self-taught? really?

I read form time to time that all these great players were "self-taught", which to me mans that they got a guitar, a book or whatever and began to learn the instrument all by their lonesomes.

As I dig deeper, some people, as it turns out, either had lessons (for a short or long time) or came from a family where there were plenty of competent musicians around. This leas me to beleive that they're not truly self taught.

I bring this up because it's like the 2nd biggest lie about guitar playing, and to me, it's the most frustrating myth regarding the instrument. I'm sure there are folks with a natural talent that just learned and took off from almost ground zero, but tons of talented folks put in real time to learn the instrument. any opinions?

I would say that I'm self-taught. I took a couple lessons a decade ago and learned three chords but that's all. The rest learned myself the hard way.

Would you consider that sef-taught or no?

I'm sure there are folks with a natural talent that just learned and took off from almost ground zero, but tons of talented folks put in real time to learn the instrument. any opinions?

Just because you're self-taught doesn't mean you didn't "put in real time to learn the instrument."

In fact, I'd argue that we're all "self-taught." A good teacher helps by choosing material and mapping a course of study, and providing feedback and motivation, but ultimately it's the student who has to put in the time to learn to play.

allen

I have never had a lesson in my long life. When I started, in the early 60's, I bought Bert Weedon's book 'Play in a Day', and quickly discarded it as being a bit too simple.

We didn't have the luxury of the internet and tab things back then. If you could afford it, some bought sheet music for the piano. Most of us just listened to 45s and picked things up by ear. That is not a myth or lie, it's just what happened. If people want to call it self taught, then so be it.

I've been playing for about 5 years and haven't had any lessons, nobody else in my family plays either...I said I wanted to learn to play my freshman year of college so I asked for a guitar for Christmas and got one.

From that point on I tried getting some books to learn from but found it hard to learn songs that you don't really like. So I began learning the chords to lots of my favorite songs...that eventually evolved into picking to favorite songs and making up my own solos...which now is the reason why I can easily spend 3-4 hours a night listening to music on my computer with it on random and play one song after another. For me that was the best way I could learn, put the playlist on random and try to pickup the chords from whatever was on then start picking to it as well.

Now I'm kind of working backwords reading books trying to learn the theory behind progressions / scales etc... I play...so I can sound educated when talking to other musicians I guess. lol.

Does that make me self taught...or taught by the likes of Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash, John Fogerty...and the list goes on!

Now I love playing so much it consumes my evenings and weekends completely sometimes! I would love to find some people to play with or get into playing with a small band! Any of my friends that do play are...well...far below my level (not that I'm great or anything) and it ends up being more of a "me teaching / them learning" session rather than jamming.

On a side note, my girlfriend has been learning Harmonica and is getting pretty good...she's a lot of fun. Pretty soon she'll be able to play along to a bunch of songs!

I think the distinction is natural talent vs. hard work, not how you learned. There's some greats who are naturally talented and playing guitar is effortless. The rest of us mere mortals just have to work hard to learn to play reasonably well. But you can be sure most of the greats put in a lot of hard work too, and so completely outclass everyone else.

I have never had an official lesson in my life.
But then, I'm mediocre, and have plenty to left of the journey to enjoy ;)

I think I am 'mediocre' possibly because I have tried to copy too many other influences, over time, and never found my voice. If I ever had one at any time.

I think many of 'the greats', had/have a sound in their head that they just had to get out , and their hands instinctively assisted them as part of some kind of 'I gotta sing my song, and sing it my way' drive.

I have never knowingly, or conciouisly enjoyed the playing of a guitarist who sounds like they practiced incessently or learned from other's direct tuition.
But then .. I am quite sure I have, many times, unwittingly ;)

but i do get what the OP is saying--the idea of being completely self taught is actually really difficult, if you think about it--learning completely in a vaccuum, with no outside influences in family or friends or other musicians who cross your path...

i will say this for most "self taught" musicians i know--they have more fun and care less about right and wrong than others...the downside is, their timing often sucks.

I think self taught simply means no, or few, formal lessons, and without an outside directed and structured lesson plan. Obviously we all get input from all kinds of sources, starting with the music we listen to. No one that plays a recognizable form of music can be completely "self taught," they had to hear rock or country or blues or whatever in order to play it. Then books or videos or other instructional materials, watching or talking to other musicians, and any thing else you can think of--if you are seeking these things out and absorbing them on your own then IMO that means you are self taught. If someone shows you a chord or a lick or something here and there that doesn't really change that.

I think any thing further just becomes an argument over semantics. And really, what does it matter anyway? I'll learn any way I can. It's only a source of frustration if you let it be.

I have never had a lesson in my life, and it shows!

I have never had a lesson in my life, and it shows!

:mrgreen: I was going to say the same and then I thought of all the other guitarists in my area and realised I wasn't too bad :mrgreen:

i think by that merit...the only "self taught" guitar player would be the first one ever! to be truly self taught with no outside influence or help means you would consciously black out anything and everything that attempted to guide your playing...

i would consider myself "self taught" because ive had no formal lessons, never purchased any instructional books or videos, etc. but i listen to music and play what i hear and if im jamming with someone and they do something that i like i try and cop their style a bit...so i guess by doing that im not really self taught.

This definition of "self taught" reminds me of a story. There used to be a belief that there was an "ur" language that humans spoke. To test this, a ruler sent an orphan baby boy to live with a mute sheepherder who herded his sheep far from any human contact. When the boy was a teenager, he was brought before the ruler to speak: "Baa-aaah! Baaa-aaah!"

but i do get what the OP is saying--the idea of being completely self taught is actually really difficult, if you think about it--learning completely in a vaccuum, with no outside influences in family or friends or other musicians who cross your path...

i will say this for most "self taught" musicians i know--they have more fun and care less about right and wrong than others...the downside is, their timing often sucks.

There is no such thing as 'self-taught'.
If you all you do is cop tunes and licks off records your being instructed by and learning from someone else.
If you were abandoned as an infant on a desert island with a guitar and you finally made it back to civilisation with a catalog of songs that people could recognize as songs(?) ... then you're self taught.

what is the" first biggest lie" about guitar playing in your opinion? Bil

i get ya.

i guess what i was saying is the idea of ONLY learning that way, books, recordings, internet, whatever--but having no one on one human contact with a teacher or any other musicians--then you pop out on the scene essentially fully formed....it seems that in this "plugged in" society it's almost imaginable.


i'm of the school of thought that i have not learned how to play the guitar--I am learning. I've learned how to do some things from teachers/other musicians, some on my own, but I don't want to be "learned."

You can never know it all, but you can stop learning.

what is the" first biggest lie" about guitar playing in your opinion? Bil


that _______________ (insert hero here) doesn't know anything and just does everything by feel.

i'm of the school of thought that i have not learned how to play the guitar--I am learning. I've learned how to do some things from teachers/other musicians, some on my own, but I don't want to be "learned."

You can never know it all, but you can stop learning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginner%27s_mind

I've met lots of players that are "self-taught" and seemd to learn to play pretty well in a short period of tiime. I couldn't figure out how it was so easy for them and so difficult for me, so whenever I met someone that was "self-taught" I would ask questions. In most cases they revealed that they had lessons when they were younger and just picked it up again or they had 8 or so years of violin or piano lessons when they were younger.

I'm self taught. A couple of the best Jazz pianists I work with are totally self taught. I believe Wes Montgomery was self taught. What's so weird about that? Some people do better analyzing and emulating what they hear than having someone else spoonfeed it to them. Frankly, from most of the teachers I've met, I'm more surprised when a formal student plays well ... the majority of them I hear can't swing and play one scale after the other.
Different players respond to different ways of learning. I don't see any great lie here.

I think orthogonal (egghead alert!) to this discussion, whether or not someone feels they are "self-taught", is the question of much much music theory they know: can they read standard notation, chord charts, etc... Do they understand how standard chord progressions works, and substitutions, especially in a jazz context. Can they sight read? You can be autodidactic (did I say egghead alert?) and be self-taught about this, or you can take a class/lessons.

Back at Uni, I noticed in the music program, composition majors were great at all this, jazz students very good, and voice majors totally clueless :lol:

On a side note, my girlfriend has been learning Harmonica and is getting pretty good...she's a lot of fun. Pretty soon she'll be able to play along to a bunch of songs!

:shock:

NOOOOOOooooooooooooo.............! Have mercy.....you just know you gotta do it! Just make it quick. :wink:

Tonemonkey....huh?

Are you saying Harmonica is a bad thing??? lol

Strat a various,
I believe there are many naturally talented people that can learn music with little or no guidance, like you, for example. But there are many more that prefer to disavow the training thay have had.
Regardless of how you learn, you have to do the work yourself.

I'm self-taught. Unless you count when I got my first guitar when I was 14 and my brother-in-law drew out E, A, B7, G, C & D chords on a piece of paper & handed to me...then said "don't worry about F...its too hard for ya". uh..thanks

I took a lot of lessons.
I still take lessons.
I went to music school.
But I did all the work. As in practicing, assimilating, extrapolating, evolving, etc. My best teachers, more than anything else, hipped me on who to listen to and steal from. Am I self taught? ... I'm asking.

Been playing 4 years

NEVER had a teacher

LEARNED EVERYTHING myself ( I don't know very much, dabbling with routes and scales)

I DID buy a book and I'm going through it.

I'm by no means great, I'm sure if I did have a teacher, I would be alot better, but its more fun this way. Hell I've got plenty of time to become famous :)

I wish someone like me had been around when I started learning...then I would have progressed at the speed that my students do now instead of battling it out with my then uneducated ear and paltry chord and scale knowledge.
I've earned the right to call myself self-taught and remind my students how comparatively easy they have it...whenever they start getting blasé about their progress and understanding.

I took a lot of lessons.
I still take lessons.
I went to music school.
But I did all the work. As in practicing, assimilating, extrapolating, evolving, etc. My best teachers, more than anything else, hipped me on who to listen to and steal from. Am I self taught? ... I'm asking.

No.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I didn't think so.
I probably learned the most from my player friends. Either playing together or just sitting around talking about music (like what we do here) and listening to records. I don't really think that's self-taught either. If someone else turns you on to a cool guitar player or album, they're pointing you in a direction that you may not have gone in left on your own(?).

Would we want a self taught surgeon operating on us? Wes Montegomery was self taught? Well ... he played with some very heavy cats. I'm sure some knowledge got exchanged informally or at the very least by osmosis. I learn something everytime I come here from alot of y'all. Does that mean that I'm still self taught or does that disqualify me from being ... appreciated? We've had similar discussions like this before. It seems that guitar is the only instrament where pride in ignorance is a badge of honor.

Would we want a self taught surgeon operating on us?

If he wrote the book that other surgeons learn from...then yeah...oh, and as long as his hands are steady. :cool:

I have the same complaint about the 'self made millionaire" label or anyone who claims to have 'done it all by myself'. Impossible I say.

If you and you alone...
.. make all your own clothes that you go out the door wearing in order to take on the world..
..grow all your own food that fuels your abilities...
..built the car you drive..
..made the roads you drive on..
..built the home you live in...
.. etc., etc....

