# Technique, Theory, Playing Tips and Tricks > Theory, Technique, Tips and Tricks >  Applying Bloom's Taxonomy to Learning the Mandolin

## JonZ

Bloom's Taxonomy is a hierarchy of learning. It can be useful for planning lessons and instructional material. The basic idea is that you break down a difficult task into the steps of the hierarchy.

Here is the taxonomy:

Remembering: can the student recall or remember the information?	
The student will... define, duplicate, list, memorize, recall, repeat, reproduce state, etc.

Understanding: can the student explain ideas or concepts?	
The student will... classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate, paraphrase.

Applying: can the student use the information in a new way?
The student will... choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write.

Analyzing: can the student distinguish between the different parts?
The student will... appraise, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test.

Evaluating: can the student justify a stand or decision?	
The student will... appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, evaluate.

Creating: can the student create new product or point of view?
The student will... assemble, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, write. 


I have been thinking about learning arpeggios lately, and how this taxonomy would, or would not, apply. I think it is obvious that I have to Remember the arpeggios first, and, ultimately, I would like to use them to Create.

The question is, given the subject of arpeggios, how would you approach moving from Remember to Create? What steps do and do not apply to learning arpeggios? Are there different steps that would be more appropriate to learning music? How would you teach or practice arpeggios with each step of your hierarchy?

I know that some people will be thinking "God, man! Just play your #$%& mandolin and stop over-thinking it". 

Sorry--that's what I do. :Wink: 

I know that this is a lot to think and write about, so thank you in advance to anyone who would like to take a shot at it.

----------


## mandotim1955

I think Kolb's model of experiential learning might be a better fit for learning mandolin. Try here; http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_...kolb_flash.htm 
Tim

----------


## draino

Here's maybe a little different approach:

Remembering:  remembering the intervals involved in making each kind of arpeggio
Understanding:  being able to (rather quickly) construct an arpeggio in any key and play it on the fingerboard
Applying:  Take a tune you know and for which you have a backing track prepared.  Play the chord changes as arpeggios along with the backing track; play the melody line along with the backing track; finally, replace bits of the melody with an appropriate arpeggio.
Analyzing:  Listen to recordings; identify when arpeggios are being played.  Attempt to determine what arpeggio is being played, how it relates to the tonic of the tune in question, and how it relates to the specific harmonic background over which the arpeggio is being played.
Evaluating:  Repeat analyzing and decide for yourself which uses of arpeggios you like

----------


## Andrew DeMarco

Jon,

Interesting idea!

A brief review of the literature (i.e. the scientific journals) shows that Bloom's Taxonomy received a revision about a decade ago. A pretty recent article (2007) discusses its implications for musicians :Smile: 

See the inline attached PDF for the article. Neat stuff!

----------


## JonZ

Andrew--Thanks for the article. I will read it. I think I referenced the new taxonomy above. The link I provided shows old and new side by side.

mandotim1955--Kolb's is interesting. Why do you think it would be more appropriate, and how would you apply it to the arpeggio task?

----------


## Ryan Zerby

I've been actively getting into arpeggios, myself (finally got to that part in the FFcP book  :Smile: 

I think I'd apply the taxonomy more like this:

Remembering: Remembering the actual notes of the arpeggio.  CMaj = CEG, GMaj=GBD. 

Understanding: Why are those notes the arpeggios? (because they are the notes of the chord).  Identify the arpeggio for an arbitrary arpeggio (Dbm7?). Possibly do it in Nashville Numbering.

Applying: Given a I-IV-V chord progression in the key of C, play the basic arpeggiation. 

Analyzing: What chord would fit an F-A-C-D arpeggio? 

Evaluating: Upon hearing an apreggiation, explain why it works or doesn't work in context (for example, Playing B-G-E-C-B is an C7 arpeggio, but sounds non-major to my ears).

Creating: Produce arpeggiation on demand, without having to think about it.

----------


## SincereCorgi

I don't know if a format like that works for arpeggios, unless they treat arpeggios as one component before moving upward, i.e. 'step one: learn various patterns for turning chords into melodic shapes, step two: practice them until they can be executed in isolation, step three: incorporate them into improvisation, step four: challenge devil to mandolin contest'.

You might look into the system they use in the UK (and some countries in Europe, although I know less about those), which is a comprehensive graded music education process with juries at every level where, to advance, the individual has to demonstrate proficiency on a series of scales and solo pieces. They also have something comparable for music theory, with sight-singing and chord identification and other fun stuff. I lived there for a year and was initially puzzled when people kept asking 'what grade' clarinetist I was.


Also, to play devil's advocate, this guy present an interesting case for a different approach: http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

----------


## JeffD

I don't know. Bloom seems to apply to the acquisition of an intellectual skill, not a mechanical one.

Bloom would help one to learn math, or paragraph writing. But not, I don't think, catching a ball.

So, is learning arpeggios more like learning to write a paragraph or more like learning to catch a ball?

I kind of learned arpeggio forms. Finger patterns in closed position, closed position anchored high, closed position anchored low, or for when there is an open string below, or an open string above. Major and minor.  Similar to what Pickloser has done with double stops, (but not nearly as well thought out.) The point is that I didn't learn the specific notes in any given chord or arpeggio, and while I can figure it out when ever I need to recite it, that knowledge doesn't have any part in my playing. To me it seems much more a positional and mechanical thing, kind of like recognizing the pattern of dots on the face of a standard die without having to recite the actual number of dots.

But thats me.

----------


## JonZ

SincereCorgi--I am guessing that the graded system that you describe does not have improvisation as a goal. So, it might not address the Create level, unless there is a composition component.

JeffD--I am not advocating for Bloom. It is just one model. I am interested in the best way to break down the long-term goal of "Create" into a logical progression.

I know for a lot of people the answer is to have the patterns available to look at and just start jamming with some chords, jumping right ahead to Create. There could be a whole pro and con discussion about which approach is better. I assume that a balance is best. 

I compare a lot of music learning ideas to basketball learning ideas, because my kids are on teams. You deffinately see that they need plenty of time to play, but they also need the fundamentals broken down an taught to them.

----------


## draino

> I don't know. Bloom seems to apply to the acquisition of an intellectual skill, not a mechanical one.
> 
> Bloom would help one to learn math, or paragraph writing. But not, I don't think, catching a ball.
> 
> So, is learning arpeggios more like learning to write a paragraph or more like learning to catch a ball?
> 
> I kind of learned arpeggio forms. Finger patterns in closed position, closed position anchored high, closed position anchored low, or for when there is an open string below, or an open string above. Major and minor.  Similar to what Pickloser has done with double stops, (but not nearly as well thought out.) The point is that I didn't learn the specific notes in any given chord or arpeggio, and while I can figure it out when ever I need to recite it, that knowledge doesn't have any part in my playing. To me it seems much more a positional and mechanical thing, kind of like recognizing the pattern of dots on the face of a standard die without having to recite the actual number of dots.
> 
> But thats me.


Jeff, I agree there is not a 1:1 correlation here, and the muscle memory aspect of finger positions may be outside the scope of Bloom's taxonimy.  However, in terms of internalizing the sound of the arpeggios, how they function in actual music, and how you can apply them to your own playing, I think there is good reason to attempt to put some order into how one gets from "knowing finger positions" to "Man that guy can play a tasteful break."

----------


## Toycona

Very interesting thread!

----------


## mandotim1955

Hi Jon
I think Kolb is helpful for two reasons; the first is that the model was developed specifically around the concept of adult learning, whereas Bloom and the later revisions were less specific in this regard. The second reason is that Kolb does not differentiate between the acquisition of knowledge and the development of skills. Bloom is primarily concerned with knowledge. Playing the mandolin (for me, at least) is a combination of knowledge acquisition, retention of knowledge, development of motor skills to a point of unconscious competence, social adjustment (playing with others), experience, judgement, motivation and personal expression. There is something else; I'm always impressed by Kenneth Gardner's ideas about multiple intelligences; he suggests that there might be a specific 'musical intelligence' that can be developed or in-born. He doesn't develop this idea as much as he does some of the others (verbal, spatial, reasoning, interpersonal etc) but it's an interesting thought.

----------


## JonZ

So how would you break down the arpeggio task using Kolb?

----------


## JonZ

Okay, here is my attempt at teaching a major triad. Just a rough sketch, mind you.

Remember
Given a note, locate its position on any string.
Given a fretboard position, name the note.
Given a major chord, name the notes
Given a diagram of a movable arpeggios, identify the starting finger.

Understand
Explain the relationship of the notes in a major chord to the major scale.
Explain how open and closed patterns can be moved to make different arpeggios.

Apply
Given a chord, play a variety of sequences for each arpeggio pattern.
Given two chords, transition between two arpeggio patterns, using a variety of sequences

Analyze
Demonstrate how arpeggios can be played over a variety of major chord progressions
--ascending the fretboard
--descending the fretboard
--in first position, second position, etc.

Create
Improvise creatively using a variety of positions and sequences over several major chord progressions.

Evaluate does not seem to apply.

----------


## Ed Goist

Shouldn't _Understanding_ come before _Remembering_, especially with something like an arpeggio exercise?
If one understands the concepts/rules behind the form, the form becomes easier to remember.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Quote from* JonZ* -_ "I know that some people will be thinking "God, man! Just play your #$%& mandolin and stop over-thinking it".
Sorry--that's what I do."_  Then STOP DOING IT !!!.

_Charlie Brown,Linus & Rerun are all lying on their backs on a small hill,looking up at the clouds. Charlie Brown says 'these clouds remind me of Beowulf's last stand against the invading hordes'. Linus  says 'they remind me of the ride of the Valkyries,the warrior daughters of the God Wotan - what do they remind you of Rerun ? - a small pause for thought,then 'a horsie & a ducky'_. 
       I'm most definitely a 'horsie & a ducky' guy. Over-intellectualising what ''for me'', is an enjoyable pursuit, destroys the whole objective. Sorry about that Jon - but for me,'simplification' is all,other folk may differ,
                                                                                                                 Ivan :Wink:

----------


## Bertram Henze

It's one of humanity's oldest dream - to control a process by modelling it:

And the dream lives on, in countless business process models covering the walls and computer screens of the corporate world (I have drawn many of them myself).

But that's just what it is - a dream. An illusionary representation detached from reality. A very minor subset of the information reality holds in store.
To control a process, you must *live* it. Those ancient cavemen probably survived because they actually killed those beasts, not because they painted them. And those who had to learn to hunt certainly did it by hunting, not by studying the paintings.
Modelling is like winning a million in the lottery and then writing a book on how to get rich - it does not work well the other way round. Modelling is an rationalization of what you did right _a posteriori_, it's no good for teaching others what to do right _a priori_.

Once you get your arpeggios right, you'll find it difficult to explain how you did it, because playing is controlled by parts of your brain optimized for speed and flexibility, but without resources wasted for explanation. All of nature works without providing or needing explanation - it is just humans who make plans to fail at.

----------


## SincereCorgi

Beautifully said, Bertram.

----------


## draino

...and engineers really should learn how to build skyscrapers by just doing it...and chemists really should just throw expensive and possibly dangerous reactants together and just see what happens...

Buisness models never work because you're working with a system that is too complex to model -- too many interacting variables, many of which are unpredictable.  I'm sure the pre-historic people chatted and/or grunted with each other a bit before they went out on a hunt -- I'm sure they SYSTEMATICALLY TAUGHT THEIR CHILDREN HOW TO HUNT -- and didn't just all run out into a field firing arrows hoping one of them would land a buffalo.  But there are a lot of models that work wonderfully.  The periodic table is an amazing model of elemental properties.  There are mountains and mountains of literature showing that a structured approach to teaching/learning works much better than just flying by the seat of your pants.  Structure is not required . . . but it sure gets you from point A to point B a lot faster.

