self-taught? really?

[Ptrallan01]

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by Ptrallan01

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?

[klasaine]

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.

[jazztele]

yeah, what's that quote?

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

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by strat a various

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

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by klasaine

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.

[jazztele]

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by jazztele

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.

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

[Stuco]

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

[redstringuitar]

Originally Posted by strat a various

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!

[blue metalflake]

Originally Posted by Stuco

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)

[emu!]

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?)

[Ptrallan01]

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

[jazztele]

Originally Posted by strat a various

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.

[boneyguy]

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.

[BigDaddyLH]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

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?

[Jenix]

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.

[warmingtone]

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 __________!

[emu!]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLH

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.

[stevieboy]

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!

[gregmartino902]

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?

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by jazztele

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.

[wcap]

Originally Posted by Tim Bowen

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.

[redstringuitar]

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!

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by strat a various

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by klasaine

Fair enough. I'll buy that.

Thank you, no offense intended.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by redstringuitar

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".

[redstringuitar]

Originally Posted by strat a various

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by redstringuitar

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.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by strat a various

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by klasaine

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.

Hey, your Karma ran over my dogma.

[jazztele]

Originally Posted by klasaine

'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. .

indeed.

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

[Tim Bowen]

Originally Posted by wcap

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.

[Tim Bowen]

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.

[beep.click]

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by dijos

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?

Originally Posted by Tim Bowen

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.

[dijos]

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.

[strat a various]

Originally Posted by dijos

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.

[mannyg]

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.

[Tim Bowen]

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