If..
....you raised yourself without the benefit of parents or caregivers (this includes being raised by wolves)...

...taught yourself to read, write and do math etc without the aid of teachers..

then maybe you can make a flimsy case for being 'self-(anything)". Maybe.

If you haven't done at least all the things listed above then any success you have had is inextricably and intimately tied to many other people who have supported you directly and indirectly.

Now say "Thank you".:lol:

Self absorbed? Yes.
Self made? Nah.
Self taught? Pffffff.

It seems that guitar is the only instrament where pride in ignorance is a badge of honor.

There is something to this, and the comments here I think are helpful.

Self taught? Define it.

A lot of those posts that express...

that _______________ (insert hero here) doesn't know anything and just does everything by feel.

Are so naive. Really?!?!...it ignores everything that most if not all of these players expressly say themselves. Most of the guys routinely mentioned can trace what they know and do way back and give all credit to those that Have "influenced" them.

Influenced...this means really that they heard sounds that they liked and adapted to include those sounds and sensibilities into what they do.

Very few people either by listening or by experimentation with a idea in mind don't learn from others, as they did from those before. Very few today are immune from the information all around us.

I really don't remember if anyone ever showed me the "pentatonic scale" other than playing along with records and such...but that's not "self taught" but learning from taking in from the masters...the music always shows the way and teaches you.

Really, a lot of it comes down to psychology...those that seem "naturally gifted" seem to have a different way of picking up things, a preparedness to deal with frustrations creatively, and have a sensibility that encourages them to "put in the work"...but the best don't even experience it as "work", there is a kind of playfulness about what they do...

And on this point, it might well be worth reflecting on the idea that we speak of "playing" music or that we "play" the guitar...I don't recall anyone suggesting that one "operates" their instrument!

This is part of the disservice some education approaches and things like the TAB phenomenon does...some things approach music like an operating manual, the music is not in the notation or the theory (that's just a representation and explanation, putting names to things after the fact), it's not what you are told or pick up or discover for yourself but what you do with it. This topsy-turvy perspective preys in part in a desire to be guided, but in many cases it curbs the playful approach that the "naturally gifted" routinely display.

Anyway...I think that these myths do the artists a disservice, and all the people that people who claim to be self-taught but picked up from others a disservice...it is also holding those same people back who perpetuate that myth.

Any player who does not "play be ear" for instance, is not playing music, but at best playing by numbers. Music is an audio medium...in the end all musicians must play by ear, or they are simply operating a music machine. That's what the CD player is for!

There are those of us that can play, and learn , and sad to say, there are those, who will never, no matter what, be able to. If you think about it you'll agree. It's like fixing cars when they break. It's like singing. If you ain't got it in you......you ain't gonna get it.
Sad, but a fact of life. We all have certain talents. I would not attempt to do brain surgery, and most brain surgeons are smart enough not to try to fix cars. One might or might not be very good on a guitar, but I fear the calluses would be a problem in the operating room. If you are very good on a guitar I wouldn't advise going to work as a lumber jack or butcher. I have several friends that have been trying to master the guitar since we were all kids.........the desire is there, they've bought expensive equipment, they read all the books, they have sat around reading the music, and taking lessons from good instructors, playing scales instead of songs........ and after fourty-eight years, still can't hit a bull on the ass with a banjo. I feel for them cause they'll never know the pleasure most of us on this forum experience daily. So, feel good about your level of "self taught." Not everyone is as lucky as us. Just a thought.

My personal definition of "self-taught" is that you directed your own instruction. My older brother played. He showed me a handful of chords in the beginning and I took it from there. I watched every guitar player I could, on TV or wherever I could find one. I definitely didn't learn in a vacuum, but I did hold the steering wheel every step of the way.

Self absorbed? Yes.
Self made? Nah.
Self taught? Pffffff.:lol:

I think there are obviously a couple different definitions here about what it means to be "self-taught". It seems fashionable these days to say "self-taught", kind of as an extension of the "too cool for school" mentality, and not too far removed from the idea many guitarists seem to have where they don't like to admit that they know some theory or can read music.

Personally I think rock stars who actually read music and understand fundamentals are cool, but I don't own any large music magazines, and if I did, I'm sure they'd be hemorrhaging cash at an unsustainable rate... :oops:

For myself, if I'm learning from recordings, I consider that I'm learning from the people who recorded those recordings. If I'm learning from a book, I'm learning from the person or people who wrote and published the book.

If simply being responsible for the direction of one's learning is the same as being self-taught, then I taught myself through college, since I chose my university and I chose all my courses every semester.

If you're copping Freddie King licks from a recording, you're learning from Freddie King, not from yourself, IMHO. You don't need a teacher to "spoon feed" you for them to earn your respect as a teacher...

The best teachers can lead you to water. How they give you the directions depends on the teacher. What you do with that water once you're there is always up to you.

Well... My Dad showed me how to play a G, C, and D7th chord.

Everything else I figured out by watching other guitarists, and by beating my head against the wall. Am I a liar, or am I perpetuating the myth by saying I'm self taught?

Depends on your definition, I suppose. Sometimes I wish I had taken lessons so that I might have progressed faster, but I am what I am.

Seems to me that you framed your question in such a way that anyone who has any contact with any other guitarist is not self taught.

I received my first guitar at the age of seven (after annoying my parents and begging and pleading with them to get me one for several years after having seen The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show - a familiar tale from guys of my generation). From the ages of seven to twelve, I sat cross-legged in the floor with my guitar and my record player and attempted to emulate what I heard on the records. I'm sure I sounded horrible and crude, but it was a start and a spark. I ruined all my records. Also during this time, I was carted off to Baptist churches every Sunday and I sang my guts out to classics such as "Love Lifted Me" and "Rock of Ages". I didn't even know what harmony was, but I started singing harmonies from jump street, as though it were innate and instinctual. I guess I'd heard them on my records. Dad was in the Air Force, so we lived all over the globe. We were transient by nature and moved around a bunch. So I spent a lot of time in the back seat of a car listening to tunes on the radio, while travelling to God knows where the next place to live might be. To amuse myself, I'd try to envision in my mind how the song I was hearing might be played on a guitar (albeit with very limited knowledge), and I sang to everything. When there weren't any vocal melodies, I started scat-singing primitive improvisations, long before I was aware of folks like Ella Fitzgerald and Mel Torme. It was mostly just a way of amusing myself, because I was an overly introspective social misfit for the bulk of my formative years. So little about life made sense to me early on... art and music made perfect sense from day one. Actually, little has changed in this respect.

I started taking local lessons as a teengager, but because I'd spent so much time ruining my records, I actually knew much of what was being shown to me. I just didn't know what to call it. A few years later, I decided that I wanted to study music more seriously and formally, so I researched teachers in my area. One name kept popping up - a Berklee grad that was the 'go-to' teacher in my neck o' the woods. I studied with him for the better part of four years, and that was the single most important musical catalyst of my life. The guy was like a military drill instructor - he basically stripped the student of everything that they knew and started them from ground zero, building a foundation in harmony and theory, ear training, chord and scale construction, improvisation, musical styles, standard notation, technique, chord chart shorthand and nomenclature, you name it. He was brutal and relentless, but Jerry King was the best teacher I've ever had. When I moved to Los Angeles in 1984 to attend the Musician's Institute, I was overwhelmed, but my one great teacher had prepared me for a lifetime of learning from a multitude of great teachers, so I just soaked it up.

I wouldn't trade the record ruining process for anything in the world. Nor would I trade my more formal educational pursuits. While I think that what I learned in formal education is invaluable, I don't think I'd have been up for it before exhausting my efforts as left to my own devices. I needed to run into a brick wall first.

I've continued to educate myself. Now that I'm a music teacher, what I've learned is that the teacher is the student. I've continued to learn from every musician that I come in contact with. Anyone that has experience as a musician, and has what I deem to be good musical taste, is my potential mentor. I've taken lessons here and there with specialists, and I've bartered instruction with other teachers based on the strengths and weaknesses of each party. For instance, I've traded guitar lessons for vocal training. If my budget were unlimited and there were 48 hours in every day, I'd be taking lessons from lots of folks. I also take lessons from folks that contribute to forums such as this, whether my "mentors" know it or not.

____________________________________


I use standard musical notation and tablature with students. I also develop ears and I show students how to play certain things without offering the benefit of anything written down.

As expected, I often hear laments from students and parents alike as to the latter. Typically, they'll say "Everything is going well except for the stuff that wasn't written down. That's really a struggle."

Paraphrasing myself, here's a typical response:

"Learning to read standard musical notation is imperative in my book. However, it is but one hue in the vast array of the musical palette. For music to become convicted and real, it has to venture beyond the printed page. It has to be heard and felt and assimilated like oxygen and life's blood.

I can't expect that every person that I teach will feel music as deeply as I do over the course of a lifetime, and I can't expect that they'll choose to make it their occupation and life's work. That said, my mindset has to be that they will. Otherwise, I'm not doing my job. What they do with it beyond the confines of my teaching studio, and beyond whatever inspiration I've managed to foster, is the stuff of Life's Choices.

If a person is to be a musician for a lifetime, then any other musician that they come in contact with (or hear) is a potential mentor. The reason that showing folks how to play this or that without writing anything down is part of my agenda is not because I'm lazy, as I spend much of my free time preparing lesson plans. The reason is that, in the real world, many potentially great lessons are lost if the student pre-determines the parameters of such. Many of the best lessons are learned from a friend that also plays, or on the side of the stage at a gig, or in witnessing a journeyman musician exhibit their craft at a concert. If the student is not hungry and creative and receptive to potential learning situations - wherever such might present themselves - then they can say all day long that really want to learn and feel music, but the truth is that they really don't, at least at this point. The music stand and the manuscript book aren't always the tools of choice for the best teachers.

I don't expect folks to have grown up like I did. I understand that there's tablature on the internet. I understand that kids aren't singing from hymnals in Baptist churches, as they're listening to bands in their church with overdrive and delay pedals that have listened to lots of U2 records (nothing wrong with that, other than a lack of balance). So many guitar teachers anymore are parrot trainers. Many teach guitar, not music. While I might fail miserably at the task, my approach is decidedly old school, and it always will be."

First off, I'm left handed...

When I was in primary school (age 8-9ish) I had 4 lessons on the cello that totally put me off learning to play a musical instrument for many years.

I then got given a small digital yamaha keyboard that I thought was great as it had some synth type sliders but I never progressed any further than messing about with it...

In secondary school, around age 12-14ish, we had some music lessons though I'm not sure how long they lasted - it may have been an hour a week for the 1st 2 years or possibly split like 6 months of that and 6 of something else at that school but I'd joined in the second... Anyways...

One lesson was about guitar... I got handed a right handed acoustic guitar and let's just say it didn't go well with me being left handed n'all :lol:

Next week the teacher had kindly restrung a guitar so I could play it left handed and.... I was just as bad

Somewhere around that age I'd decided I did actually want to play guitar a bit but I was stumped by two big problems - the first was being crap whether I tried to play left or right handed and the second was that left handed guitars didn't come in the colours/shapes I liked and were usually twice as expensive anyways... yeah, I'm that shallow at times :lol:

...but I'm stubborn as well as shallow so when I saw a right handed early Japanese squier strat in a local shop I bought it. I've since learned that I should have never sold that guitar but that's a different story...