All of us take a theoretical approach to learning something new on the mandolin, whether we develop that theory conciously or unconciously.  Some merely think that polishing the f-holes of their theoretical approach might yield sonic improvements.

The negative posts on this thread all assume that JonZ never actually plays his mandolin.  But the trend I've seen is that he posts a question like this, discusses it for a day or three, and then he goes away for a few weeks.  It appears to me that in the intervening time he is actually PLAYING his mandolin.  Its not like he just sits around thinking about how one should learn the mandolin but never bothers to learn it.  If the average poster (myself included) put half as much time into developing a theory regarding how they can learn to play the instrument as he puts into developing far-fetched and baseless theories on how the construction of a mandolin affects its tone, we'd all be Thile-level players  :Smile:

----------


## draino

> Shouldn't _Understanding_ come before _Remembering_, especially with something like an arpeggio exercise?
> If one understands the concepts/rules behind the form, the form becomes easier to remember.


Ed, there has to be some base level of remembering before understanding can take place.

"What am I develping a concept about again?  Oh, major arpeggios.  What's an arpeggio again?  Oh, right.  What's the major scale again?  Oh, okay."

The "remembering stage" isn't the traditionally denograted task of "memorizing" -- it doesn't mean "ingrain in long term memory so deeply you'll never forget" it means "placing the initial facts needed for conceptulizing in your short-to-mid-term memory so that you have something to work with."

----------


## Ed Goist

draino; excellent explanation. Makes perfect sense.
This also points out how the stages aren't exclusionary from one another, and how all this is happening simultaneously to some extent.
Thanks.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> ...and engineers really should learn how to build skyscrapers by just doing it...


Since modelling is a thinking technique, it is always good for other thinking processes. However, when I play mandolin, my thinking is much too slow for that. I could mention other processes where thinking won't help, but this is a family forum.




> ...and chemists really should just throw expensive and possibly dangerous reactants together and just see what happens...


Apparently that's what they do  :Cool: 


Don't get me wrong: I am aware of the fact that this discussion really seems to be a lot about teaching and understanding what goes on inside the trainee's head, and that a teacher has a much bigger task to do than a player. But if I am teaching myself, I don't think I have to switch roles and think like I was two persons in one. I am building that skyscraper all alone with considerably less paperwork (and it does collapse sometimes, yes, that's all part of the fun).

----------


## draino

> Okay, here is my attempt at teaching a major triad. Just a rough sketch, mind you.
> 
> Remember
> Given a note, locate its position on any string.
> Given a fretboard position, name the note.
> Given a major chord, name the notes
> Given a diagram of a movable arpeggios, identify the starting finger.
> 
> Understand
> ...


JonZ, in reading this I only have one concern:  it still seems like you're leaving a pretty big leap from the "analysis" section to the "create" section.  In the analysis section you're merely playing finger patterns, and then in the "create" section you're asking the student/yourself now to make a leap to improvising melody over a chord progression.  I would suggest either placing a much narrower and specific limit on what you mean by "improvise creatively," or provide more complexity to your "analysis" section (which is basically a repeat of the "apply" section, except this time the arpeggios are being played over the chord progression).  For example, perhaps the "create" section could be "develop variations on three melodies the student already knows by replacing one or more portions of the melody with an appropriate arpeggio."

----------


## AlanN

Ai yi yi. Who said talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Wayyyy too much yakking about picking the mandolin, for me.

For those that like this stuff, carry on (I know you will  :Wink:  )

----------


## draino

> Ai yi yi. Who said talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Wayyyy too much yakking about picking the mandolin, for me.
> 
> For those that like this stuff, carry on (I know you will  )


This quote never made any sense to me.  Talking about music is not like dancing about architecture.  Talking about music is like talking about architecture, which is done all the time.  And I'm sure teachers of architecture talk about how best to teach budding architects, too.

----------


## swampy

I'm a fan of both Kolb and Bloom. I teach middle school and both have great ideas that I apply often. The main thing is that these are not super rigid models or black and white. Learning is too complex to be attacked simply using science. A music educator friend of mine once told me the key to learning any instrument, and to me it totally relates to most aspects of learning.

1. Imitate 
2. Emulate
3. Create

One of the things I like most about bluegrass vs. most other forms of music is the emphasis on playing songs as soon as possible. I've gotten bands up and running with teenagers with no musical experience in almost no time. I tended to teach them what to do and save the explanation and analysis for later.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Who said talking about music is like dancing about architecture.


I think it is a quote by Elvis Costello.
A simple reconfiguration makes it make sense: architecture dancing about is what you see during an earthquake.  :Grin:

----------


## JeffD

> Okay, here is my attempt at teaching a major triad. Just a rough sketch, mind you.


At what point is "practice it until you nolonger think about it"

----------


## Andrew DeMarco

Well, I am a bit agnostic about these models of learning, because I haven't given them a look over in depth as they relate to musical learning (despite sharing that article, lol).

But I do have to say, Jon, I gotta give you props for helping generate this type of discussion. Yes it's theoretical by definition and can be rather tedious to some (myself included!) but as someone who works with theories a lot of the time, I find myself weighing in on the side of _yes_ this type of discussion can be substantive and useful, rather than dismissing it as dancing about architecture (then again, I'm not an architect, is there a "dancing" step in architecture?).

Thanks Jon :Smile: 

From the discussion up to now, it seems like think the hard part is operationalizing the verbiage attached to these models, specifically as they relate to doing/learning music.

I'd like to ask some specific questions as food for thought. First, what specifically do you see as the limitations of Bloom's model in this context? And second, it seems to me that a lot of these steps are intuitive/natural. What specific steps/aspects of these models are not intuitive (and thus potentially _especially_ worthwhile to pay attention to)?

----------


## draino

> draino; excellent explanation. Makes perfect sense.
> This also points out how the stages aren't exclusionary from one another, and how all this is happening simultaneously to some extent.
> Thanks.


Also, Bloom's taxonomy isn't "this is what someone SHOULD do when they are learning."  Its "I've watched thousands of people learn lots of different stuff, and a walk away seeing a trend in the way that most people learn, regardless of what they are learning.  I'll now try to describe the steps that I see most people using when learning something new."  The idea here is "okay, Bloom's taxonomy tells me how people generally learn, so can I structure specific assignments and tasks to fit with how a person naturally learns?"  If one is already familiar with Bloom's taxonomy, there really isn't a whole lot of "intellectulizing" involved with developing practice excercises and routines around it.  As you can see from the thread, in less than 24 hours, and a matter of about three posts, we've gone from "hey, I wanna start learning arpeggios, what's a good approach?" to a couple of proposed systematic approaches.  If learning mandolin in this way isn't fun for you, then by all means don't learn it this way.  But if you've been struggling to get where you want to be, rather than simply learning new scale patterns, or new arpeggios, and thinking that those patterns will some how make you a better player/msuician, maybe take a step back and think "what is my final goal?  What are the things I need to know and/or be able to do in order to reach that goal?  Is there an order in which I should acquire each of those skills/knowledge bases?"  Once you've done that, pick the first skill or piece of knowledge and break it down -- with your final overall goal of making music in mind.  This thread is about seeing if Bloom's taxonomy is a useful tool for breaking things down into bite-sized, digestible steps. 

To me, this approach isn't about itellectualizing, its just about setting a goal, and then being sensitive and self-reflective enough to know what *I* need to do in order to acheive that goal.  I think we all do that, even with music -- heck, I even do that in acheiving goals of the most family-friendly nature.  Bloom's taxonomy is simply one tool that can be used to make plotting the path to that goal take shape a little more quickly.  I'm sure plenty of people could come up with a great course of study without using Bloom's taxonomy -- but for those of us that are used to working with it already, it simply gives us a rubric that allows us to develop a sound approach more quickly than recreating the wheel from scratch every time.

----------


## draino

> And second, it seems to me that a lot of these steps are intuitive/natural. What specific steps/aspects of these models are not intuitive (and thus potentially _especially_ worthwhile to pay attention to)?


The models seem intuitive/natural because . . . they are basically words placed over the steps that most humans naturally take when learning something new.  The idea is, if I gave somebody who had never heard of an arpeggio before a big book of music theory and said "in five weeks I'm going to come back and I want you to be able to play a solo using arpeggios," the person would likely _naturally_ do the these steps -- first remembering what an arpeggio is, then applying that information to build some arpeggios, then analyzing how the arpeggios fit into music, and finally creating a solo.  The challenge is that the student has to dive blindly into that big thick book of music theory and work all of that out himself.  If instead of just giving him a big book of music theory you gave him a systematic set of lessons, you take out a lot of wasted effort.  Some like the wasted effort (I certainly do in certain pursuits -- you stumble into things you didn't know you wanted to learn about), others want a streamlined approach.  Different strokes for different folks.

----------


## draino

JeffD:  "no longer thinking about it" is the goal -- Bloom's taxonomy is simply a tool used to figure out *what* you need to "practice" in order to acheive that goal.

----------


## JonZ

I am not convinced that Bloom is the best model for learning an instrument. Or maybe I am just misunderstanding it. In my example, Evaluate does not seem to fit in. Taxonomy is the science of classification, so it really is addressing different types of learning, and not necessarily functioning as a pathway.

The problem that I am interested in is how to most effectively break down the process that takes you from knowing information about (for example) arpeggios, and having the ability play the patterns, to being able to create with them. From what I have read, a lot of people seem to get stuck at "Man, I am really good at playing these arpeggios". 

When someone gets stuck trying to learn something, it often indicates the process needs to broken down further. 

Either that, or motivation is lacking--it's not fun. Motivation isn't necessarily "the student's problem", you can change the learning process to make it more enjoyable. For example, with kids, adding a social component almost always creates more enthusiasm.

Motivation is a different topic though. I like to practice. I am just a little frustrated with trying to get from Knowing to Creating.

----------


## Ed Goist

The two 800 pound gorillas in this room are *talent* and *dedication to practice*.
No amount of intellectualizing will substitute for these things.
The impact of raw Talent on learning the mandolin, most especially, tends to be an unmentioned thing in our discussions here. I am sure this is because this is something a person either has or doesn't have.
Well structured training can only go so far...

----------


## draino

JonZ, my thought is that if your goal is to make music, then you need to make sure that your exercises based on arpeggios incorporate analysis of music, not just arpeggios.

So my thought is that the next step after "man, I'm really good at playing these arpeggios" needs to focus on listening for arpeggios in recorded music.  The ideal exercise would be a series of recordings, begin short and simple, and progressively getting more complex, where the student is tasked to identify any arpeggios he hears.  Starting off with "hey, I hear an arpeggio there!"  Increasing complexity to "hey, that person is playing a G-major arpeggio over a G-major chord - and it sounds like that is the key of the tune" and "okay, I heard an ascending arpeggio there and it seemed like the player used it to kinda transition from a melodic idea played low to a repeat of that melodic idea played an octave higher" type analysis.  Since the goal is "making music" and not simply "playing apreggios", the student would need to evaluate music that incorporates arpeggios.  "It sounds really lame when the player just plays a three octave arpeggio -- like he ran out of melodic ideas",  "it was really cool the way the soloist highlighted the tension of that chord change by focusing on chord tones/arpeggios through that part" etc. etc.

