and Elvis Presley, on the other side, of "Rock and roll" vs. "not rock and roll"?

Most of the early rockers who were African American came out of swing bands and jump bands, what most here would probably try to shove into the "jazz" box; what EXACTLY was the point at which someone like Chuck Berry climbed out of the "jazz" box or the "blues" box and into the "rock and roll" box?

Then we look at this newly minted artificial distinction between "Rock and roll" and "rock". I mean, I get it, King Crimson sounds very different from Jackie Brenston and Ike Turner playing Rocket 88; but you can absolutely find a direct line from one to the other. Pretty much all the British Invasion bands and the psychedlic guys started out with things like skiffle, or rockabilly, or as in the case of the Grateful Dead, folk music and bluegrass.

Then we have things like the Great Swing Dance Scare of the early 200s, with what look like rock and roll rhythm sections behind a big band blowing on a wide variety of music from In the Mood to The Ghost of Stephen Foster to I Wanna Be Sedated to San Antonio Rose.

Take the blues, jazz, and country music and mash them all together, wiht a dose of English boys' choir and a dash of Morris dancing, and that's "rock" or "rock and roll" or whatever vocabulary word you want to describe it this week.

 

[cappers]

Assuming that someone who can DO something is inherently qualified to TEACH it is a big mistake.

In the UK, university academics have to teach, unless they have enough research funding to 'buy' themselves out of teaching. About 25 years ago lecturers, curent and prospective, had to acquire postgrad qualifications in 'Teaching and Learning in Higher Education'. It was needed as students complain about poor teaching and I've had and seen some very poor lectures and tutorials from very highly respected academics.

Paraphrasing @turf3 being a very good researcher, thinker and expert in one's field doesn't mean one has the appitude, flexibilty and patience to be an effective teacher/tutor/mentor. They know their stuff but can't put it across in a understandable and stimulating manner, leading to confusion, boredom and a lack of learning.

I'm sure this is the same for any skill set.

"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" is an old and unfair saying. To be an effective teacher requires expertise, dedication, and a deep understanding of both content and pedagogy.

 

[turf3]

... It was needed as students complain about poor teaching and I've had and seen some very poor lectures and tutorials from very highly respected academics....

Some of the very worst chemistry lectures I ever sat (slept) through came from a famous Nobel prize winning chemist.

 

[mizmar]

Yup. There you have it. Teachers can be a mixed bag.
For me the solution is to be in control, as a student. Have some patience with the teacher, show appreciation where appropriate - everyone can improve with positive feedback - but put a stop to bad practice and help them to change. Firm guidance.
I'd like to think I've produced some much improved teachers over my time.

 

[Pete Effamy]

About 25 years ago lecturers, curent and prospective, had to acquire postgrad qualifications in 'Teaching and Learning in Higher Education'.

And no doubt made no difference at all, as they would have been mentored through the PhD by some other crusty old academic.

Most of the teachers / lecturers that can’t impart knowledge in an interesting way don’t need more academic education and a few letters after their name; they need life experience and personal skills.

 

[Zasterz]

I see we’re moving the goalposts from private lessons to what it takes to design a university curriculum! I’m sure all of the jazz greats who we know also taught others did so with an outlined lesson plan in hand rather than just having a conversation and seeing what the student needed from them.

Also interesting to me how someone will say “in my day if something broke we figured out how to fix it ourselves!” but if the neighbor kid wants your help getting a sound out of the saxophone or understanding eighth notes, well that wouldn’t be possible to help them unless you’d spent as much time working on being a “good teacher” as it would take to master the clarinet, for example! Couldn’t just like, talk to the kid, see what they understand or don’t and take it from there. “If my first way of explaining it didn’t work, I would be out of ideas!” Really? But if your first idea of how to fix something didn’t work you would look for something else? 🤔

Anyway, I wanted to remark on this idea of “good teacher”, and especially as pertains to private lessons which is indeed an entirely different world to university lecturing. There is no single way to be a “good teacher”. There’s no “good teacher” for everybody. A “good teacher” for one person can easily be a bad teacher for someone else, just as with any relationship. I hear from people I taught 15 years ago that they still think fondly of our lessons and continue to draw upon what we did together. I also had my fair share of students where we were not a great fit and I helped them find someone more suitable.

IMO the most difficult stuff to teach isn’t the more advanced topics that you’ve more recently learned yourself, it’s the stuff you take for granted because you’ve just always been able to do it. I had an adult student who couldn’t keep time at all. It turned out they couldn’t even clap along to a song or metronome. I couldn’t even reverse-engineer how I became able to do that! Figuring out how to help them was just trial & error and improvisation. In the end what worked was a metronome app with a pendulum feature that helped them visualize the duration and anticipate when to clap. If this person came to you, you might come up with a different way. Whatever works.

 

[cappers]

Most of the teachers / lecturers that can’t impart knowledge in an interesting way don’t need more academic education and a few letters after their name; they need life experience and personal skills.

Myself and a couple of other lecturers in the department had years of prior work experience outside of academia. Most staff were products of the system: continuous study route of strong A levels, good honours degree, MSc, PhD, post-Doc, and had only ever worked within academe.
We outsiders had more developed communication and social skills than many of the 'pure' academics.

 

[Pete Effamy]

We outsiders had more developed communication and social skills than many of the 'pure' academics.

I bet. I don’t think study-on-study helps with subjects like music, as they just get very myopic. Fine if you’re studying Quarks or something.

A friend of mine read music at an Oxford college in the early ‘90’s. An entire semester was spent on Bach counterpoint. Not even Baroque counterpoint, just J S Bach. She was also told to give up all ensembles too as they would take too much time away from her work.