So I bought that guitar and just played, made noise etc - I'm pretty sure that somewhere around that early time there would have been a small chord book but I can't actually remember one... but there must have been as there were some chord shapes I found really uncomfortable to play that I wouldn't have tried if they hadn't come from somewhere!

Other than that it was just a case of practicing - you don't need someone else to tell you what sounds good to you... tho with hindsight I'd probably be a more technically proficient player had I had *some* quality guidance early on

As it was I didn't want to sound like anyone else at all so copying other peoples stuff was a big no-no :lol: ...learning a technique was one thing but learning to play other peoples stuff no way! lmao

I once got told I sounded a bit like the edge and really wasn't happy
on the other hand I had people asking if I was classically taught - WTF?!?!?! :shock:


...mind you, later on I did once learn to play a small bit that I heard on a Tangerine Dream album

Along the years I've picked up bits and pieces of theory but I generally have no idea what chords I'm playing - but know where to look for the info if I need to find out... (after getting a BA in philosophy I went and did an audio & video engineering course to prove that I knew what I already knew, daft eh)

For me it's been the same with synths and samplers etc ever since - they're 'keyed up' the wrong way as far as a lefty is concerned but you just deal with it

One gf had passed a load of music exams and was grade 8 at piano and a couple of other instruments. She was teaching me to play moonlight sonata and couldn't get her head around me learning it by sight, ear and practice instead of reading it and vice versa - I was like "why can't you simply play it?!?!?"

Of course I don't claim to have lived in a cave as far as music goes but for me I've kinda soaked things up when i needed to or was interested by and other things have fallen by the side...

so yeah, I'd say I was self taught

...but if anyone can help me learn to do pinched harmonics on a stock baja tele I'd be grateful

Perhaps we need an agreed upon definition of self taught vs influenced vs formally taught.

I had formal music education on a number of instruments growing up and finally in my 40's decided to settle on guitar. I learned the treble cleft on a tonette, the notes above the f line on the violin, the bass cleft on the accordian. Eventually I translated that knowledge to other instruments.

So I can't say I'm self taught but I think other people can. They did the digging withou the help of an instructor. Later on they learned from others but their initial learning was without someone telling them what to do, when where and how.

I did most of my guitar studies on my own until I wanted to learn specific things then I went to an instructor.

Influence is not teaching. Teaching is specific and tangible. Influencing is directional but may or may not lead to improvement.

Great discussion guys.

Perhaps we need an agreed upon definition of self taught vs influenced vs formally taught.

I had formal music education on a number of instruments growing up and finally in my 40's decided to settle on guitar. I learned the treble cleft on a tonette, the notes above the f line on the violin, the bass cleft on the accordian. Eventually I translated that knowledge to other instruments.

So I can't say I'm self taught but I think other people can. They did the digging withou the help of an instructor. Later on they learned from others but their initial learning was without someone telling them what to do, when where and how.

I did most of my guitar studies on my own until I wanted to learn specific things then I went to an instructor.

Influence is not teaching. Teaching is specific and tangible. Influencing is directional but may or may not lead to improvement.

Great discussion guys.

I agree that a focused definition of "self taught" is required for a fruitful discussion to progress. And I agree with your definition. You have made two of the most cogent points in this thread. Congratulations.
I disagree with your final observation. This hasn't been a great discussion. Apparently, the widely accepted definition of "self taught", as clearly embraced by every subject and discipline of which I am aware, is confusing and/or inconvenient to half of the participants in this thread.
I'll say that this is the most obtuse, obstinate, and childish thread I've ever seen in this forum. Tone is subjective. Volume can be perceived in different ways depending on circumstances. Styles of music appeal to us, or not, to varying degrees ... but redefining "self taught" to bolster insecure personalities and prop up limp egos is beyond the pale.
I won't quote anyone else here, because I don't want to pick on anyone incapable of defending themselves, but that presumed adults torture and twist a simple phrase to strip it of all reasonable meaning, so as to render it irrelevant to any discussion, is frankly embarrassing.
Self taught means one thing ... having learned without formal training, that is: without instruction from a specific teacher. There is no other definition, it's not a matter of opinion or of tastes or viewpoint. This phrase is used in every subject of study from painting, cooking, to auto mechanics and dance. If you haven't had a specific teacher or teachers, real people present, not books, not records, not observations, but real interaction with a teacher who's job it is to teach you, then you're self taught.
Needless mangling of this simple widely accepted definition serves no purpose but to pollute the debate with non sequitur nonsense. It's denial at it's most infantile level.
If you've had some proficient teachers, good for you. You're to be commended for studying the Arts. If you're naturally talented and self motivated, that's great ... keep up the good work.
If you want to brainlessly nitpik a way of learning that threatens you, because you mistrust talent and grudgingly refuse to admit some folks are better able to develop skill and creativity without a teacher/pupil relationship than you, well ... you ought to stop ****ting on the thread.
Folks who are self taught know how they've struggled and worked. Students with good teachers realize the benefit of professional instruction and mentoring. For everyone else with simple minded desert island, never been influenced in any way, "if you've heard a record, you're not self-taught" delusional excuses and rationalizations: why don't you just go practice instead of minimizing the hard work of other players?

I have to respectfully disagree that in all other fields the definition of self taught is clear. Auto mechanics that are 'self taught' aren't. I don't care what they claim - they ripped apart their Chevy's with their dads, older brother's, cousins and buddies on the weekend and over the summer - all the while consulting the Chilton book. They had guidance ... and someone to fix their mistakes. *If it is an accepted definition, I pose that's it's an incorrect definition. Somebody turns you on to Wes or Jarrett, you cop some licks ... you were directed or guided. That's what a teacher does.
*The term 'FORMAL EDUCATION' is a different thing. That absolutely implies school, lessons, etc.
A teacher, or an education in general, doesn't do for you. You do all the work. The path cannot be taught, only taken.

yeah, what's that quote?

"education is not the filling of a bucket, but rather the sparking of a fire."

I agree that a focused definition of "self taught" is required for a fruitful discussion to progress. And I agree with your definition. You have made two of the most cogent points in this thread. Congratulations.
I disagree with your final observation. This hasn't been a great discussion. Apparently, the widely accepted definition of "self taught", as clearly embraced by every subject and discipline of which I am aware, is confusing and/or inconvenient to half of the participants in this thread.
I'll say that this is the most obtuse, obstinate, and childish thread I've ever seen in this forum. Tone is subjective. Volume can be perceived in different ways depending on circumstances. Styles of music appeal to us, or not, to varying degrees ... but redefining "self taught" to bolster insecure personalities and prop up limp egos is beyond the pale.
I won't quote anyone else here, because I don't want to pick on anyone incapable of defending themselves, but that presumed adults torture and twist a simple phrase to strip it of all reasonable meaning, so as to render it irrelevant to any discussion, is frankly embarrassing.
Self taught means one thing ... having learned without formal training, that is: without instruction from a specific teacher. There is no other definition, it's not a matter of opinion or of tastes or viewpoint. This phrase is used in every subject of study from painting, cooking, to auto mechanics and dance. If you haven't had a specific teacher or teachers, real people present, not books, not records, not observations, but real interaction with a teacher who's job it is to teach you, then you're self taught.
Needless mangling of this simple widely accepted definition serves no purpose but to pollute the debate with non sequitur nonsense. It's denial at it's most infantile level.
If you've had some proficient teachers, good for you. You're to be commended for studying the Arts. If you're naturally talented and self motivated, that's great ... keep up the good work.
If you want to brainlessly nitpik a way of learning that threatens you, because you mistrust talent and grudgingly refuse to admit some folks are better able to develop skill and creativity without a teacher/pupil relationship than you, well ... you ought to stop ****ting on the thread.
Folks who are self taught know how they've struggled and worked. Students with good teachers realize the benefit of professional instruction and mentoring. For everyone else with simple minded desert island, never been influenced in any way, "if you've heard a record, you're not self-taught" delusional excuses and rationalizations: why don't you just go practice instead of minimizing the hard work of other players?

+1

I have to respectfully disagree that in all other fields the definition of self taught is clear. Auto mechanics that are 'self taught' aren't. I don't care what they claim - they ripped apart their Chevy's with their dads, older brother's, cousins and buddies on the weekend and over the summer - all the while consulting the Chilton book. They had guidance ... and someone to fix their mistakes. *If it is an accepted definition, I pose that's it's an incorrect definition. Somebody turns you on to Wes or Jarrett, you cop some licks ... you were directed or guided. That's what a teacher does.
*The term 'FORMAL EDUCATION' is a different thing. That absolutely implies school, lessons, etc.
A teacher, or an education in general, doesn't do for you. You do all the work. The path cannot be taught, only taken.

I taught myself to work on my cars. My dad was busy working.

You're wrong, and here's why. A teacher teaches ... with books and records and videos, and instructional pamphlets, and play along tapes. Teachers use resources.
If you're the teacher, you use the same resources: books, CDs, fake books, instructional aids. But you're the teacher. You're self taught.
I can't put it any simpler than that. Take all of the resources available to a teacher and avail yourself of them. You are self taught.
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the phrase "self taught". It doesn't mean anything but that you are the teacher, you are teaching yourself ... you're not generating the knowledge, nor are you discovering the information for the first time, you are simply acting in the dual roles of teacher and student.
If someone learns to read Latin from a textbook with no teacher present, the book is not the teacher, it is the resource. The author of the book is not the teacher, he is not addressing any specific student, just assembling the accumulated and accepted knowledge on the subject of Latin grammar and vocabulary.
A book is not a teacher. A record is not a teacher, A video or online class may be a "teacher" of sorts, but resource materials aren't. Simple as that.

i hope i wasn't responsible for any derailing.

the only "problem" i have with the phrase "self-taught" is that it isn't quantifiable. A person could be literally self-guided the whole way (that's extreme, yes) or had many non-formal teachers along the path and be "self taught." maybe "no formal training" is a better phrase.

but does it matter? no. there's different ways people go about learning, with different levels of effectiveness. it's a personal thing. if learning from a teacher worked, great--if you needed to figure things out for yourself, great.

some folks wear "self taught" as a badge of sorts, and if they can play, there's really no reason why they shouldn't--it is a testament to some innate talent and a good deal of self-motivation and discipline, admirable traits in my book. I don't see any path as being better in the grand scheme, just perhaps better for the individual.

I don't feel the thread has gotten out of hand or childish though--maybe i'm desensitized from the relic threads.:mrgreen:

i hope i wasn't responsible for any derailing.

the only "problem" i have with the phrase "self-taught" is that it isn't quantifiable. A person could be literally self-guided the whole way (that's extreme, yes) or had many non-formal teachers along the path and be "self taught." maybe "no formal training" is a better phrase.

but does it matter? no. there's different ways people go about learning, with different levels of effectiveness. it's a personal thing. if learning from a teacher worked, great--if you needed to figure things out for yourself, great.

some folks wear "self taught" as a badge of sorts, and if they can play, there's really no reason why they shouldn't--it is a testament to some innate talent and a good deal of self-motivation and discipline, admirable traits in my book. I don't see any path as being better in the grand scheme, just perhaps better for the individual.