----------


## draino

Ed:  I actually considered mentioning "talent" earlier.  I think these kinds of step-wise approaches are MOST important for those with less talent.  For the folks with great ears that can transcribe a solo in less than an hour without use of any slowdowner software -- they likely don't need to structure their practice as much -- they are born knowing how to swim so tossing the deep end works.  For those of us with less than good relative pitch, however, breaking it down into micro-steps pays HUGE dividends in developing the talent we didn't realize we had.  Its also why folks that have been playing since they were sittin' on grandpa's knee, or those with a really good ear don't understand this kind of structured approach...why would they want to waste all that energy?  But for those of us with less talent, we need to spend more energy to get to a similar point.

"Some folks got and some don't" isn't the answer.  The answer is "set a goal that is reasonable, do everything you need in order to acheive that goal."  I think making a joyful and reasonably tuneful noise on an instrument is a reasonable goal for ANYONE...even those that "just don't have a musical ear."

----------


## Ed Goist

Draino; another fine post.

The fact that all of us are on different points on the talent continuum is one thing that makes teaching such a challenge, particularly in a group setting. We have all seen it, the very talented (in anything) becoming quickly bored in a group learning environment.

As someone who is very much lacking in the musical talent department, I really appreciate this particular sub-forum, and I make a particular point of investing a little more time "in this room" of the Cafe.

Thanks to all those with more experience and talent who graciously contribute here!

----------


## JonZ

Ed--I disagree. Dedication to correct practice is what is important. I am not interested in becoming the world's best Bile dem Cabbage Down player.

Innate talent is out of my control--no need to discuss.

So the question becomes are you content to just log hours (stuffing your money into a mattress), or do you want to maximize your return?

I was once discussing the design of education materials with a world-class violinist. Coincidentally, arpeggios was the topic. I was asking him if he thought that using different colors to differentiate between the scale positions of the notes would make it easier to remember, or if fretboard diagrams are easier to remember than notation, or if there were mnemonics that could be used to learn them. His response was "It's just hard", and that he was a "Master Teacher", and I should not be questioning his methods.

Improvements in methodology that can add a few percent more efficiency to your practice will have a huge payoff over your life. I realize that for some people just practicing is what they enjoy, and that becoming the best player they can be is not the point. I also realize that people are BUSY, and it is all they can do to take their mandolin out of the case once a day. I think some people are busy, but would like to practice more efficiently, if it was already set up for them. I am hoping to put some materials together that will address these issues.

Perhaps I am not becomming the best mandolin player that I could be because I don't spend all of my free time practicing, but thinking about this stuff is my other hobby. Both playing and teaching theory are fun for me.

----------


## Ed Goist

Jon; another fine post.
I agree with all of your points, so I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about.
I will say that for me, in my current mandolin situation, too much focus on the technical aspects of my technique and skill can interfere with the pleasure I derive out of playing. 
I'm now trying to walk that fine line between playing for fun and practicing for improvement.
Oh, one other thing: I do think it is important to bring talent into this discussion because talent creates bridges and shortcuts between Bloom's steps for some and not for others. Therefore, the progression between steps will vary from person to person based on the talent of each.

----------


## JonZ

Thanks Ed--

Fun is definitely a big element. As we become more goal-oriented and disciplined, we can tolerate less fun to reach our long-term goals. Still, the more fun, the better. In certain types of problems--puzzles, games, etc.--a certain amount of frustration is part of the fun. But too much frustration is not good either. I think you have to find the right balance. You want to create increments that are not frustrating, but not spoon feeding either. I know that many people seem frustrated with the leap from "I can play the arpeggio" to "I can create music with the arpeggio".

Lately I have been thinking that practicing arpeggios over just two chords is the missing link in a lot of materials. They jump from "here are the patterns" to harmonized scales, circle of fifths, or songs. 

Every chord progression is just a succession of two-chord changes. There are a lot of practical two-chord changes, but the permutations of possible patterns increase exponentially when you start adding more chords. So getting those two-chord changes to become automatic seems like a good intermediate step to take out some of the frustration.

----------


## Lou Giordano

This is a great post. 

I can't seem to learn much of anything until I get some idea of what is making it work. I spent a lot of time trying to figure that out. I am not smart enough to understand these techniques completely, but after reading Jon's original post I am little more hopeful.

Thanks to Jon and all the folk posting. Long Live the Cafe!! :Mandosmiley:

----------


## JonZ

I am not all that smart Lou; I just had a lot of training and practice in education. Bloom's Taxonomy is Ed. 101. 

I used to teach emotionally disturbed kids. When they throw their workbooks at you, it provides a good insentive to analyze your methods!

----------


## JonZ

The other intermediate step that I think would be helpful is learning to play an arpeggio, given only some basic information:

Chord: G
String: 2
Start Finger: 2
Pattern: Ascending

Since you are not given the pattern, you have to engage your memory, or figure it out, which will help you gain facility.

I realize that these two suggestions--practice two-chord changes, and recall the pattern given limited information--are not huge leaps forward in music education. They are just a couple of intermediate steps that I have not seen in other materials.

----------


## Mike Bunting

It sure seems like over analyzing a very simple process to me. It's not hard to learn a scale, it's not hard to apply numbers to the notes of the scale, it's not hard to read in a theory book that chords and thus arpeggios of the basic triad are made up of the 1 3 and 5 notes of said scale. It's not hard to learn the names of the notes on the fingerboard and thus it's not hard to play all kinds of scales and arpeggios allover over the 'board. So why all the talk?
 Creating is a whole other matter, just play with this stuff and see what happens, it's up to your imagination.

----------


## draino

> It sure seems like over analyzing a very simple process to me. It's not hard to learn a scale, it's not hard to apply numbers to the notes of the scale, it's not hard to read in a theory book that chords and thus arpeggios of the basic triad are made up of the 1 3 and 5 notes of said scale. It's not hard to learn the names of the notes on the fingerboard and thus it's not hard to play all kinds of scales and arpeggios allover over the 'board. So why all the talk?
>  Creating is a whole other matter, just play with this stuff and see what happens, it's up to your imagination.


Mike -- I am curious as to what age you began playing mandolin?  My guess is that all of these things are much more difficult for those of us that are attempting to dive into this at an older age.

----------


## Lou Giordano

> It sure seems like over analyzing a very simple process to me. It's not hard to learn a scale, it's not hard to apply numbers to the notes of the scale, it's not hard to read in a theory book that chords and thus arpeggios of the basic triad are made up of the 1 3 and 5 notes of said scale. It's not hard to learn the names of the notes on the fingerboard and thus it's not hard to play all kinds of scales and arpeggios allover over the 'board. So why all the talk?
>  Creating is a whole other matter, just play with this stuff and see what happens, it's up to your imagination.


Well, one of my favorite expressions is, everything is easy when you know how.

----------


## Mike Bunting

Draino, I've been playing for 40 years and should be a lot better at it! I cannot believe that  is difficult at any age to learn a simple diatonic scale e.g. C D E F G A B C.

----------


## draino

> Draino, I've been playing for 40 years and should be a lot better at it! I cannot believe that  is difficult at any age to learn a simple diatonic scale e.g. C D E F G A B C.


Well, that's not really the topic of conversation.  The topic of conversation is improvising music.  If learning to improvise music was as simple as sitting down and playing with it creatively...then a whole lot of music instructors and instructional material publishers are nothing more than snake oil salesmen.

----------


## pickloser

It's not that simple at all.  First, there's the whole, whole, half thing, which changes depending on the type of scale.  Then there's the minor third, major third thing for the chord, and you have to remember where you are in the triad to know which size jump comes next.  Then there's the fact that the scale folds over on itself--starts on one string and moves to another, and remembering where you are in that WWH thing and whether you've skipped the note already.  Then there's the fact that you get the same note five frets going one way and seven frets going the other.  Then there's not being able to look, and even if you look, there's no time to count frets.  So it becomes a size and shape thing, which changes depending on where you are on the fretboard.  Where the related arpeggios are change, depending on what note you're on on the previous arpeggio and on what note you want to start the next.  That's a lot of information vying for attention in my head, which has not had 40 years to make the connections.  If it were so simple, no one would be paying teachers or buying DVDs.  I can play arpeggios very well now, especially those written in nice little exercises; it's the instant recall in the instant I need it that continues to require work.  I think I'll get it soon, but it's not simple.  

I agree with Lou, "everything is easy when you know how."

----------


## Mike Bunting

> I agree with Lou, "everything is easy when you know how."


You guys just make the "knowing" so complicated. And you seem to leave out the hearing part. Very early on, I have my students who like most everyone knows the Do-re-mi thing, put their finger at any fret and play do-re-mi. They have learned a scale and it doesn't take long. Put your finger anywhere and sing the arpeggio or do mi sol and find the notes.

----------


## draino

> You guys just make the "knowing" so complicated. And you seem to leave out the hearing part. Very early on, I have my students who like most everyone knows the Do-re-mi thing, put their finger at any fret and play do-re-mi. They have learned a scale and it doesn't take long. Put your finger anywhere and sing the arpeggio or do mi sol and find the notes.


Mike:  thank you for your useful contribution to this thread.  I don't think we're making knowing how to find a 1-3-5 pattern on a fingerboard complicated.  We're simply suggesting that going from being able to find it on the fingerboard to . . . being able to apply that pattern in the middle of an improvised break is quite difficult, and additional excercises might be needed to bridge that gap.  Excercies, such as you just suggested.

----------


## pickloser

So it's one lesson for the major scales, one for the minors, one for the arps, and then you cut 'em loose to learn tunes by ear?  

What's your approach for arpeggios?  I think you probably do more than Maria did in the Sound of Music.  Those kids did pick it up fast though.

----------


## JonZ

Some people pick these things up faster than others. :Grin:

----------


## Mike Bunting

> Mike:  thank you for your useful contribution to this thread.  I don't think we're making knowing how to find a 1-3-5 pattern on a fingerboard complicated.  We're simply suggesting that going from being able to find it on the fingerboard to . . . being able to apply that pattern in the middle of an improvised break is quite difficult, and additional excercises might be needed to bridge that gap.  Excercies, such as you just suggested.


 Sorry to intrude, I should know better.

----------


## Brent Hutto

> It sure seems like over analyzing a very simple process to me. It's not hard to learn a scale, it's not hard to apply numbers to the notes of the scale, it's not hard to read in a theory book that chords and thus arpeggios of the basic triad are made up of the 1 3 and 5 notes of said scale. It's not hard to learn the names of the notes on the fingerboard and thus it's not hard to play all kinds of scales and arpeggios allover over the 'board. So why all the talk?


I agree completely with Mike's asssessment.

It is difficult for a discussion initiated with the title "Applying Bloom's Taxonomy..." to include any approach that does not involve taxonomy and an extremely intelluctual, cognitive approach to the subject. That does not mean such an approach is needed. One of the worst mistakes a teacher can make is to try and create in the mind of a student a recapitulation of the teacher's entire thought process about teaching.

It would be useful to consider the distinction between the amount of intellectual overhead needed to design a curriculum for a classroom full of students to use versus the amount of intellectual effort required for an individual to acquire a skill.

----------


## Mike Bunting

Thanks Brent. To intrude again, I think that a good way to study arpeggios in action would be to analyze a few Monroe solos, so many of his melodies revolve around chord tones and the interesting part is what cool ways one can devise for getting from chord tone to chord tone.

----------


## Brent Hutto

Mike,

We haven't gotten to the point of analyzing any particular player's solos but in my own lessons we do discuss things like where chord tones fall in tunes I'm learning and conversely where are the places where stacking other chord tones will make interesting double-stops or separate (chordal or arpeggiated) accompaniment lines. 

The idea is the same, though. These arpeggios arise all the time and working from the music to the associated arpeggios is a good way to "motivate" (in both senses of the word) study of arpeggios. Arpeggio study doesn't have to be viewed as a station of the cross that must be endured because it is part of a larger grand plan.

----------


## Mike Bunting

Yes. Also, as Tiny Moore pointed out, the chord tones fall on the strong beats.

----------


## Brent Hutto

Several years ago someone on the Telecaster forum suggested an interesting exercise. Go through a piece of sheet music and mark the rhythm made by chord tones (vs. non-chord tones) in solos or improvisations by various guitar players. These patterns tend to be somewhat distinctive for a given player whether it Tony Rice, David Grier or someone like Mark Knopfler or Eric Clapton. Some players use on-the-beat non-chord tones or chord tones in a particular off-the-beat spot much moreso than others. It's a bit of a fingerprint thing for a player.

----------


## Mike Bunting

Cool.

----------


## JonZ

Brent or Mike--

I started with Bloom as one model of learning to get discussion going. It worked. 

You might be right that it is overkill for the task at hand, but it does appear that some people found the discussion of Bloom beneficial.

No one has suggested "creat[ing} in the mind of a student a recapitulation of the teacher's entire thought process about teaching." The participants in this thread are discussing a variety of ways to think about teaching and learning. 

I am trying to fill in a few incremental steps between Knowing arpeggios and Creating with arpeggios. I don't really care if they fit anyone else's taxonomy or hierarchy or homespun wisdom.

If you have a method that works, I would like to understand it. But so far I am not quite clear on what you do to address the task under discussion. Is it something you can lay out step by step?

----------


## JeffD

> JeffD:  "no longer thinking about it" is the goal -- Bloom's taxonomy is simply a tool used to figure out *what* you need to "practice" in order to acheive that goal.


If, as it seems to me, that Bloom is more geared towards acquiring an intellectual skill, then what we have is something like "this is what you have to think about in order to get to the point where you no longer have to think about it", which has my head spinnig.

----------


## JeffD

> Well, that's not really the topic of conversation.  The topic of conversation is improvising music. .


I am not sure, but I think you are right. "Create" means create. 

That leaves me out. I don't do much of that step at all, I create very little, (and the truth is I have very little interest in creating.) 

Its traditional music and tunes and classical music and country and bluegrass as far as the eye can see, and while I certainly create my own music, in the general sense, I don't create my own tunes, I don't compose, and when I improvize its very close to the tune. My breaks can be intense perhaps, but they are technically fairly obvious.

Where arpeggio practice helps is that I find I have the muscle memory to jump into and quickly sight read and learn a lot of tunes that use arpeggio forms. Its there when I need it, without having to think about it much. But in terms of creatively creating, I am using developed tools in standard and programmed ways, not creating.

So does that step in Bloom apply at all to me?

----------


## JonZ

Yes. If you are incorporating some of your own ideas into breaks, you get the blame for creating them... or credit.

I think Bloom can be applied to various aspects of learning music. Each "level" can be applied to some aspect of music. But it is not a path from point A to Z for learning a skill.

----------


## JeffD

> Yes. If you are incorporating some of your own ideas into breaks, you get the blame for creating them... or credit..


Perhaps its a less conscious thing. I don't really have any musical ideas. Certainly no original ones. I just know the tune, where its going, and find a way to get there that isn't the melody. (Aim for the melody and miss??)

----------


## mandotim1955

Just to throw in another idea; I wonder if the concepts of Gestalt and unconscious cognition have relevance here? I was out playing last night, and found myself asked to take breaks on original songs I had never heard before. I managed ok, but on the way home I started thinking about how that was possible. I played guitar for years, but could never really improvise a break in the way I can on mandolin. I think it has to do with the conscious or unconscious recognition and extrapolation of patterns; the patterns formed by the chordal and rhythm structures of the song, and the patterns or shapes formed by musical sequences on the mandolin fretboard. Over time these patterns become part of the unconscious, in the same way that a learner driver no longer needs to look at their feet when controlling a car. The patterns on the mandolin are logical, and repeat all over the fretboard; this limits the amount of learning necessary, as all you really need are the templates. What seems to come next is the ability to flex the patterns into originality, and incorporate two or more patterns together. This is where the Gestalt comes in; the brain tends to 'fill in the gaps' of the basic structure of the world to create our own sense of reality, or in this case, a hot break.
This discussion has really made me think hard about my own playing, and where it comes from. I'm an 'instinctive' musician, but I'm starting to realise that there is more than instinct here; perhaps more to do with unconscious learning?
Tim

----------


## Bertram Henze

> I used to teach emotionally disturbed kids. When they throw their workbooks at you, it provides a good insentive to analyze your methods!


Sound like a perfectly normal consultant's everyday job  :Laughing:

----------


## Brent Hutto

> If you have a method that works, I would like to understand it. But so far I am not quite clear on what you do to address the task under discussion. Is it something you can lay out step by step?


No it's not something I can lay out step by step. Lots of things are learned without forming a step-by-step prescription and then following it. I didn't have a step-by-step plan in mind when I learned to sing a tune as a child. Or when I learned to read musical notation. Or any number of other skills. Because it would have been distracting and frustrating to try and form such a plan. 

I have a fairly useful but simplistic idea of where "arpeggios" fit into the music. Enough so that I can keep myself aware of them when they occur and can even stop and develop skills concerning them when it fits into what I'm trying to do musically. And I have a teacher who is following my progress and making suggestions to ensure I don't go off and practice the wrong thing somehow. That is as detailed as my meta-knowledge of "how to learn arpeggios" will ever be. 

At various junctures the music teachers that have worked with me were likely working from some sort of planned-out curriculum. Presumably. But as a learner I don't need to know how to be a teacher. That's my only point to contribute to the discussion. There are several participants here who want to figure out as learners all this cognitive, abstract stuff that tries to describe the process of learning. Nothing wrong with that curiosity but I'm pointing out that talking or thinking about this from a Bloom's Taxonomy level of abstraction is not part of the process of learning. It's meta-learning.

Life is short and crowded with competing interests and demands on our time and attention. Someone who wants to become a competent or even brilliant improviser does not need to understand the theories of brilliant educational theorists who've made a deep study of the process of acquiring knowledge. Nothing wrong with devoting time and attention to that but it is a distraction from and competing activity with the actual process of becoming musically competent.

----------


## pickloser

> all you really need are the templates. What seems to come next is the ability to flex the patterns into originality, and incorporate two or more patterns together.


Well said, Mandotim1955.  I'm not so up on Bloom's Taxonomy, and I rarely use gestalt in a sentence, but taking the patterns I've learned, "flexing" and "incorporating" them into improvisation is my interest.  I am using various scales, chords, double stops, and "licks" to improvise.  I am trying to incorporate arpeggios.  They sound clunky and patterned and interrupt rather than add to the flow of my breaks--kind of like how my gear changes were when I learned to drive a stick shift. 

I think the OPs interest is in finding a best or at least efficient way to help a student learn to incorporate and flex using arpeggios.   I know if I keep at it, I can fold in the arpeggios with the other patterns.  If someone has good ideas about how to accomplish that more quickly, I am very interested.




> Someone who wants to become a competent or even brilliant improviser does not need to understand the theories of brilliant educational theorists who've made a deep study of the process of acquiring knowledge.


  I don't think the point is to have students learn education theory.  I think the OP was intended to find out if others thought a certain education theory had application in forming an approach to imparting mandolin knowledge.

----------


## Brent Hutto

> I don't think the point is to have students learn education theory.  I think the OP was intended to find out if others thought a certain education theory had application in forming an approach to imparting mandolin knowledge.


And that's an interesting discussion to have, if you're into that. Can't speak for Mike but for my part I would not want to derail that discussion. I was simply pointing out an important distinction that in my experience frequently gets lost in online discussions of this sort. Namely, that the discussion is in fact about theory of teaching rather than how a learner himself or herself should approach the subject. Meta-learning as distinct from learning.

----------


## pickloser

> And that's an interesting discussion to have


I'm not that interested in discussing educational theories.  I was following the thread for applications to my playing.  I think, however, neither mandolin teaching nor playing, past the most basic principles, is as simple as Do Re Mi, except maybe in a meta-sense. 

Now when asked where I am wrt arpeggios, I can say the "Gestalt and unconscious cognition" stage.  I'm looking forward to the looks.

----------


## JonZ

Brent--

We are all aware that talking about learning the mandolin is not the same as learning the mandolin, and that you do not have to understand education theory to learn the mandolin. 

The fish cannot explain how he learned to swim. We get it.

I do not understand why you are wasting your time with meta-meta-analysis of our meta-analysis. 

You complain that the analytical nature of the OP excludes other methods from the discussion, but then you are unable to describe your own methods. While I am glad that you have found a way that works for you, your methods are useless to anyone else, if you cannot articulate them.  

Your comments are actually kind of irritating for some one searching for specific suggestions to attain a specific goal.

----------


## Bertram Henze

Despite my making fun of much of theory about instrument teaching, I have a rather serious (and sad) background on that, having received violin lessons for 9 years long ago. I guess method choice heavily depends on target decisions, e.g.:

1 - should some presentable result be produced, even if the student should have not enough hearing to tell right from wrong notes, at all costs? or... should the student's existing talents be exploited to maximum excellence, cutting out any weak points? This choice tells you, for instance, if everybody gets a standard instrument fitted and tortured until he can play Pachelbel's Canon in D, or if there is an examination phase and possible rejection of the student (or the instrument in favor of another). There are possible reasons for both.

2 - what is the driving force supposed to be - the teacher's authority or the student's motivation? Many teachers see themselves as guides, not as sherpas. OTOH even the most motivated student might hit a plateau and need some support, which makes it harder for the teacher because it requires him to get emotionally involved.

3 - whatever other preconditions come to mind

I am not suggesting anybody's looking for the hammer that makes everything look like a nail, I just wanted to point it out once more, taking one step back to look at what the biggest problems faced by teachers and students have always been in my experience.

----------


## Brent Hutto

Jon,

I'm sorry you have found my comments irritating. I will not irritate you any farther, be assured. Not a mistake I will repeat in the future.

----------


## JonZ

Thanks. Less irritation is good.

----------


## JonZ

Bertram--

You are right that there are much bigger "Whys" to discuss. In this thread, however, I think the "student" that most of us have in mind is ourselves, or someone else who is motivated to learn to improvise.

----------


## Darren Bailey

As a secondary school (high school) teacher I have Bloom and his nonsense forced down my throat on training days. Please, never introduce educational theory into the place where I run away to escape the non-mandolin world.

----------


## JonZ

I apologize for forcing you to read and comment on this subject.

Would you care to discuss your learning or teaching methods, without theory, or are your methods also impossible to articulate?

If that is too upsetting, just tell us which pick you like best.

----------


## draino

> Sorry to intrude, I should know better.


I actually was being completely straight in my thanks for the contribution.  My feeling is that you would actually have a lot of very useful things to contribute to this thread. 

What I don't understand is someone starting a thread saying "I'm looking for thoughtful advice about how to approach a problem and these are my thoughts so far," and then others chime in with "well, your thoughts are stupid" and then follow it up with nothing more than explanations for why they think the thoughts are stupid and no help for the OP in attacking the problem.  