I don't feel the thread has gotten out of hand or childish though--maybe i'm desensitized from the relic threads.:mrgreen:

Self taught means "no formal training". Is that clear enough?

I'd say if you ever played with anyone better than you then they probably taught you something.

I agree that a focused definition of "self taught" is required for a fruitful discussion to progress. And I agree with your definition. You have made two of the most cogent points in this thread. Congratulations.
I disagree with your final observation. This hasn't been a great discussion. Apparently, the widely accepted definition of "self taught", as clearly embraced by every subject and discipline of which I am aware, is confusing and/or inconvenient to half of the participants in this thread.
I'll say that this is the most obtuse, obstinate, and childish thread I've ever seen in this forum. Tone is subjective. Volume can be perceived in different ways depending on circumstances. Styles of music appeal to us, or not, to varying degrees ... but redefining "self taught" to bolster insecure personalities and prop up limp egos is beyond the pale.
I won't quote anyone else here, because I don't want to pick on anyone incapable of defending themselves, but that presumed adults torture and twist a simple phrase to strip it of all reasonable meaning, so as to render it irrelevant to any discussion, is frankly embarrassing.
Self taught means one thing ... having learned without formal training, that is: without instruction from a specific teacher. There is no other definition, it's not a matter of opinion or of tastes or viewpoint. This phrase is used in every subject of study from painting, cooking, to auto mechanics and dance. If you haven't had a specific teacher or teachers, real people present, not books, not records, not observations, but real interaction with a teacher who's job it is to teach you, then you're self taught.
Needless mangling of this simple widely accepted definition serves no purpose but to pollute the debate with non sequitur nonsense. It's denial at it's most infantile level.
If you've had some proficient teachers, good for you. You're to be commended for studying the Arts. If you're naturally talented and self motivated, that's great ... keep up the good work.
If you want to brainlessly nitpik a way of learning that threatens you, because you mistrust talent and grudgingly refuse to admit some folks are better able to develop skill and creativity without a teacher/pupil relationship than you, well ... you ought to stop ****ting on the thread.
Folks who are self taught know how they've struggled and worked. Students with good teachers realize the benefit of professional instruction and mentoring. For everyone else with simple minded desert island, never been influenced in any way, "if you've heard a record, you're not self-taught" delusional excuses and rationalizations: why don't you just go practice instead of minimizing the hard work of other players?

What he said...good post!

I'd say if you ever played with anyone better than you then they probably taught you something.

Thats so true. I never had a lesson, yet learnt so much from so many that I played with, or even watched.

I'm another whose main inspiration came from the Bert Weedon "Play in a Day" (I couldn't)

IMO, self-taught means NEVER PAYING anyone for lessons. But, as musicians, we all learn from others we play with...even if they don't play the same instrument. So, IMO, I am self-taught. I have never paid anyone to teach me the guitar. Just like I have never paid a woman for her company.

(does dinner and a movie count?):wink:

It is my job to provide information and context to the subject at hand, explanations of why something is the way it is, the other options for accomplishing the same or similar task, steps to avoid because they will delay or prevent the accomplishment of the goal. As a pastor of a church my primary responsibility is teaching. Teaching only takes place when the student learns something, not necessarily when they agree with me but when they can clearly explain the reasons for their thinking and acting. The same takes place in teaching music.

I have met self taught bible students for years, some are VERY good, some are not. By self taught they come with fully formed knowledge of the subject, are able to express it and can give evidence of why a thing is, is not or may be. They picked up their books read, studied pondered, errored, corrected and came to a conclusion. Is there more to learn? yes. However, they have good functional knowledge that they have developed without assistance from someone explaining everything or anything to them. They are self taught.

The same is true of an instrument. Many players spend years alone with themselves and a radio trying to make the sounds that they hear and eventually are able to. This is the way children learn to talk. Once they can speak we begin to teach them grammar, rhetoric, logic, syntax etc. to improve their speech but they learn by themselves until they reach a point we can understand and "correct" them.

As I said before, very interesting discussion. Thanks guys

Self taught means "no formal training". Is that clear enough?

Do I sense a little animosity in your post? jeez, and i thought i was backing you up.

I think this has now become one of the funniest threads ever. It's always a good thing to have someone available at a moments notice who is able and willing to point out exactly how others are wrong and why. A noble occupation indeed. And to do it with the biting tone of condesencion, without even a hint of humilty or irony is just the crowning acheivement.
Very entertaining and done so expertly it couldn't have been self taught.

Very entertaining and done so expertly it couldn't have been self taught.

i'm thinking Ivy League boys.

Seriously, what's the ongoing point to this thread? Anyone?

I turned away from what my family wanted me to do (archery and hunting) and did what noone else has done and played an instrument (guitar). I taught my self but it doesn't mean what it used to. With all these websites dedicated to teaching and explaining how to play songs. Youtube lessons and all that.

Well...I have been playing guitar for 35 years now...largely self-taught then. I did have a few beginners lessons in a group in the very early years as school, intermittent for about 2 years. I left school early and "taught myself" by literally playing 8 hours a day and devouring everything I could, joined bands, etc...eventually I was able to use that to get entry back into the education system on audition and had a year of classical lessons to help pass 5 exams in a year...this gained me acess to university to study music and composition (not guitar) which I did for a further 3 years on top of that...

The most important thing I was told at university when studying stuff regardless of my interest in some parts of the curriculum was that "you are hear to learn how to learn, for yourself, all of this is part of that education and helping you think for yourself". I think they were right, I wasn't able to take up an offer to continue even further in music (though it was offered) but took that enhanced ability to learn to do a post graduate degree in another field.

Regardless of the amount or lack of formal education, it is always the degree one is prepared to "self learn" that matters.

That said, I am still "learning" and that is the enjoyment I find in music and the guitar...I can trace every element that I like in my playing to different artists as artists approaches to the guitar and music generally and regard them as my "guitar teachers".

I also came up in a time before all this TAB and such was available, or even CD's, and while I wore out the grooves on many records, the aim was always to find my "own voice" on the instrument, not to "cop licks" but to be inspired to take these kinds of ideas and make them my own. I remember distinctly my earliest "teacher" coming in one day and going, 'ok guys check this out, one of my students like you showed me this' and proceeded to play this really cool little tune the student had written. It was this kind of experience that really sparked my interest in playing the guitar seriously, to put the work in so that stuff like that would come out and enthuse even a session player/teacher...to not just "play like"____(insert name of choice) but to attempt to be like __________!

i'm thinking Ivy League boys.

Seriously, what's the ongoing point to this thread? Anyone?

I don't know. But it would be a travesty to let it die without knowing why.

I've learned a few things from the guys here on this particular section of the TDPRI. If that disqualifies me from being "self taught" so be it!

In most traditions, the idea that one was self-taught would be anathema. Think of folk music traditions, or church traditions: the community was the teacher and one learned within the structures and practices of the community how one communicated in the tradition. I've been fortunate enough to attend quite a few rehearsals in churches in the African American tradition, and while people attending the services may believe that the group is spontaneously creating music and communicating directly from a divine source, in rehearsal, the choir and its intstrumentalists--many of whom have never had a formal, paid lesson and do not read music--will very carefully go over the music and work out the harmonies and rhythms with exquisite care: woe be the person who is off by a semitone or ignores the dynamics of the group! This is teaching, and there would seem to be no way to learn to perform in ensemble without this tutelage.

For several years, I administered a jazz program for teens, which used working jazz musicians as teachers. Some would use written charts, others would demonstrate chord changes, some would sing lines and have students mimic them on their instruments, some would painstakingly show simple melody lines to students, instrument by instrument, and slowly bring them together. They were teaching. I remember the great bassist Tyrone Brown teaching a session, saying afterwards, "These classes are great. When I was coming up, you had to learn from watching the older guys, and some of those old heads could be rough!" A jazz musician could not learn without an interaction with other musicians.

There's an excellent, readable book called Thinking in Jazz by Paul Berliner, which uses extensive interviews with artists to try to determine how many of these musicians, many of whom considered themselves self-taught, learned to play sophisticated music in ensemble. I don't want to spoil the book, but I will say that many jazz musicians simply used the term "self taught" to indicate that they felt their musical education was lacking in some way, while they had in fact received a doctorate in practical music performance.

There's a wonderful Wes Montgomery story that he used to tell on himself because he considered himself self taught and never learned to read music. Apparently he sat in with a band and played through a tune; at the end of it, he felt something wasn't quite right and he asked the piano player if he'd played okay. The piano player just laughed and said, "Yeah, well, you were in the wrong key. . .but you sounded so good, we didn't want to tell you."

Clearly, many musicians would like to hold onto the notion that they are self-taught. There seems to be a implication that such a musician has a more natural gift, their music is more authentic, they are in touch with inspiration in a special way. Why is this an important idea to hold on to? Do we draw power and confidence from this belief, when otherwise we might believe our lack of formal structured training would be a disadvantage?

Do I sense a little animosity in your post? jeez, and i thought i was backing you up.

I don't know why every declarative post requires either "pat on the back, wink-wink" smilies, or snide, derisive smilies. I don't use smilies. I made the case more than once that self taught means no formal lessons. I see that there is a sub-group herein that amuses themselves by sidestepping the obvious and belaboring misinformation for the sake of tedious passive-aggressive gratification.
I appreciate your concurrence. No animosity intended. No smilies forthcoming. When teachers and students commingle on a forum, and the class clowns assemble to disrupt the communication process with self absorbed semantic wanking, there's a disconnect that ill serves the sincere student and should alarm the genuine teacher.

I received my first guitar ......... Many teach guitar, not music. While I might fail miserably at the task, my approach is decidedly old school, and it always will be."[/i]


Wow, nice post. After reading this I'm wishing I lived close to where you live to take lessons from you.


I am entirely self taught (with the help of books, records, and especially tablature from the web in recent years) other than some not very successful attempts by my older sisters to teach me piano as a kid.

I was obsessed with 5-string banjo for about 30 years, but have mostly transfered that obsession (and a lot of technique) to guitar in recent years - mostly fingerstyle, and a bit of classical, and I want to develop my flatpicking now too.

People tend to be very impressed by my tone and overall playing (guitar players tend especially to marvel at my right hand - most fingerpicking is almost effortless after so much banjo playing). I'm pleased with some of what I play, including some original fingerstyle pieces that are really well developed, but mostly I just feel like I hardly know anything and that there is so very far still to go.

I think I'm at a point where sitting down and learning more music theory would be useful, and I am jealous of folks who can sight read standard notation (like, my whole family can on other instruments), and I'm slowly working on that as I find the time and energy. And though I tend to play by ear by nature, there is so very far to go in improvising on the fly. And then there are different styles of playing, and jazz, and, well, lots of things (but mostly I just have a long list of fingerstyle things that I tend to plug away at learning when I have time for music, and whatever new techniques I learn are byproducts of that effort).

A lot of this I can work on by myself, but I'll bet that sitting down with a really experienced player who knows things I don't know (e.g. a teacher) on a regular basis could really facilitate some things. Fitting this in with a busy work and family schedule has just seemed terribly hard to imagine though. Well, maybe when I retire (assuming I don't have arthritis in my hands by then)!

Your comment about learning from every other musician you meet is so true. Every time I hear a good guitar player play in church, or in a concert, or in a guitar shop I take something home with me from the experience. Often they are simple ideas that can make a big difference to my sound, or to how I arrange a piece. Ocassionally they are lessons of how not to do things (e.g., bad tone from flatpicking too close to the bridge).

I've also started recording some of my stuff, and boy has that been an eyeopener. I'm almost embarrassed to listen to some of my recordings sometimes because of the irritating timing issues I had not been fully aware of. But also, recording is inspiring, because I'm able to attempt to play harmonies and countermelodies along with things that I previously only played solo before, giving these pieces a whole new life. All in all, recording really raises the bar, both in terms of forcing you to improve the precision and accuracy of your playing, but also in terms of the creativity it takes to develop the multiple parts of a piece for multiple tracks.

I can't believe how up themselves some folk are...chill, it's only a forum, not a university (though knowledge is available here, as it is elsewhere and everywhere), it's not a high court, so hold the judgements and it's no board of directors meeting. In other words, it's not an authority on anything except itself, so state your opinion, allow others to do likewise and move on!

I taught myself to work on my cars. My dad was busy working.

You're wrong, and here's why. A teacher teaches ... with books and records and videos, and instructional pamphlets, and play along tapes. Teachers use resources.
If you're the teacher, you use the same resources: books, CDs, fake books, instructional aids. But you're the teacher. You're self taught.
I can't put it any simpler than that. Take all of the resources available to a teacher and avail yourself of them. You are self taught.
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the phrase "self taught". It doesn't mean anything but that you are the teacher, you are teaching yourself ... you're not generating the knowledge, nor are you discovering the information for the first time, you are simply acting in the dual roles of teacher and student.
If someone learns to read Latin from a textbook with no teacher present, the book is not the teacher, it is the resource. The author of the book is not the teacher, he is not addressing any specific student, just assembling the accumulated and accepted knowledge on the subject of Latin grammar and vocabulary.
A book is not a teacher. A record is not a teacher, A video or online class may be a "teacher" of sorts, but resource materials aren't. Simple as that.

Fair enough. I'll buy that.

Fair enough. I'll buy that.

Thank you, no offense intended.

I can't believe how up themselves some folk are...chill, it's only a forum, not a university (though knowledge is available here, as it is elsewhere and everywhere), it's not a high court, so hold the judgements and it's no board of directors meeting. In other words, it's not an authority on anything except itself, so state your opinion, allow others to do likewise and move on!

Everybody gets to state their opinion. Then beginners, whether members or lurkers read the opinions. I'm not moving on anywhere. For every adolescent and sarcastic "If you're born on a deserted island with a guitar" post, I'm back to say, words mean things, and in the context of teaching music, "teach" and "taught" means something.
You "learn" from a million sources. You're "taught" by a "teacher".

Everybody gets to state their opinion. Then beginners, whether members or lurkers read the opinions. I'm not moving on anywhere. For every adolescent and sarcastic "If you're born on a deserted island with a guitar" post, I'm back to say, words mean things, and in the context of teaching music, "teach" and "taught" means something.
You "learn" from a million sources. You're "taught" by a "teacher".

I agree, as my previous posts on this thread testify...and "move on" is not an invitation to leave the thread, just to live and let live.

I agree, as my previous posts on this thread testify...and "move on" is not an invitation to leave the thread, just to live and let live.

Duly noted, thank you.

Thank you, no offense intended.
None taken.

*This is directed to the thread in general, no one in particular.

'On-line' we're denied the opportunity to see each other's, eyes, facial expressions, hand gestures, whether we say it behind a laugh, etc. - all of which temper our words. Most of us here feel pretty comfortable posting as if it really is a conversation happening in real time. It's not, so I think sometimes the casual remark/opinion comes off as dogma (sometimes the emoticons do help - as silly as they are). I'm totally guilty of taking a remark too seriously as well as tossing out some pretty stupid ken lasaineisms. The 'desert island' thing for example. Anyway, I guess my point is is that if we were sitting around a dinner table having the discussion it would be just that ... a topic of discussion. I can't imagine that anybody here is really that invested in whether one is and/or the definition of self taught. But, the conversation is cool.
And I was raised on a desert island. It's called Canoga Park in the SF valley. My parents still live there. I take provisions when I visit. :wink:

None taken.

*This is directed to the thread in general, no one in particular.

'On-line' we're denied the opportunity to see each other's, eyes, facial expressions, hand gestures, whether we say it behind a laugh, etc. - all of which temper our words. Most of us here feel pretty comfortable posting as if it really is a conversation happening in real time. It's not, so I think sometimes the casual remark/opinion comes off as dogma (sometimes the emoticons do help - as silly as they are). I'm totally guilty of taking a remark too seriously as well as tossing out some pretty stupid ken lasaineisms. The 'desert island' thing for example. Anyway, I guess my point is is that if we were sitting around a dinner table having the discussion it would be just that ... a topic of discussion. I can't imagine that anybody here is really that invested in whether one is and/or the definition of self taught. But, the conversation is cool.
And I was raised on a desert island. It's called Canoga Park in the SF valley. My parents still live there. I take provisions when I visit. :wink:

Hey, your Karma ran over my dogma.

'On-line' we're denied the opportunity to see each other's, eyes, facial expressions, hand gestures, whether we say it behind a laugh, etc. - all of which temper our words. . :wink:

indeed.

and as for earlier posts, we're all good. I was having a "sensitive" day.

Wow, nice post. After reading this I'm wishing I lived close to where you live to take lessons from you. Hey, thanks. In the spirit of what I mentioned in my previous post - I'd bet a dollar to a donut that we'd both learn something. Meaning that I couldn't charge my rate!

I was obsessed with 5-string banjo for about 30 years, but have mostly transfered that obsession (and a lot of technique) to guitar in recent years - mostly fingerstyle, and a bit of classical, and I want to develop my flatpicking now too.

Man, I wish I had gotten bitten by the banjo bug 30 years ago. I've only been into it for a couple of years, but I really love it. I gig a few tunes on it regularly and have done a few banjo sessions, but I'm still quite the newbie. My parts are pretty simple, so it feels kind of ridiculous to say that I play "Scruggs style", but that's my approach. I haven't pursued clawhammer yet. I'd been into fake banjo rolls on the guitar with pick and fingers ("Foggy Mountain Breakdown" and similar signature riffs) for quite some time, so I finally decided to pursue the real thing. It's kind of a reverse engineering process, but I will say that trying to ape the vibe on guitar made pursuing the real deal considerably less painful.

I think I'm at a point where sitting down and learning more music theory would be useful, and I am jealous of folks who can sight read standard notation (like, my whole family can on other instruments), and I'm slowly working on that as I find the time and energy. And though I tend to play by ear by nature, there is so very far to go in improvising on the fly. And then there are different styles of playing, and jazz, and, well, lots of things (but mostly I just have a long list of fingerstyle things that I tend to plug away at learning when I have time for music, and whatever new techniques I learn are byproducts of that effort).

Firstly, I'm impressed by your humility and your objective personal assessment. You strike me as a very musically hungry person, and that's the best way to be.

Music theory and standard musical notation - as viable tools for the musician - are among the most hotly debated subjects amongst musicians. When I see intelligent points and counterpoints from both sides of the fence, I tend to think, "Yeah, I can buy that argument". I certainly don't think there is any substitute for whatever it takes to develop one's ear and spirit as a musician. And I'm a firm believer that cross referencing various musical styles is among the best choices that a progressive musician can possibly make. Learning to read and learning a bit about the mathematics of music does not impede vibe and feel and soul of a musician that has worked long and hard to develop vibe and feel and soul - it enhances it. I started playing in 1967, and I can honestly say that I have never met a musician that was in it for the long haul, that has regretted the decision to study harmony and notation. There's absolutely no downsides to it. You can only win.

A lot of this I can work on by myself, but I'll bet that sitting down with a really experienced player who knows things I don't know (e.g. a teacher) on a regular basis could really facilitate some things. Fitting this in with a busy work and family schedule has just seemed terribly hard to imagine though. Well, maybe when I retire (assuming I don't have arthritis in my hands by then)!

Lessons from an experienced, articulate, and organized mentor are irreplaceable in my book. That said - absolutely, real life has a way of figuring into the equation. I'd dearly love to take some mandolin, banjo, and steel lessons from specialists. Currently, neither my budget nor my schedule will allow for such... I don't know anybody that teaches at 2:00 A.M.! So I continue to attempt to educate myself in the meantime.

Lots of folks have the misconception that professional musicians and professional music teachers, or those that strike a balance between the two occupations (such as myself), have all the time in the world to explore music to the nth degree. This is not necessarily so. Since I play instruments seven days per week, and because my bills get paid as a result of such, there is something to be said for that sort of continuous 'hands on' relationship with instruments. However, like any other occupation, being a musician is being a person that performs a job. If you're Elton John, you can focus all your energy toward your own music. I'm not Elton John, I'm a working musician in the trenches. I love the fact that I earn my keep as a musician, but a huge chunk of my responsibilities consist of musical chores that I wouldn't otherwise pursue, as left to my own devices. The last time I was "between gigs" was probably twenty years back - but given that scenario, in addition to having worked full time in other occupational fields - I once had the luxury of totally exploring a single tune that took the top of my head off for a solid month if I so desired. I dig the fact that my gig, teaching, and recording commitments (and related business transactions and peripheral considerations and... well, phone tag and BS) constantly cause me to scramble like a headless chicken, but I always feel like I'm running behind. That's the nature of work and business. The scope of my commitments causes me to look pragmatically at my schedule in my little black book each and every day of my life, and start constructing compromises within my tiny almond-sized brain. There's no way I can prepare to the utmost for every single commitment that I take on. I'm glad that I did decades of woodshedding in my youth though, as hopefully such has formed a foundation of sheer musicality that I can call upon over a variety of circumstances. In any event, my days of endlessly running various melodic sequences of every mode of the melodic minor scale are long gone.

Your comment about learning from every other musician you meet is so true. Every time I hear a good guitar player play in church, or in a concert, or in a guitar shop I take something home with me from the experience. Often they are simple ideas that can make a big difference to my sound, or to how I arrange a piece. Ocassionally they are lessons of how not to do things (e.g., bad tone from flatpicking too close to the bridge).