Mandolin for me is a self-guided journey.  I'm not saying I'm "self-taught" because I steal info from here on the cafe, I read countless books, etc., but it is just me that is deciding what I read next, what I play when I sit down for the 45 minutes I can grab each day.  And so I cannot separate the student-brain from the teacher-brain.  And I do have enough of a background in education theory, and enough hands-on experience as an educator, to think about how I should learn the mandolin from a theoretical perspective.  But the education theory isn't the point - its simply a starting point for exploring the idea of how do I bridge the gap from an intermediate mandolin player to a creative musician.  I cannot fathom that anyone who has posted to this thread has NOT thought about that problem.  I would be interested in hearing the thoughts others have had about attacking this problem.

----------


## John McGann

As a professional educator and performing/recording musician, I'd like to offer that I do not advocate any "method" other than the awakening that everyone is self taught, and that there are as many varieties of learning styles and excuses for not learning as there are people on the planet. This set of ideas is not aimed at the very casual player or the "music belongs to everybody, man" set, but for those who are sincere and serious about improving their musicianship and playing.

My suggestions:

1) Figure out what you need to work on. It could well be several things.
2) Break tasks down into manageable bits.
3) Learn TUNES. Melodies and chord changes. Memorize them.
4) Learn by ear, take things from recordings. Get away from the written page.
5) Learn chords and inversions.
6) Find others at your developmental level and play together regularly.
7) Practice slowly, with a metronome (for bluegrass and jazz, on beats 2 and 4) and make sure every note sounds big and round.
8) Never practice mindlessly- let your ears steer your fingers and not vice versa. Noodling while watching TV just reinforces ####### and bad technical habits.
9) If you are a performing improviser, play with intent, and imagine each note is costing you money. Sign your name to each note- noodle in the practice room if you want, but try to edit and communicate when performing.
10) Develop your craft, and art will follow. 
11) Be creative AFTER you've absorbed a lot of tunes in your idiom-knowing 8 or 12 tunes does not make a player 'deep'- once you know 50 or 60, you start getting a good sense of the vocabulary of the style, and can start inventing variations on the tunes that are idiomatic.
12a) Honor the traditions in which you play. LISTEN to great players and historic recordings, not just this year's model. Be a detective and get to know the history of the music.

Optional for specific musical goals:
a) Learn theory
b) Learn reading

I say "optional" because there is a faction of folks who just want to play tunes and aren't concerned with "getting under the hood"- they are happy to just drive the car. Others are motorheads- they want to tinker, and need to know what's what under there...

Don't waste your precious and limited time with BS-my personal BS list includes:

• Claiming "my hands are too small"- see Statman, Andy 
• "I need the music written out"- no, you haven't worked on using your ears enough and may need some basic ear training and guidance
• Overpracticing of scales- they are useful, but don't need to be the center of anyone's musical life
• "Lick spewage" as opposed to playing things intergral to the actual tune/composition of the moment.

It's easy to get caught up in "Academia"- I'm all for learning, but sometimes academics have a way of obscuring very plain and easy things. I am basically an unlettered, un-pedigreed musician who learned music both with teachers and in academic settings as well as directly from recordings and other players, so I have a 'vernacular/secular' bias.

In other words, don't waste time over-thinking it. Cut to the chase. Reach out and be pro-active, and don't expect to have things handed to you. Be hands on, get your ears working, deepen your groove and sense of time, play along with recordings and other people, be personable and supportive of your fellow players, and have a great time with the incredible privilege of being able to play music and make other people, as well as yourself, happy  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## mandocrucian

A few lines, in the words of Capt. Beefheart.... 

_Somebody's had too much to think
Send your mother home your navel
Case of the punks_

(_"Ashtray Heart"_ off *Doc At The Radar Station*)

 :Laughing:

----------


## Darren Bailey

> I apologize for forcing you to read and comment on this subject.
> 
> Would you care to discuss your learning or teaching methods, without theory, or are your methods also impossible to articulate?
> 
> If that is too upsetting, just tell us which pick you like best.


My comment was meant light-heartedly. However, as you've asked, I support the research that "seems" to demonstrate what we all know through common sense. That is, the world is not full of people who have particular learning styles, but in fact we each adopt different learning styles depending on the task. For some people visual stimulus may be appropriate for one task, but in another set of circumstances they may need other forms of support. Applying this to the learning of a musical instrument, some people may find diving into the theory and then applying it to playing the right approach. while others may want an immediate hands on strategy that enables them to discover for themselves. Whatever relaxes us, and makes learning possible is the way to go. If you're uptight or unhappy then you won't learn as effectively as when you're enjoying something. If you practice and constantly imagine an audience reacting to your mistakes, it will increase the pressure you feel. If the sounds you create and the feel of the wood and strings gives you joy, you're winning! 
Oh well, back to the marking.

----------


## JonZ

That is a great list. I have a couple of comments and questions.

It's not that my hands are too small; it's that my fingers are too fat.

I think the main problem that people have expressed with learning to improvise--at least in this thread--is that they are missing some intermediate steps between knowing arpeggios, scales, chords, licks, etc and creating with them. I see a lot of materials, like any "Fretboard Road map" book, that imply "learn this pattern, and then you can improvise". I understand that part of the solution is not obsessing on these patterns, but if you have any suggestions for further incremental steps after learning the patterns, I would be interested in them. 

Practicing on the 2 and 4 with the metronome is an obvious one that I missed. Makes perfect sense.

What percent of practice would you devote to Tunes? Better yet, how did you break down your practice sessions when you were an advanced-beginner or intermediate, and how do you break them down now?

I have memorized all of the "Tunes that Every Parking Lot Picker Should Know", because... Well, I should know them. Now I am more focused on improvising and getting faster. Should I hone in on just a few tunes, or keep reviewing all of them at faster and faster speeds? I am not sure when to abandon serviceable tunes.

----------


## John McGann

I never approached practicing from a "10 minutes of this, 15 minutes of that"- I just chose (choose) what elements need to be worked on. Learning tunes is great; spending more time with the ones you know and making sure they sound as good as possible may be better. The great thing about tunes (speaking bluegrass/American fiddle tunes) is their malleability- you can do so much with them- my aesthetic is Texas contest fiddle style, where the tunes can vary so much, yet the germ/basis of the tune is never gone.

Russ Barenberg suggested to me that the road to coherent improvising was through composing variations- having set ways of varying things, slowly and well thought out, as the gateway to real-time composition (improvising). It works!  :Wink:

----------


## JonZ

Let me paraphrase the second part, to see if I understand.

One might take a tune and
-Improvise based on descending arpeggios.
-Improvise moving up the fretboard.
-Improvise emphasizing 6th, dominant 7th, Maj 7th movement.
-Improvise using flat thirds. 
-Improvise integrating a motif from another tune
-Improvise as you would imagine it sounding sung by fish.
-Etc.

Start with simple tunes. Play them slowly. Use the patterns you are learning.

----------


## Toycona

If I could suggest a pretty interesting book that is relevant to this discussion (if it hasn't already been suggested): "Talent Is Overrated" by Geoffrey Colvin. He breaks down an important barrier - that some people are innately better at things than others - by focusing one's conscious awareness of what particular skills/elements/techniques are 'in play', not the least of which is the willing subordination to a mentor. I'd particularly suggest the chapter featuring NFL hall of famer Jerry Rice and his work ethic. He knew he wasn't the best, fastest, or most talented athlete coming out of high school (one scholarship offer, which he took). His bit of genius was to 'fractalize' his skill-set and work on parts of it...Like, "I need break-away speed after the catch. What can I do to enhance that?" as opposed to running a million 40 yard dashes. Or, "I need to be a better blocker to make John Taylor (his WR counterpart) a bigger threat." By doing that, teams ended up double teaming JT, allowing Rice to become an even more dangerous player.

What I took away from it as a 'year 2' mandolin player was to identify very specific things to develop, seek out mentors, put myself 'at risk' by playing in public and with strangers at jams, listen more carefully (differently), etc. What I'm NOT doing these days is playing the same fiddle tune over and over because I can.

As a high school teacher myself, this is a biggie...getting my students to think more in that collaborative, fractalized mode in order to achieve excellence... "I don't have to do it all myself. Other like minded people can help me identify what I need to grow." That's what I like about the cafe; like-minded people from all parts/walks/skillsets/ability levels contributing to each other's development and shared interest.

It's really great to see a sustained discussion on this topic.

----------


## JeffD

I was thinking about the frustration and irritation, (and meta-irritation) some folks are having with the thread, and it struck me that many of us are not teaching, but are students, and I wonder if there is a difference between learning an instrument, and teaching an instrument, and then there is teaching oneself an instrument. What I mean is that perhaps the theory of how to most effeciently learn is something that a teacher uses, but not the student. And when one is teaching oneself, perhaps the theory of how one learns gets in the way of the learning. What I am thinking is that perhaps the "learning experience" is supposed to feel organic and self organizing, and only the teacher knows that it isn't, that there is a science to learning. Its the teacher's job to organize and set up the experiences so the student has the optimum effecient learning experience. But the student does not need to learn how to learn, or to learn how to teach how to learn to learn, and perhaps it gets in the way to see too much behind the curtain. That playing both roles is someohow more difficult than just being the student.

And how about this for an idea: its all time. For most of us, with enough but not exceptional amounts of talent and normal intelligence, we will mostly figure it out. Its human to figure things out. Its what we do. It doesn't really matter how, as long as two criteria are met: 1 - have the desire and go after it  and 2 - have regular interaction with other musicians.  With those two things it then takes a decade to sound like you have been playing for 10 years, and with the most optimized practice and best teachers using the most advanced pedagogical techniques it takes 9 years, and with disorganized but eager enthusiastic practice it takes 10 years, and with flagging enthusiasm and haphazard practice it takes 11 years.

Just thinking out loud and trying tyo reconcile the frustrated with the irrateted.

----------


## catmandu2

> I'm a fan of both Kolb and Bloom. I teach middle school and both have great ideas that I apply often. The main thing is that these are not super rigid models or black and white. Learning is too complex to be attacked simply using science. A music educator friend of mine once told me the key to learning any instrument, and to me it totally relates to most aspects of learning.
> 
> 1. Imitate 
> 2. Emulate
> 3. Create
> 
> One of the things I like most about bluegrass vs. most other forms of music is the emphasis on playing songs as soon as possible. I've gotten bands up and running with teenagers with no musical experience in almost no time. I tended to teach them what to do and save the explanation and analysis for later.


Nice post.  I'm an "imitate, emulate, create" school kind of guy myself.

Dancing is fluid architecture; architecture static dancing...(poetry verbal music; music aural prose, etc.)

Even if Jon NEVER actually played mandolin, so what?  This site obviously accomodates various "ruminating over mandolins" category discussions...(better than reading about politics, et al.)

----------


## catmandu2

> You guys just make the "knowing" so complicated.


Ha Mike...it's a fun game.  We could say, "I know art when I see it," or we can make it the subject of advanced scholarly research -- pick yer poison (I'm guilty of the latter)...

For some inclined toward analysis, philosophical, psychological, anthropological, and mathematical models (and perhaps their interrelation with music and mandolins) make things even more interesting..

----------


## JonZ

Jeff--

All of us are are own teachers and strudents, and some of us happen to actually be teachers and/or other teacher's students.

I think what I learned as a "trained" teacher has been helpful to me in teaching myself.

My kids play basketball, and they have coaches that are very knowledgeable about basketball. I think the coaches teach basketball better than I could, because I lack knowledge of the game. But I also see them making basic instructional errors that could be avoided with some basic teaching skills. For example, you often see kids waiting in line for their turn to take a shot. If you have a group of 10 kids, there is a 10 to 1 ratio of down time to time on task. A good teacher would figure out a way to maximize everyone's time on task--like have them dribble, or pass to eachother, while waiting. Sometimes coaches pick up these skills because they imitate good teachers they have had, or read books about coaching that incorporate basic teaching skills. Some people may be also very analytical, and figure these things out through trial and error.