My best lessons have often been the most unexpected, and the simplest. Revelations that included slapping oneself upside the head a la' Homer Simpson. Here's an example:

Years ago, I got a call to do some work with a power pop/post-punk band. Easy pickin's, right? I knew how to get the tone. I'd listened to Ramones and Black Flag records, and I understood that relentless downstrokes were key. The other guitarist... the guy wouldn't have known a chromatic passing tone from a b5 sub (not a dig, just a point of contrast) - but the guy was just nailing it, and me, well, I wasn't. Every time we got to a D chord, his sounded big and juicy and full of attitude, while mine sounded thin, stupid, and anemic. It wasn't a tone thing. We were using similar rigs and gain structures. He'd hit his D chords with an open A (5th of D) on bottom, and he made very judicious of the 3rd (F#) on top, or he avoided it entirely, or he'd instead choose to add a 9 (open high E string), depending on the key of the song. I'd been playing four string cowboy chord D chords. I watched what the guy was doing, and I learned. My D chords no longer sounded stupid over this material, they were like meat in the stew. Homer Simpson revelation #3,073.

I've also started recording some of my stuff, and boy has that been an eyeopener. I'm almost embarrassed to listen to some of my recordings sometimes because of the irritating timing issues I had not been fully aware of. But also, recording is inspiring, because I'm able to attempt to play harmonies and countermelodies along with things that I previously only played solo before, giving these pieces a whole new life. All in all, recording really raises the bar, both in terms of forcing you to improve the precision and accuracy of your playing, but also in terms of the creativity it takes to develop the multiple parts of a piece for multiple tracks.

The recording is the single greatest educator on the planet in my opinion, and a welcome conduit to humility. Every nuance is a factor. I like to have a game plan in mind for recording. Sometimes the plan works, and other times I have to quickly jump off of it and try something else, including somebody else's idea. Simplifying themes and self-editing are often the musician's best friend in the recording studio. The biggest enemies of the musician in the recording environment are personal ego, and lack of objective assessment as to the song or piece at hand.

I've read the entire thread, and I find no sincere responses to be childish, pointless, or impertinent to the thread. At the very least, I find insight into the formative years and continuing education of various individuals to be utterly fascinating.

From time to time, a student will say to me, "I've decided that I want to be a musician. I want to earn my living as a musician." My first response is "Well, there's no time like the present to start ruining your life!" After that, I'll explain that I was only sorta kinda joking, and then we can dig into the pros and cons of such in more depth.

Most of the folks that I grew up playing music with have left it far behind them, and have instead chosen to focus on the various trials and tribulations of life itself. Regardless of level, and regardless of working status (pro, semi-pro, hobbyist, et al), anybody that maintains childish curiosity and love for music over the course of their lifetime is a musician in my book.

Additionally, I don't get the personal crusade to semantically or literally define the meaning of "self-taught". There's no possible benefit as to being 'correct' in this regard that I can find, and I've searched my heart of hearts on the matter.

JC in a sidecar, it's a discussion. It's not a thesis, dissertation, or textbook.

I played violin for maybe a semester in second grade and stopped (I think they discontinued the program). Picked it up again in junior high and played 3 years.

I got away from music until I got out of high school. That summer, I started guitar -- sat in the backyard with a few music books and just played and played and played.

I remember thinking the violin background would help, but very quickly I realized, I was in another world altogether. Pop and rock wasn't about trying to play the notes as written; it was free form. Here's a few chords -- get 'er done. Plus, in those days, many of the printed books had wrong chords... way wrong.

Books on playing lead didn't seem to work. I learned some patterns, but they didn't sound like leads.

What I know and do on guitar today, I actually learned by many hours of thrashing about. Fortunately, my focus was ALWAYS on writing original songs, and doing that has been a huge education in playing guitar.

"Self-taught?" Yeah, mostly. Form a band with your friends when none of you quite knows what you're doing, and you're the only guitarist, and EVERYONE is looking to you for parts/arrangements/leads -- it's pretty much sink or swim.

I read form time to time that all these great players were "self-taught", which to me mans that they got a guitar, a book or whatever and began to learn the instrument all by their lonesomes.

As I dig deeper, some people, as it turns out, either had lessons (for a short or long time) or came from a family where there were plenty of competent musicians around. This leas me to beleive that they're not truly self taught.

I bring this up because it's like the 2nd biggest lie about guitar playing, and to me, it's the most frustrating myth regarding the instrument. I'm sure there are folks with a natural talent that just learned and took off from almost ground zero, but tons of talented folks put in real time to learn the instrument. any opinions?

I've read the entire thread, and I find no sincere responses to be childish, pointless, or impertinent to the thread. At the very least, I find insight into the formative years and continuing education of various individuals to be utterly fascinating.

From time to time, a student will say to me, "I've decided that I want to be a musician. I want to earn my living as a musician." My first response is "Well, there's no time like the present to start ruining your life!" After that, I'll explain that I was only sorta kinda joking, and then we can dig into the pros and cons of such in more depth.

Most of the folks that I grew up playing music with have left it far behind them, and have instead chosen to focus on the various trials and tribulations of life itself. Regardless of level, and regardless of working status (pro, semi-pro, hobbyist, et al), anybody that maintains childish curiosity and love for music over the course of their lifetime is a musician in my book.

Additionally, I don't get the personal crusade to semantically or literally define the meaning of "self-taught". There's no possible benefit as to being 'correct' in this regard that I can find, and I've searched my heart of hearts on the matter.

JC in a sidecar, it's a discussion. It's not a thesis, dissertation, or textbook.

Thanks for the philosophical input.
You'll see that I don't accept the OPs definition of self taught and from what I've seen, read, and known from interacting with teachers, students and professionals in numerous fields, it's not a widely held definition. It's too narrow.
As you have read, the OP claims that great guitarists are lying about being self taught and that he's frustrated. It's my position that, since his definition for "self taught" is unrealistically narrow, it's folly to expect all of these great guitarists to speak to his(the OP's) definition. He's applying a subjective and inaccurate definition to the intentions of "great guitarists", then charging them with falsifying their learning experiences. It's the gist of his premise, and it it the very thing that must be properly addresses to get at his frustrations.
What troubles you about simply considering that if someone isn't understanding the meaning of a very commonly used phrase, or refuses to admit to same, that they will have unreasonable expectations regarding the subject at hand? How do you manage to answer, in an informal discussion, a question based on a false premise?
Thanks for judging my intent to challenge the OP's definitions,(and other posters who either don't know what "self taught" means, or who are similarly distrustful of the self taught). The OP asked for any opinions. How is being literal in a discussion based on the premise that musicians are lying about their training a crusade, or personal?
My definition is neither subjective nor personal. I believe the OP and several posters are frustrated because they doubt that well known musicians were able to attain high levels of skill without being taught by family members and competent musicians. If they were using the universally accepted definition of "self taught" (no formal training), the meaning I submit is intended by same "great guitarists", they would neither be frustrated, resentful, nor envious, because they would understand that these great players had all sorts of mentoring and influences, just no formal teachers.
I don't have a problem with you sharing your opinion, and haven't singled you out as posting inappropriately, yet you somehow feel you may take the judgmental highground with respect to my posts, since I'm directly addressing the gist of the OP's subject, and pointing out the pernicious disconnect evident in many of the other replies ... that if one stubbornly applies subjective and inaccurate definitions to widely recognized constructs, the accusations (lying) and frustrations attributed thereto are baseless.
I'm directly addressing the OP and others who share his misunderstandings. That's what he asked for when he asked for "any opinions". Why are your panties in such a knot over it? Because I suggest that bull-headed insistence that self taught means "no influences whatsoever" is childish and pointless? It's certainly pointless.
Here's the benefit of correctly defining the titular phrase of this thread: The OP doesn't need to indict the "great guitarists" he mentioned for being less than truthful and he can put his frustrations to rest. Said guitarists never meant they had no musical influences from the world around them, nor help from other competent players, they just didn't pay for lessons. Hopefully he may rest easier knowing that these great players are not such big headed, lying, egotists. They're just regular folks who learn from multiple influences like him.

wow, I didn't realize the storm that I was going to cause when I posted this.

I guess that my intention was that beginning guitar players will hear that so-and-so was "self-taught" and that puts in some people's heads (like mine, many, many years ago) that you can succeed on the instrument with no formal training at all. While this does appear to be entirely possible, it also appears to me that this is a long, long road, and results in frustration for lots of players. Granted, you may just not have the natural talent or gift that some players do, and that may be part of the reason that you do not progress to the level that others may.

I wanted to propose that a player may not have had formal training, or may not have had training on the guitar, but either training on a different instrument or being in an environment of accomplished musicians is a huge step up, and with an advantage like that, it's just not the same as woodshedding by yourself with a book/dvd/record.

I apologize for the use of "real work." I didn't mean to put it that way. I meant that sitting down and studying music is different than stumbling into things on your own. Fwiw, I come from a non-musical family, and aside from some saxophone lessons, have had no training. (aside from playing with better musicians that have taught me a bunch of things that I would not have figured out on my own, so I was taught in a haphazard way by people that were wiling to take the time to help me, and I am immensely grateful for that.) It's a real handicap to me as I try to play and dissect more complicated types of music.

some posters have recognized the badge of honor of no training that I'm referring to. It may be modesty, or bragging, or whatever. I don't blame the musicians themselves, but the myth of "I got a guitar, practiced a whole bunch, and made a million dollars, so you can do the same thing"

I think that this has been a pretty good discussion, and I value the differing opinions here.

wow, I didn't realize the storm that I was going to cause when I posted this.

I guess that my intention was that beginning guitar players will hear that so-and-so was "self-taught" and that puts in some people's heads (like mine, many, many years ago) that you can succeed on the instrument with no formal training at all. While this does appear to be entirely possible, it also appears to me that this is a long, long road, and results in frustration for lots of players. Granted, you may just not have the natural talent or gift that some players do, and that may be part of the reason that you do not progress to the level that others may.

I wanted to propose that a player may not have had formal training, or may not have had training on the guitar, but either training on a different instrument or being in an environment of accomplished musicians is a huge step up, and with an advantage like that, it's just not the same as woodshedding by yourself with a book/dvd/record.

I apologize for the use of "real work." I didn't mean to put it that way. I meant that sitting down and studying music is different than stumbling into things on your own. Fwiw, I come from a non-musical family, and aside from some saxophone lessons, have had no training. (aside from playing with better musicians that have taught me a bunch of things that I would not have figured out on my own, so I was taught in a haphazard way by people that were wiling to take the time to help me, and I am immensely grateful for that.) It's a real handicap to me as I try to play and dissect more complicated types of music.

some posters have recognized the badge of honor of no training that I'm referring to. It may be modesty, or bragging, or whatever. I don't blame the musicians themselves, but the myth of "I got a guitar, practiced a whole bunch, and made a million dollars, so you can do the same thing"

I think that this has been a pretty good discussion, and I value the differing opinions here.

It has happened more than a few times. Believe me, it's no myth.

Yea people say they are self taught,but did anybody here teach themselves how to talk?
It took me awhile to realize music is like a language and different styles require regional knowledge. If you invented a certain style of music like say classical or jazz then I would say you invented a new language.

Most people just take what they hear and ride on that.

Hey strat,

As long as we're being literal, there are are no intimate under garments in a wad here. Offering opinions and counterpoint does not by default mandate or imply that judgement has been passed. I said that I "didn't get it", that's all. Because I have opinions that might differ from yours (or someone else's), there's nothing there that defines judgement. There's plenty there that suggests a difference in opinion, but that really should not be confused with judgement, even when comments and opinions include a degree of sardonic content.

I need to qualify the above. Actually, I very much do "get" the points that you've made. Point for point. If I examine the crux of what's perplexing to me, it's the age-old curiosity as to how two different minds consider and think about particular things (and I must say that you have a very good one - mind, that is. There ya go, there's a judgement.). The thing is, there are very few things that I look at as being cut and dry, or black and white. This is how I'm wired. When I hear phrases such as "self-taught" or "talent", I immediately start considering the various hues and shades of grey and connotations of such. Obviously, people have different perspectives in this regard, and many have been offered within the thread. There are good reasons why Merriam-Webster's offers multiple defintions of many words and phrases. While I see the importance of definition, I also often see the restriction in stipulation.

I guess I'm influenced in this way because of my extensive graphic arts background. For instance, when a client said "I want black ink.", my question was always "What sort of black ink?" Black, double hit black, rich black with percentages of yellow, magenta, and cyan at different screen angles up under the black solids, blue-black with 30-40% cyan under the black, black with a brownish cast with a degree of magenta underneath?

However, the analogy is lacking and contradictory at best. What it suggests is that I seem to by nature feel the need to hone in on the nuances of what many consider to be fixed, stationary, and finite, while my take is mostly that nonesuch exists.

The only way I can think of to be truly self-taught is to have been the first caveman or cavewoman that discovered that pulling a string taut has the ability of producing noises that are pleasing to the ear. As for the rest of us. We've either grown up with records, 8 track tapes, cassettes, CD's, MP3's, or the digital medium du jour. Radios and musical instruments were invented long before we were fetuses. As long as we can say that we are in possession of a pair of ears, it's probably not that big of a stretch to say that none of us are self-taught.

Anyway, PEACE.

TB

I think the problem is people put so much emphasis on somebody being self-taught. Who cares? Everybody has to put in the hours to learn. You need some input form others in the process. I guess the pride here is that nobody's guiding you? Why is non-guidance so high on street-cred? You learn by copying, or at least I do, and if I copied a teacher or a another player who was not officially a teacher, or a record, what's the difference?! I don't get it. Nobody lives in a vacuum, we all learned from somebody, in some way.

I started to post in this thread yesterday, then thought better of it...

FYI, I use smilies to show when I'm kidding and/or not completely serious. People who actually know me understand that I'm generally a pretty silly person, and that I strive to keep a sense of humor. I don't always succeed, but if you don't like my sense of humor, then... :razz: :lol: :wink:

There is a fine line between formal lessons and informal lessons. Some of my best teachers have been of the informal kind. I've had good formal teachers too, as well as a bunch of mediocre ones. I have also never met anyone who regretted learning music fundamentals, theory, reading, or harmony.

Muddy Waters learned from Son House. I doubt they ever did formal lessons in the same sense that suburban soccer moms/dads think of lessons, but it's pretty well accepted that Muddy Waters was a student of Son House, and learned a lot from Son House, both directly and indirectly. In the same way, Johnny Winter was a student of Muddy Waters.

On the other hand, Steve Vai and Kirk Hammett both took lessons from Joe Satriani, probably more along the lines of what most people think of as formal lessons. It didn't seem to hold either Steve or Kirk back.

If someone is so insecure about themselves that they can't give credit to those who came before them and either paved the way, showed them the way, or actually walked with them part of the way, it's no big deal to me. My experience is that the best players will never hesitate to tell you who they learned from, formal, informal, or otherwise.

Discovering the wheel is not that same as going to the library and checking out a book about wheels.

Someone who starts a successful business with £50 does so using different resources than someone who does so with a large inheritance and arguably deserves more credit for personal achievement.

Someone who starts a successful business with £50 does so using different resources than someone who does so with a large inheritance and arguably deserves more credit for personal achievement.You have a point. Players who stick to a rigid "self-taught" definition do seem to be implying that they somehow deserve more credit. That's probably not always the case, and I don't think it's worth arguing about, but that might be part of why it rubs some people the wrong way.

I am self taught, and maybe (or not) that's why i'm not a very good player and that my progress have been slow. My son is learning in a music school wiz a teacher and he's learning much faster then i did. But maybe when you're selftaugh you are more openminded and "original" in your practice 'cos nobody has never show you how to do it.

Someone who starts a successful business with £50 does so using different resources than someone who does so with a large inheritance and arguably deserves more credit for personal achievement.

Why??? Isn't the success of the business all that matters? I assume you are linking formal training with inheritance, then ... as a consumer of the product of this imaginary sucessful business would you be more inclined to buy from ... the self started business or the business that came from a large inheritance/formal training. The falacy of your statement is that you assume the self taught musician can litterally cover all the bases that a formally trained musician can. If a self taught musician can read music, play a large variety of styles, understand theory, lead other musicians, has the technique, etc., etc., etc., that a formally trained musician can then great. This of course doesn't make him a better musician. It only makes hime the same with the same comparable talents. What the majority of the supposed "self-taught" musicians mean is that they don't know anything about music just that they can run a minor pentatonic scale fairly well. Of course being self-taught they wouldn't know it's a minor pentatonic. Also if someone learns from books, the countless videos on youtube, certainly from the forum here from both the formally trained and self taught, hell from listening to a particular artist then your self taught credentials are a little less than the someone who learned in a vacum. So ... like any other job applicant you will or should be judged on what you actually do know, your experience and your ability which all should be at least a little better by having received some formal training. I mean would you hire someone for anything without some formal training over someone with??? It certainly doesn't make the person better qualified. Jeezzzzzzzzz!!!!

Why??? Isn't the success of the business all that matters? I assume you are linking formal training with inheritance, then ... as a consumer of the product of this imaginary sucessful business would you be more inclined to buy from ... the self started business or the business that came from a large inheritance/formal training. The falacy of your statement is that you assume the self taught musician can litterally cover all the bases that a formally trained musician can. If a self taught musician can read music, play a large variety of styles, understand theory, lead other musicians, has the technique, etc., etc., etc., that a formally trained musician can then great. This of course doesn't make him a better musician. It only makes hime the same with the same comparable talents. What the majority of the supposed "self-taught" musicians mean is that they don't know anything about music just that they can run a minor pentatonic scale fairly well. Of course being self-taught they wouldn't know it's a minor pentatonic. Also if someone learns from books, the countless videos on youtube, certainly from the forum here from both the formally trained and self taught, hell from listening to a particular artist then your self taught credentials are a little less than the someone who learned in a vacum. So ... like any other job applicant you will or should be judged on what you actually do know, your experience and your ability which all should be at least a little better by having received some formal training. I mean would you hire someone for anything without some formal training over someone with??? It certainly doesn't make the person better qualified. Jeezzzzzzzzz!!!!

Did you miss the word "arguably" in my post? :roll:

Speaking personally, after all the hours I put in (on my own) getting to grips with playing the guitar, I feel that my reluctance to offer undue credit is both understandable and perfectly acceptable.
There were no guitar teachers in my area and no internet in those days and I could never afford books...and I figured out for myself how to emulate the players I admire.

Redstringer, first of all my post wasn't directed at you as a player in particular ... just that the notion that someone "self taught" (whatever that means) somehow deserves more praise, credit, etc. than someone formally trained and equally as good. I have a dear friend who for the most part especially the early years would fit your definition of being self taught. Ruined many a records slowing them down with a coin and figuring out the licks which is a process he had to learn from somewhere. My buddy plays guitar professionally and has all his life. Later I'm sure he probably has resulted to books, tab, informal instruction, and whatever means necessary to further his talent and ability to make money because I think he realizes the ridiculousness of this self taught is better mindset. I asked him one time about his thoughts on tab and he replied, "Whether it's tab or music notation, it is just notes on paper they don't play themselves. The only thing the audience cares about is whether it sounds good or not." I've personally know as well as you should that the audience could care less whether or not you spent x to the 10 th power of hours by your ownself or practicing scales garnered from a book or formal instruction learning something ... only whether or not the performance sucked. I'm sure you probably play better than plenty of formally trained musicians, but you aren't better than a fromally trained musician that plays equally as good. And to shun any of the means of formal or semi-formal instruction that are available to you today regardless of your ability is asinine. Even when you were "emulating" the players you idolized that certainly could be construed as formal education. The school of hard knocks is still a school. I just hate to see folks that are proud of their ignorance concerning music and it's only guitar players who subscribe to this mentality. The fact that you are posting you opinions in an internet forum titled Tabs, Tips and Techniques suggest that you may be in search of some knowledge. Careful you may learn something. And your self taught credentials may be in jeopardy.

I don't feel superior to players who have taken formal instruction, many of them play better guitar than myself, nor am I standing on any notion or principle that "self-taught is better". I teach others how to play the guitar and have said on many occasions that I wish I'd had someone like me (as I play now) around to help me through the difficult process of learning to play.
I taught myself to a level of competency which allowed me to be referred to as "a guitarist" while giving me the competence to develop and learn more advanced structures and techniques. That, in my book, makes me self taught and that is all I am saying...you can keep your praise, credit etc.

I'm don't feel superior to players who have taken formal instruction, many of them play better guitar than myself, nor am I standing on any notion or principle that "self-taught is better". I teach others how to play the guitar and have said on many occasions that I wish I'd had someone like me (as I play now) around to help me through the difficult process of learning to play.
I taught myself to a level of competency which allowed me to be referred to as "a guitarist" while giving me the competence to develop and learn more advanced structures and techniques. That, in my book, makes me self taught and that is all I am saying...you can keep your praise, credit etc.

redstringuitar, you are self taught according to the most widely accepted and generally held definition of the term. Anyone who twists that and equivocates around trying to redefine and renegotiate the matter has an agenda. There is no agenda to a simple definition. You are self taught. It's not a value judgment, just an observation.
You waste your time arguing the same points over and over, which is why I rest my case thusly: any player distrustful or envious, or even resentful of the self taught have some insecurity or ego-driven agenda, and you'll never get them to accept the common definition of "self taught" because it doesn't service their pride, it challenges them, as though talent is unfairly portioned out, and they didn't get their quota. It's ridiculous.
Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean, they mean specific things, as do commonly used phrases and colloquialisms. You can't redefine self taught to mean a caveman or an autistic shut in ... it means what it means. You can't "untake" lessons, and you can't minimize the efforts of self taught players by subjectively defining terms. If anyone feels inferior to or threatened by the self instructed, they need to deal with that within themselves, not by suggesting that said self motivated students are lying about or playing down their mentors and influences.

redstringuitar, you are self taught according to the most widely accepted and generally held definition of the term. Anyone who twists that and equivocates around trying to redefine and renegotiate the matter has an agenda. There is no agenda to a simple definition. You are self taught. It's not a value judgment, just an observation.
You waste your time arguing the same points over and over, which is why I rest my case thusly: any player distrustful or envious, or even resentful of the self taught have some insecurity or ego-driven agenda, and you'll never get them to accept the common definition of "self taught" because it doesn't service their pride, it challenges them, as though talent is unfairly portioned out, and they didn't get their quota. It's ridiculous.
Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean, they mean specific things, as do commonly used phrases and colloquialisms. You can't redefine self taught to mean a caveman or an autistic shut in ... it means what it means. You can't "untake" lessons, and you can't minimize the efforts of self taught players by subjectively defining terms. If anyone feels inferior to or threatened by the self instructed, they need to deal with that within themselves, not by suggesting that said self motivated students are lying about or playing down their mentors and influences.