Teaching skills aren't all about managing groups. There is a lot that can be applied when teaching just one person, or yourself. I don't think that for most people knowing the hows and whys of teaching themselves would cause frustration, but rather the opposite.

Time with the instrument is important, but what you do with it can be counter-productive, neutral, of minimal use, or of optimal use. A lot of people waste time "beating a dead horse" because they do not know how or when to move forward.

----------


## SincereCorgi

> My kids play basketball, and they have coaches that are very knowledgeable about basketball. I think the coaches teach basketball better than I could, because I lack knowledge of the game. But I also see them making basic instructional errors that could be avoided with some basic teaching skills. For example, you often see kids waiting in line for their turn to take a shot. If you have a group of 10 kids, there is a 10 to 1 ratio of down time to time on task.


Yeah, but that might not be dead time. That's a high-tension situation, when they're watching you shoot and you're feeling the eyes of ten of your peers watching you shoot. They're probably going to learn by watching your form, good or bad, and you're learning to deal with performing under pressure.

(I had a music teacher who experimented with teaching her advanced students in pairs for that reason, the idea being that you could learn form each other's mistakes and the rivalry would provide motivation.)

----------


## JeffD

> Jeff--
> 
> All of us are are own teachers and strudents, and some of us happen to actually be teachers and/or other teacher's students.
> 
> I think what I learned as a "trained" teacher has been helpful to me in teaching myself.
> 
> My kids play basketball, and they have coaches that are very knowledgeable about basketball. I think the coaches teach basketball better than I could, because I lack knowledge of the game. But I also see them making basic instructional errors that could be avoided with some basic teaching skills..... A lot of people waste time "beating a dead horse" because they do not know how or when to move forward.


I know what you mean. What I wonder is how far off the mark do these things get the students. How inadequate are your kids going to be at basketball, ultimately, because of the coaches instructional errors.  Compared to the limitations of genetics and ultimate commitment to a life in professional sports. Or in the case of self instruction, how long is the person of normal intelligence and perhaps more than average motivation, how long is this person going to keep beating that dead horse, or wouldn't he/she eventually try something new, or get some advice from a website or another player, or be exposed to something at a concernt, and bam, progress starts again.

My pedjudice is that instructional techniques make a huge difference in those things which are most important to us. So for example an aspiring professional musician, or athlete could greatly benefit. But for those of us who have pursued or are pursuing a career elsewhere and participate in these things as avocations or for the sake of a well rounded life, the very fact that these are not core pursuits has the dominant impact on our progress.

If the desire is great enough, don't we all overcome crappy instruction eventually? Yea this sets us back, but for those of us who will only reach a certain level of excellence anyway, because we can only afford a certain level of commitment, how far back will it set us compared to having to go to work each day at something else.

Very interesting discussion, and I have some very personal reasons for sorting this all out.

----------


## JeffD

John, your post #80 should be made into a blog. It is destined to become a classic. I am especially fond of item 9, my goodness that suscintly describes what I like and don't like about varoius breaks, and how to do one and avoid the other.

----------


## Ed Goist

> John, your post #80 should be made into a blog. It is destined to become a classic. I am especially fond of item 9, my goodness that suscintly describes what I like and don't like about varoius breaks, and how to do one and avoid the other.


Jeff; I wholeheartedly agree.

----------


## draino

> I was thinking about the frustration and irritation, (and meta-irritation) some folks are having with the thread, and it struck me that many of us are not teaching, but are students, and I wonder if there is a difference between learning an instrument, and teaching an instrument, and then there is teaching oneself an instrument. What I mean is that perhaps the theory of how to most effeciently learn is something that a teacher uses, but not the student. And when one is teaching oneself, perhaps the theory of how one learns gets in the way of the learning. What I am thinking is that perhaps the "learning experience" is supposed to feel organic and self organizing, and only the teacher knows that it isn't, that there is a science to learning. Its the teacher's job to organize and set up the experiences so the student has the optimum effecient learning experience. But the student does not need to learn how to learn, or to learn how to teach how to learn to learn, and perhaps it gets in the way to see too much behind the curtain. That playing both roles is someohow more difficult than just being the student.
> 
> And how about this for an idea: its all time. For most of us, with enough but not exceptional amounts of talent and normal intelligence, we will mostly figure it out. Its human to figure things out. Its what we do. It doesn't really matter how, as long as two criteria are met: 1 - have the desire and go after it  and 2 - have regular interaction with other musicians.  With those two things it then takes a decade to sound like you have been playing for 10 years, and with the most optimized practice and best teachers using the most advanced pedagogical techniques it takes 9 years, and with disorganized but eager enthusiastic practice it takes 10 years, and with flagging enthusiasm and haphazard practice it takes 11 years.
> 
> Just thinking out loud and trying tyo reconcile the frustrated with the irrateted.


What I have found frustrating is that the initial post, and the posts actually aimed at the initial post, were FAR from being hyper-intellectual.  I get very annoyed when people shy away from thought, in any way.  I get even more annoyed by people that, rather than contribute to a conversation, stick their head in just long enough to try to throw a spoke in the wheels of that conversation. 

It took me approximately three minutes of thought to formulate my initial response to JonZ's question.  Perhaps that's because I have used Bloom's Taxonomy as a rough starting point in developing courses of study in the past.  Perhaps its because I actually read JonZ's initial post with care and thought.  It appears to have taken JonZ less than a day to have gone from the initial thought to a very well thought out approach to study (and I have not seen anyone criticizing the approach he laid out).  Mike Bunting made some thoughtful contributions which don't appear to have taken much thought.  Professor McGann chimed in with a very well formulated response. 

Maybe you disagree with the approach being laid out . . . but I assure you that ALL students need to be able to break things down into small bite sized digestable pieces, and using Bloom's taxonomy, or any other tool to aid a student in coming up with a way to break something down is far, far from being "overly-intellectual."  

Moreover, this is not the first time I've watched a thread similar to this be overrun with non-constructive criticism -- folks that come in and do nothing but identify the weaknesses of the approach (almost always without fully reading what the initial poster was aiming to do) while providing very, very little in terms of constructive advice to the initial poster.  I don't see that happen in the builder's section, nor do I see it happen anywhere else on the forum, why should it happen here, in a section that is specifically dedicated to the nerdiest of nerdy parts of being a mandolin player?

----------


## JonZ

The basketball example may not be true dead time. There are reasons to have students observe each other. Mostly, these particular kids keep themselves otherwise occupied in line.

Regarding how far off the mark a bad teacher can put us, I am sure many people remember certain teachers who "ruined" subjects for them. Conversely, some subjects became important to us _because_ of good teachers. I think it is hard to make an argument that bad teaching doesn't matter because we will overcome the damage it causes, if the subject is important enough to us.

----------


## draino

> My suggestions:
> 
> 2) Break tasks down into manageable bits.


John -- thanks for this great post!  My thought is that the biggest challenge for any student, whether self-taught or using an instructor, is "breaking tasks down into manegable bits."  This will be different for each individual student, depending on the specific talents of the student and the task at hand.  Breaking things down is not always easy, and in my experience, those with less talent have a greater challenge doing this on their own.  

One aspect of "breaking down tasks" in relation to music is figuring out how to develop the (at least) three aspects of music into that breakdown -- the muscle-memory/dexterity aspect of making your fingers work; the intellectual aspect of knowing why and when to place your fingers where; and the ear/brain/finger connection related to ear training.  

Additionally, the biggest challenge I have found as a self-directed student is finding good material related to the ear-training component.  For example, Mike Bunting suggests breaking down a bunch of Monroe solos.  This is great advice and I appreciate it -- and I understand this is the way most have done it in the past and offers great rewards.  What I would love to see, however, (and what I'm trying to make for myself, best I can) is something more specific -- a course of study that includes not just scale excercises, and/or arpeggio excercies, and/or chordal excercises and/or "finger buster" excercies to be played by the student, but integrates listening and ear-training excercises that are related to the written exercise, and a specific track listing of tunes and breaks that incorporates the sounds that have just been studied.

I realize its possible for me to grab bits and pieces that are already available to accomplish this -- books on scales, books on arpeggios, and add in EarMaster software, for example -- but I'd like to see something where all of this is integrated.

----------


## JonZ

I think the problem is that often adding components can exponentially increase the size of the project. You end up with something beyond the scale of what the mandolin market can support. It would be more likely to happen in the guitar, piano, or violin market, unless it could be a "multi-instrument" approach.

Before reading your post, I had just been thinking about what it would take to incorporate all of those aspects into "mastering" the key of G. Of course, once you knock off G, you have most of C. So there is some economy of scale happening too.

I have been trying to figure out how to approach a problem like the one you describe by using crowd sourcing. The tools aren't really available yet to do a good wiki with all of the multi media features that you describe. So, I have been thinking about a self-publishing site that would allow people to create modules using inexpensive tools, and sell them at a price that makes it worth doing.

I don't really know if it is a practical idea for the mandolin though. I offered a couple of free learning programs to people, and a lot downloaded it, but the most common feedback I got six months later was "Haven't had time to try it yet". People are BUSY.

However, these were just little samples. There is a point where something grows big enough to where people will say, "Hey, this is something I should check out."

----------


## Doug Hoople

> So the question becomes are you content to just log hours (stuffing your money into a mattress), or do you want to maximize your return?
> 
> I was once discussing the design of education materials with a world-class violinist. Coincidentally, arpeggios was the topic. I was asking him if he thought that using different colors to differentiate between the scale positions of the notes would make it easier to remember, or if fretboard diagrams are easier to remember than notation, or if there were mnemonics that could be used to learn them. His response was "It's just hard", and that he was a "Master Teacher", and I should not be questioning his methods.


Hi Jon, 

Nice to see you're still stirring the pot here in the Theory forum! It's been a while for me. I'm jumping in here, even though I haven't read all the way out to page 4, so forgive me if someone's already addressed this. 

1) As in the past, you seem to always think that, if someone's not employing a structured efficiency method, they're logging mindless hours. Either productive or useless, one or the other, which I personally think is a false choice.

2) You imply that this master teacher was complacently promoting mindless practice. 

Here's what I think: 

This teacher was suggesting an Occam's Razor approach, saying that it's really quite simple and that there are no shortcuts. Maybe he was being less than perfectly articulate about it, but what he was really saying was stop looking for efficiency shortcuts, stop adding intellectual baggage to the process, just get on with a method that had worked for him and for countless other musicians as well. 

You can't question his results. He was a world-class musician. 

But his message was, basically, "keep it simple and get on with it." 

Sometimes (not always... it depends on the student), that's not bad advice. I had a couple of students that always had to traverse a decision tree of intellectual choices before they could play a single note. For them, shedding the structure (at least temporarily) and just getting on with it would have been a better way of moving forward.

----------


## Tom Wright

To be a good writer one has to read and write a lot. To be a good player one has to listen and play a lot. Watch others, play with others. Keep playing, learn tunes and the technique will follow.

----------


## JonZ

Hi Doug--

1) What I actually said was: "Time with the instrument is important, but what you do with it can be counter-productive, neutral, of minimal use, or of optimal use. A lot of people waste time "beating a dead horse" because they do not know how or when to move forward." 

You are the one creating the false choice; not me.

2) "Keep it simple" and "Just get on with it" are value neutral. My guess would be that there is a bell curve of results for people keeping it simple and just getting on with it.