Agreed...and well put.

I'm just not being told, on a forum or elsewhere, that aspects my life ran in a way other than that which I know to be true.

Can't rewrite history.

Different people have different ideas. Apparently the definition of "self-taught" isn't as universal or widely accepted as some people want to believe, otherwise there wouldn't be any disagreement about it.

Red String seems to have a good perspective, and he doesn't seem like he's trying to claim any special credit for himself. He's just explaining his situation as he sees it, and he presents himself with humility. In the context of what he describes, it makes perfect sense to me.

If someone else wants to give credit to all the players that influenced them and call them "teachers", that's fine too.

I apologize for suggesting in a previous post that players who claim to be self-taught are insecure... Bad choice of words, sorry. I don't think that's always true, but it can be. In my opinion, there's a certain level of respect you accord to those who came before you. To me, it's an issue of personal integrity. :idea:

In my experience, the most arrogant players are the ones who completely disregard those who came before them, and that's probably why it rubs me the wrong way.

Next time I hear someone claim to be "self taught", I will remind myself that they probably mean, "no formal lessons", and that they just have a different definition than I do.

It probably makes the most sense just to agree to disagree, and move on.

Different people have different ideas. Apparently the definition of "self-taught" isn't as universal or widely accepted as some people want to believe, otherwise there wouldn't be any disagreement about it.

....


You are exactly right. I've read a lot of the posts in this thread and most are from the perspective of the player. "Teaching" implies an exchange, an interaction.

Teachers are generally thought to have more knowledge/skill and pass that on to students. They provide a course of instruction; a curriculum. They guide and correct; they provide material and work for self-study; they create method to measure progress and identify strengths and weaknesses.

To be "self-taught" then implies that the course of study, the assignment of self study, the methods of measuring progress, etc, are created by the student. They buy books and magazines, seek out their own sources of expertise and, in the age of the internet, get "lessons" on You Tube. But there is limited interaction; limited exhange between the student and their sources. The player is the Student and the Teacher.

Even then, no one, except possibly those few prodigiess, are taught in a vaccuum, with no interaction. They are "mostly" self-taught, pehaps, but sooner or later, they interact and exhange ideas, methods, sources.

I suspect that regardless of how effective you find "self teaching" that professional instruction, even if it is just an occasional suppliment, will be valuable. A very highly respected golf instructor noted that when you're having a problem, it might take you days to figure it out, but you professional can fix it in 30 minutes.

As a beginner (think "just laid hands on his very first instrument"), I can already see that having a professional look at, and correct, my technique (hand/finger position, instrument postion, posture, etc) and offer excercises to practice could be very valuable. It'll keep me from bad habits that may present problems in the future; problems I am not experienced enough to expect.

I also wanted to add that the idea that there are "natuals" who don't have to work hard to play great is fallacious for the most part. There may be the very rare few prodigies. Otherwise, those "naturals" bust their butts to improve and learn. While someone like Clapton may have an inate ability that we don't, my guess is he (or those like him), spent countless hours learning, practicing and playing. I'm pretty sure he didn't spend his formative years posting ideas on internet forums - he was too busy "teaching" himself to play guitar.

:2cents:

I wouldn't say that I am self-taught but rather I am self learned and still learning. To me "taught" makes it sound like I have perfected the instrument. What I did was I grabbed the cheapest guitar I could find, got a crappy book from my library, learned the basic chord shapes, now am playing weekly on my church's praise team. I think that knowing the sax probably helped me learn the guitar to where I have learned it pretty easily and rapidly. Now I just need to go back and learn how to play chords all over the neck, and finally get serious and learn the fretboard inside and out.

It's all semantics at this point. When I was a teenager I was playing my guitar at a friends house. His older sister was working in a national Folk act. A very faomous (at least at the time) singer songwriter was there and complimented me on what I was playing but offered to show me something he thought would help me out. What he taught me was the Blues progression!! I think it goes with out saying how much changed my playing!

He didn't charge me anything but he did teach me something of great value.

when I hear that Wes didn't know anything about theory because he didn't study I have to question that he grew up in a very musical family, did his first recorings with his brothers. Ya don't hang out with the likes of Wynton Kelly and Charles Brown without them teaching ya somthing...

Have Fun!

This whole thread has been a big surprise to me. Frankly I never heard anybody have this argument before. People that are self-taught know what self-taught means. It means that you actively sought out the knowledge and provided yourself with whatever discipline was required to learn how to play. It does not imply that you invented the techniques and no one who is self-taught intends that to be inferred.

This whole thread has been a big surprise to me. Frankly I never heard anybody have this argument before. People that are self-taught know what self-taught means. It means that you actively sought out the knowledge and provided yourself with whatever discipline was required to learn how to play. It does not imply that you invented the techniques and no one who is self-taught intends that to be inferred.

I know. Some people will argue about anything.

any opinions?

Every opinion has a rectum. Self Taught the hard way, I stole from others.

I read form time to time that all these great players were "self-taught", which to me mans that they got a guitar, a book or whatever and began to learn the instrument all by their lonesomes.

As I dig deeper, some people, as it turns out, either had lessons (for a short or long time) or came from a family where there were plenty of competent musicians around. This leas me to beleive that they're not truly self taught.

I bring this up because it's like the 2nd biggest lie about guitar playing, and to me, it's the most frustrating myth regarding the instrument. I'm sure there are folks with a natural talent that just learned and took off from almost ground zero, but tons of talented folks put in real time to learn the instrument. any opinions?

Its not the second biggest lie its the first. I started playing when The Monkees TV show appeared. Half the kids in the old neighborhood picked up the guitar. We learned from each other. The first three songs I learned (I don't remember the order I learned them) were Louie Louie, Gloria, and I'm Not Your Steppin Stone. I picked them up from friends. I took a couple months of lessons after I learned those first songs. I joined a kid band as a bass player and learned more from the guys in the band. The leader of the band had an older brother who played in a band and was able to pass on information he got from him. Eventually my ear got good enough to pick up songs on my own. In my early 20s I began learning piano. I have taken piano lessons on and off, More off. I don't buy the I was self taught in a vacuum.

I'm self-taught,and now I teach..........life is funny like that,eh?

Im self taught , I taught myself how ask questions to friends that were good players. And I taught myself how to steal any lick I could get. No one showed me how to do what I do with it now. Good or Bad I figured it out myself.

When I was 12, I took a Harmony Stella acoustic guitar and tuned it to some kind of open chord that sounded good. Then I clamped my index and ring fingers across frets up & down the neck and played chords that way. Self taught.

I, at 15, am completely self-taught. My mom got me started with a few chords when I was 9 or 10, but since then, I've learned the hard way.

Ya, I'm not a self tought guitarist. I have never paid for a lesson in my life, but there was always lots of "Hey you, show me that lick you just played again...." There was also much replaying of records so I could stell riffs by ear.

So when somebody tells me they're self tought, I figure it meens they've just never had a "lesson," but I think just about everyone has said "play that again for me....."

So I don't think they are lying, they is just sayin' they done done it without no finantial aid................. or something

How about we just call it a day and refer to it as self-learned - ?

defining self taught seems a tad artificial. I had some group lessons when i was 12 and then a few months of Berklee Method oriented lessons when i was in high school but the majority of what i learned i dug up from other folks, books, web pages, transcribing etc. mmm tradational student (active learner) teacher (provides information and facilitates learning) relationship if you ask me even if there is no direct contact.

The one thing i discovered going back on those method lessons was that i had learned things which i forgot and later relearned independently through a lot of struggle. my teacher had never explained why or what i was learning...ie what to do with it so it didn't stick. a good teacher can be invaluable to get you places faster provided they are a good teacher, not just a good player.

I'm self-taught, and I haven't decided yet whether I'm a terrible teacher or a terrible student... but the result is the same... I'm terrible. But I love it, anyhow.

It's a topic that can go on for-ever. Similar to that egg conundrum.

What came first? The teacher or the student?

I'm self-taught, and I haven't decided yet whether I'm a terrible teacher or a terrible student... but the result is the same... I'm terrible. But I love it, anyhow.

Well that's the show for tonight folks. Thank you and goodnight.:lol::lol:

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long! I mean, really, what a big tempest in a small teapot!!!

Tim

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long! I mean, really, what a big tempest in a small teapot!!!

Tim

Tempest?

That's a new word for me. Did someone teach you that word, or were you self-taught?

:wink::lol:

Why should you learn to play the guitar as long as you can still make some good music with that thing, eh....?

It's not hard for me to believe that someone would think it impossible to be "self taught". I mean while it's not "rocket science" there are alot of chords, progressions, theories, etc.... I have tried for years and am mediocre at best. I know the Ernie Ball basic chords and the pentatonic scale and so forth and have taken maybe 5 lessons total, but I learn from you tube and I have a couple of instructional DVD's and still not a "real" guitar player.

SRV played for hours on end, Eddie van Halen played day and night. That I think is the key the guys who are willing and able to sit for hours on end playing are the better players. I play every day mostly, but an hour at best and if I had any natural talent that would probably suffice. I think at some point the 'self taught" guitarist must have put some intense effort into learning the fretboard. Then builds on that afterward and is steady in progression toward perfection as the individual sees it.

That being said some of the "self taught" guitarist aren't very good and are only in the ballpark when it comes to playing, hell for even that matter tuning.

Martin...

I've taken classical guitar lessons, but I'd been playing for nearly 20 years when I did so. I've never had a non-classical lesson in my life.

Of course I've made full use of books and other material, but that'd still be what most people consider, "self-taught", I assume?

I've taken classical guitar lessons, but I'd been playing for nearly 20 years when I did so. I've never had a non-classical lesson in my life.

Of course I've made full use of books and other material, but that'd still be what most people consider, "self-taught", I assume?

Sorry Matt you and I (who merely had about 4 months of once a week lessons years ago) according to the evidently generally accepted definition here, aren't self-taught players. And ... worse than that we'll never be as good as self-taught players regardless of our ability because they are more deserving of praise because ... well they're ... self-taught ... don'tcha know! It's kind of like afirmative action in music, but it's only in the realm of guitar playing. Any other instrament formal instruction is almost necessary to reach a certain level of competence. Musical theory and the ability to read are pretty much required. Folks lacking that ability are referred to as ignorant. Not so in the guitar world. As for my formal education I was young and didn't know better. I just wanted to be a better guitarist. I thought a little knowledge couldn't hurt. Alas ... I didn't know my self-taught credentials would forever be in jeopardy. And I's never be able to hold my head up at jam again. Oh the sins of youth ... Anyways I suppose if I'd taken lessons from a self-taught guitarist like redstring then I'd still be cool with y'all ... or does count against you too??? Although it doesn't apply to me, I'm sure there are some young players who would appreciate a decision from the Executive Council of Self-Taught Guitarists. We are waiting ...