If you are trying to create a product that will help people learn faster, it is good to think these things through in advance, to try to create the maximum amount of value for the user. Apple, for example, does keep it simple, but they do not just get on with it. They think every detail through--adding what will increase value and stripping away everything else--to make the best possible product.

I think the Master Musician and I came to a meeting of the minds after we discussed it further. I assume he is a very good teacher.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Hi Doug--
> 
> 1) What I actually said was: "Time with the instrument is important, but what you do with it can be counter-productive, neutral, of minimal use, or of optimal use. A lot of people waste time "beating a dead horse" because they do not know how or when to move forward." 
> 
> You are the one creating the false choice; not me.
> 
> 2) "Keep it simple" and "Just get on with it" are value neutral. My guess would be that there is a bell curve of results for people keeping it simple and just getting on with it.
> 
> If you are trying to create a product that will help people learn faster, it is good to think these things through in advance, to try to create the maximum amount of value for the user. Apple, for example, does keep it simple, but they do not just get on with it. They think every detail through--adding what will increase value and stripping away everything else--to make the best possible product.
> ...


Jon, not to escalate to flame level, but you're the one who followed the observation about logging hours of unproductive practice with a story about a teacher who, to your mind, seemed to be advocating such an approach. I think I was suggesting that his approach didn't necessarily fit that category. I was definitely suggesting that he thought there were no shortcuts, and that he was simply expressing impatience with some of the "crutches" you were asking him to consider. 

As for Apple, I think you'd be surprised at how they get on with it. If Steve likes it, they keep it. If Steve doesn't like it, they go back to the drawing board. Period. And I'd bet almost anything that going back to the drawing board is a process that is not bound by a "best practice" or a "most-efficient procedure" but is more a "chase down every rabbit hole possible" approach to getting to what Steve likes. That's not a process characterized by efficiency. That a process characterized by thousands of people trying everything they know how to try to please the (amazingly market-savvy) whims of a single person. Personally, I don't think the Apple model is even remotely applicable here.

Finally, the master musician might have been a crap teacher. Many great musicians can actually be quite poor teachers. He did, however, have one unimpeachable credential... he was a recognized world-class musician (if your description is correct, that is).

There are a lot of ways of learning, and the master musician's way is one of them. For a really dedicated, advanced student, his methods are probably more than adequate.  And, since the only students who he teaches are most likely way past the usual stumbling blocks, he probably doesn't have the experience or the expertise to teach people how to learn arpeggios from square one. 

I do agree, Jon, that we face a frustrating block when teaching people (ourselves or others) something they don't already know. Acquiring the skill to do something we don't already know how to do is one of the hardest things we undertake. So I agree that having a structured approach is probably sensible. I think, though, that there are some "just get on with it" steps that are essential at some point, and that structure will have very little to do with that.  

Again, I refer to the language-learning experience of my wife.  She simply got in there, immersed herself and became a fluent German speaker within a year's time. I, on the other hand, have to work through the "der-die-das-die, den-die-das-die, dem-der-dem-den, des-der-des-der" declension chart all the while remembering whether the subclause of the sentence I'm trying to utter is nominative, accusative, dative or genitive, and then it's on to the next subclause. 

The conversation has long since changed topics by the time I've finished thinking through my sentences, and my wife is still with it, while I'm lost in my own beautifully structured systematically-correct linguistic construction zone! 

I think that language learning and music learning are, in fact, very very similar, so I think the analogy is apt. 

You can have too much structure in trying to build your skills. That's all I'm saying, and I think that's also what your musician friend was trying to imply.

----------


## John McGann

> Let me paraphrase the second part, to see if I understand.
> 
> One might take a tune and
> -Improvise based on descending arpeggios.
> -Improvise moving up the fretboard.
> -Improvise emphasizing 6th, dominant 7th, Maj 7th movement.
> -Improvise using flat thirds. 
> -Improvise integrating a motif from another tune
> -Improvise as you would imagine it sounding sung by fish.
> ...


In my opinion: not so much  :Wink:  My suggestion is when you learn a tune, learn one version of it.

Then, acquire more versions (this is the listening part). Learn the versions that you like. Compare and contrast. Forget the technical stuff for now. Be able to play the A and B parts three or more different ways. Then, juggle, mix and match the versions. Do this with 12 tunes, and then:

Take your time, sit quietly (get off the internet!) and try to imagine another version of one of the tunes- in your head. Pick up your mandolin and try to create a variation based on what you'd like yourself to sound like. Take your time, it may take many tries before you get one you like. Store it (either write it out or record it), and go on to the next phrase, and so on, until you have composed a complete pass through the tune. Don't go to Mars, don't be too clever, keep it real and idiomatic and true to the original melody.

Then, practice it until you know it as well as the other versions. Play it "on the gig", jamming with friends, etc. for a week or two.

Repeat the above- create a second break that is a set of variations. as above, practice etc.

Repeat the above- create a third break that is a set of variations. as above, practice etc.

By the time you do the third, you should be able to freely mix and match ideas from the various settings (provided you've honored the original melody). Viola, improvisation, controlled, with well thought out vocabulary and no random lick spewage.

Ain't that simple? All you need is time and stick-to-it-iveness, and a love for music  :Wink: 

BTW I credit Russ Barenberg for this great set of ideas that answered my question "How come when we jam, you sound like you are playing "on the tune" and I sound like I am playing licks?"

This was a game changer for me 25 years ago, and I hope it will help others as it did me...

----------


## JonZ

Doug--

I don't have any problem with your comments. Music is a vast subject, so ultimately you do have to figure out good ways to simplify. I turn a lot of this stuff over, and look at it from many angles, because I enjoy the intellectual puzzle. In the end, maybe I can produce something worthwhile and others can benefit from the messy, inefficient process I have engaged in to create it.

When I was using the example of Apple, I was referring to the ultimate refinement of their product, not the process they use to produce it.

I think the main difference I had with the violin teacher was that he came from the perspective of working with very high level students, and I came from the perspective of working with very low level students. He looked at the exercise and thought, "it's hard, but not that hard", whereas I was thinking "my student will become frustrated by this".

The language comparison works good if you can immerse yourself. Most people cannot do so with music. I would guess the average person averages less than an hour of practice a day.

In reading some of John McGann's comments, I am realizing there are some elements of practice that I have just not been doing. So now my goal is to take what he recommended, and try to do it as efficiently as I can.

----------


## JeffD

> Regarding how far off the mark a bad teacher can put us, I am sure many people remember certain teachers who "ruined" subjects for them. Conversely, some subjects became important to us _because_ of good teachers.


 :Smile:  This is true, but the extreme end of the spectrum.




> I think it is hard to make an argument that bad teaching doesn't matter because we will overcome the damage it causes, if the subject is important enough to us.


No, quite the opposite. 

I am thinking of the middle ground however, where instead of "bad" we say "sub-optimal".  

But I take your point.


I am interested in what comes of this.

----------


## JonZ

> In my opinion: not so much


Dang, I thought I nailed it, because it goes back to a very effective method that some of the basketball coaches use (I'm relating everything to basketball these days).

For Example:

Scrimmage

Defence guards, but cannot steal, while offence...
-can only shoot after three passes.
-can only shoot off a screen.
-can only shoot on a give and go.
-can only shoot from the paint.
-etc.

It is an intermediate step that bridges between drills and improvisation (a game). Freedom to make decisions and rules to force the use of new skills.

----------


## John McGann

I think the desire to "be better" is much more a factor than the methods used to get there. Beware of "option anxiety", that can freeze you and keep you from getting to the heart of the matter. Once you have a few fundamentals together, focus on music itself as the vehicle for music. You'll be using all your skills, just as in any sport.

For improvisation, I think it's best to be rooted in some style (like 100 tunes under your belt-memorized cold, melodies and chord changes) before getting into improvisation in that style. I like to gain a working knowledge of the vocabulary of that music, rather than using a pastiche of "licks" for improvisation, which gets old really fast, and doesn't really differentiate improv on tune #1 in D from tune #5 in D. See previous posts for suggested methods.

The same goes for jazz- although there are lots of books out there to explain what scales go with what chords, your hotline to "getting real" in that area is the tried and true way- listen and play along- Lester Young! Louis Armstrong! Roots, baby! Listen to them sing on their instruments- sing along first, then find the notes on the mando! Use a Slow Downer if you need to! Absorb real music! Love real music! Get Scale and Arpeggio Practice Learning Master Musician's Solos! Gypsy-Django-Visionary-Shaman! Darkness Comes From Confusion, Pick One Thing and Hold On Tight! Wisdom of Ancient Musicians Key To Unlock Present! Love The Place, Not The Map! Train Musical Soul, Not Finger Exercise! All One, All One! All One Or None! (Edited by Dr. Bronner!)  :Laughing:

----------


## Bertram Henze

> I like to gain a working knowledge of the vocabulary of that music, rather than using a pastiche of "licks" for improvisation, which gets old really fast


Reminds me (how could I forget that) of the recommended reading of Victor Wooten _The Music Lesson_. "If you hit a wrong note, a right note is only a half step away" is my favourite quote.

----------


## pickloser

Professor McGann - Thank you very much for posts 80, 103, and 107.  How such helpful advice came to be in a thread with "Bloom's Taxonomy" in the title is a bit strange but, like others, I surely appreciate your offering it.

I have been "composing" breaks in my head, writing them down, and memorizing them, but then I had been treating the songs or tunes as "done."  I will be revisiting all canned breaks, and I will be working more on my ears.  I'm going to try to focus practice more keenly in furtherance of goals by breaking down those goals into manageable tasks.  

I think JonZ's Anki/spaced repetition approach has a lot to offer with regard to manageable tasks.  It's well-suited to working on melodies, chords, arpeggios, and inversions.

----------


## JonZ

John--

I want to get back to arpeggios for a moment, because every jazz book I have read says to learn a variety of them in all of their inversions. I understand that you are saying not to be overly focused on them, and that they are not the key to improvisation. Yet many of us have managed to learn them, and not finding them useful, and wondering how to make this knowledge useful.

----------


## catmandu2

> John--
> 
> I want to get back to arpeggios for a moment, because every jazz book I have read says to learn a variety of them in all of their inversions. I understand that you are saying not to be overly focused on them, and that they are not the key to improvisation. Yet many of us have managed to learn them, and not finding them useful, and wondering how to make this knowledge useful.


I'll offer a short answer: if you think of everything in terms of intervals (scalar relationships), or, think of intervals in terms of everything, the utility/significance of arpeggios (and everything) will become clear.


I was just replying to a "bass playing" post--and realized that my comment above may be more obvious to me...and less obvious to some readers.  Playing bass and horns and stuff--we think in terms of scalar relationships all the time--since we're playing single notes.  I do recommend this approach though--breaking everything down to fundamentals.

----------


## John McGann

> John--
> 
> I want to get back to arpeggios for a moment, because every jazz book I have read says to learn a variety of them in all of their inversions. I understand that you are saying not to be overly focused on them, and that they are not the key to improvisation. Yet many of us have managed to learn them, and not finding them useful, and wondering how to make this knowledge useful.


Understanding chords (and arpeggios) are indeed a key to understanding (Western) music. When you are improvising, any note you play will be heard in relation to the backing chord (assuming there is a backing chord). The chord tones (arpeggio notes) are the safest go-to notes, you can't go wrong with a note that is part of the chord of the moment.

I like to play a game called Name Any Beatles Tune: Whatever the tune is, you'll find a greater percentage of the melody notes are actually chord tones (of the chord of the moment). You can do this with any non-blues music- including bluegrass and fiddle tunes. So, if the very stuff that makes up melodies is largely chord tones, it's a good idea to know, hear and recognize what they are. 

When you learn the solos of the Great Masters, you'll say "Oh, yeah, there it is!" an awful lot. The best textbook of all is the aural tradition handed down via recordings. If you can hear it and sing it (even woefully badly), you can get at it on your instrument.

Knowing how to analyze a solo harmonically is a really powerful weapon in the improv wars...

----------


## JonZ

Do you think it is worthwhile to go beyond the ability to find/play a given arpeggio, to being able to play it instantly, anywhere on the fretboard, while moving through common chord progressions? Or is just a basic knowledge/facility adequate?

----------


## Chip Booth

I hesitate to follow John's advice in any subject but I thought perhaps I could express my idea of how arpeggios work for me, since different people can explain the same idea in different ways.

When I improvise I use a technique I refer to as the "The Right Note at the Right Time".  Ignoring (for now) the "right time"  part of the phrase, arpeggios are the tool I use to find the Right Note.  As John said, in any given song in many musical traditions the melody notes are, more often than not, one of the notes of the chord (I will refer to them as chord tones).  Someone did a study of this using commonly known songs and found an average of 60-70 % of the time they tend to be chord tones.  More specifically, a chord tone is one of the notes of a chord that is being played RIGHT NOW.  So if a song is the key of G the chords tones over the G chord are G, B, and D, and when the chord in the song changes to a D chord the chord tones are D, F#, and A.  

If the goal is to sound traditional when improvising over a tune then you will want to use a majority of chords tones, in the way the original melody does.  Arpeggios are a tool that allows me to do that.  When soloing over the G chord in my song I focus on those notes from the G major arpeggio.  When the song changes to the D chord I focus on the notes of the D chord.

What about the Right Time?  This is equally important.  The idea is not to just randomly play the right chord tones over a chord, but to make sure that they are used in a way that makes them accentuate the chord structure.  The simplest method of defining the Right Time is to say the "strongest beat", which I will say is the downbeat of a new chord.  When my song changes to a D chord I am going to choose to play on the chord tones of the D scale on that first beat.   That way the note I choose sounds completely harmonious with the chord and tells the listener that there has been a change of chord and I knew it was coming! 

 If the song is a fiddle tune, the next note I play may be on the "and" of the downbeat or perhaps the second beat of the measure, both of which are not "strong" beats compared to the downbeat.  I am free to play any scale tone that sounds good (probably from the basic scale, G major in my example song), and assuming it is not one of the chord tones we now refer to it as a passing tone.  This note leads our ear up or down towards the next "event", which is when we play another chord tone on a strong beat, perhaps the third beat of the measure or the downbeat of the next measure.  Arpeggios are a tool I use to locate these chord tones as I move through a song.

----------


## Chip Booth

Here is an example of a standard fiddle tune I broke down. Of 62 notes played (through the first ending) 31 of them are chords tones.  In all measures (except the turnaround measure with the G in it) each of the "strongest" beats (1st and third) has a chord tone on it.  Most measures have a chord tone on all 4 beats and a passing tone on the "ands" or the upbeats of each notes.  The turnaround is kind of whacky, as a C major arpeggio (or partial pentatonic lick) is played over the G chord.  This is clearly "wrong" according to my definition of The Right Note at the Right Time, but happens occasionally in fiddle tunes, the tonic arpeggio is used to finish the end of a phrase.

----------


## JonZ

That is helpful. How did you move from knowing your arpeggios to being able to incorporate that knowledge into solos on the fly?

----------


## pickloser

I think that advice will be very helpful to me, Chip.  It gives structure to usage, based on what I would already be concentrating on--the chord progression--and minimizing the need to think about things I don't have time to think about when trying to solo.  I'm gonna work on it.  
Thanks!

----------


## Chip Booth

Keep in mind this does not relate to staying true to the mature of the specific song as John mentioned above, it is basically an exercise, but here is one way way one way I have practiced and taught people to incorporate this method:

Play a very simple song, starting with only one chord, say a G.  Improvise using the G major scale. One the first beat of each measure play a G chord tone.  Do not fail to use a chord tone!  On the rest of the beats play other scale tones, in a more or less linear ascending or descending pattern.  For example on the first beat play a G note, hold it for the first and second beats, then on the third beat play an A note, then a B on the forth beat.  The A and B lead our ear up towards the next event, a chord tone on the next downbeat.  On the downbeat of the next measure pick a close by chord tone, it could be the B again or the D note.  Play the new chord tone, holding it for the first and second beats then move up or down, more or less in a linear fashion through the scale  on the third and fourth beats.  This rhythmic phrase I have created actually causes your ear to be lead to the downbeat of the next measure.  In essence the phrase stars on the third beat leading to the downbeat.  If you analyze most vocal phrasing you find that the rhythmic lines tend to start in the middle of measure and end on the downbeat of another measure , where often a chord tone is sustained to give it extra musical weight.

Once you are comfortable with the one chord song add a second chord such as the V chord D in the key of G.  Play two measures of each chord.  When you switch to the D chord you switch to the D chord tones as your "target" note for the downbeat of each measure.  Once you are comfortable switching back and forth you can vary the rhythmic phrasing and add new chords, etc.

----------


## John McGann

> Do you think it is worthwhile to go beyond the ability to find/play a given arpeggio, to being able to play it instantly, anywhere on the fretboard, while moving through common chord progressions? Or is just a basic knowledge/facility adequate?


Yes, more than worthwhile- that's what "knowing your chords/arpeggios" is- to be able to get at those notes, not one at a time, but as complete units, in response to the chord of the moment. Jedi level stuff (going beyond the one-octave scale concept into jazz harmony) is superimposing, i.e. Dm maj7 9 sound on a G7 chord to get the G lydian b7 sound (D F A C# or 5 b7 9 #11 13)...so the fundamental understanding of triads is essential before moving into the "upstairs" piece of the harmony, not played as incidental scale tones, but as chord tone extensions.

As you get to know the fingerboard better (and let's face it, that's a very finite task- there's only seven notes* in all of music, right?), they'll light up like little LED's in your mind....and you'll HEAR them as well as SEE them, with dedicated practice and a little theory knowledge (knowing how to spell chords).

* eight if you split string like Jesse.  :Laughing:  Rimshot, thanks very much, I'll be here all week...

----------


## Mike Bunting

> Here is an example of a standard fiddle tune I broke down. Of 62 notes played (through the first ending) 31 of them are chords tones.  In all measures (except the turnaround measure with the G in it) each of the "strongest" beats (1st and third) has a chord tone on it.  Most measures have a chord tone on all 4 beats and a passing tone on the "ands" or the upbeats of each notes.  The turnaround is kind of whacky, as a C major arpeggio (or partial pentatonic lick) is played over the G chord.  This is clearly "wrong" according to my definition of The Right Note at the Right Time, but happens occasionally in fiddle tunes, the tonic arpeggio is used to finish the end of a phrase.


Good post, this what I was trying to point out back in post 56, referring to a Monroe song.

----------


## JonZ

> Jedi level stuff (going beyond the one-octave scale concept into jazz harmony) is superimposing, i.e. Dm maj7 9 sound on a G7 chord to get the G lydian b7 sound (D F A C# or 5 b7 9 #11 13)...so the fundamental understanding of triads is essential before moving into the "upstairs" piece of the harmony, not played as incidental scale tones, but as chord tone extensions


_Jedi Stuff!_ I'm in! :Cool: 

That takes us back to pushing your arpeggio knowledge and ability to the next level. Those dots are not lighting up for me yet. I like chips suggestion, and wonder if anyone else could suggest any other intermediate or advanced practice techniques to really help us _use the force_. :Wink:

----------


## Toycona

Fascinating series of posts. Now, going back and taking a look at Bloom... This all looks to me like analysis and synthesis. Once it goes from a thread on the cafe (or notes on a page) to your fingers (notes that are heard), it becomes creation, right? And creating music is the desired outcome.

Here's a question for you all: to what extent is/should improvisation be spontaneous? Is it about getting enough musical vocabulary mastered? There's been a lot of discussion around practicing improvisation, but when does it cease being improvised and become a practice in arranging?

----------


## Chip Booth

I think the necessary vocabulary and "practice in arranging" part comes first.  By definition I believe improvisation IS spontaneous (though when actually performing we may not always be completely spontaneous), and so in order to truly do a good job of improvising you have to do the homework first.

(I need to actually read this thread from the beginning, I don't know what I'm talking about here...)

----------


## Brent Hutto

> As you get to know the fingerboard better (and let's face it, that's a very finite task- there's only seven notes* in all of music, right?), they'll light up like little LED's in your mind....and you'll HEAR them as well as SEE them, with dedicated practice and a little theory knowledge (knowing how to spell chords).


Somewhere on a DVD I think Gene Bertoncini mentions that he was able to really get started when he could look at a guitar fretboard and only "see" the notes that fall on, for instance, a C-half-diminished scale. 

Which I took to mean practicing his scales and arpeggios and intervals long enough that he no longer had to choose among every fret and string but just the small number of them that fit with the harmonic context he had in mind. Or something like that, it's all way beyond my pay grade...

----------


## Chip Booth

This idea of "seeing" the notes, or as mentioned they "light up like little LEDs" is exactly my experience.  I am a visual learner, and and I literally "see" the notes on the fretboard as well as hear them.  When I "see" scales and arpeggios, it's like the other notes on the fretboard become background noise and they fall away.  

Does anyone remember the Roy Clark Big Note Guitar Songbook?  I remember seeing this advertised after Hee Haw each week.  I had to Google it to make sure I wasn't making this book up, but on many occasions I have used this method as an example of how I visualize notes, scales, and chords. It contained a page of colored stickers you put on the fretboard to hep you see where to put your fingers to play a chord.  I have always felt like that is how it is for me.  I practice playing a chord, a scale, and arpeggio, and when I go to use it, especially when using them as a reference for finding chord tones, the notes light up like little LEDs or Roy's red and green stickers.

----------


## draino

> Does anyone remember the Roy Clark Big Note Guitar Songbook?  I remember seeing this advertised after Hee Haw each week.  I had to Google it to make sure I wasn't making this book up, but on many occasions I have used this method as an example of how I visualize notes, scales, and chords. It contained a page of colored stickers you put on the fretboard to hep you see where to put your fingers to play a chord.  I have always felt like that is how it is for me.  I practice playing a chord, a scale, and arpeggio, and when I go to use it, especially when using them as a reference for finding chord tones, the notes light up like little LEDs or Roy's red and green stickers.


Sort of the old school version of the Fretlight guitar system, Chip:  http://fretlight.com/

I doubt they'll be making a mando version of that system anytime soon though (not to mention the fact that it seems to me that although the system could reap huge initial rewards, I'm not convinced that its really the correct path to get to where one sees an un-lighted fingerboard "lit-up in the brain" the way Chip does).

I'm glad this conversation has progressed.  What I'm taking away from this conversation is that I've been leaving half the good stuff on the plate during a lot of my practice time:  focusing my attention completely on internalizing the finger pattern and paying too little attention to the "sound pattern" that corresponds to that finger pattern.  

Now to go back and over-intellectualize how I can use that take-away message to make my practice time more useful  :Smile:

----------


## farmerjones

To take it one step more, i imagine to hold the neck differently for every key. Goes along the lines of being a tactile learner, because my vision is not good. 

Yes, i have read the whole thread. Mr. McGann should be recognized as a Worldwide Treasure, or Sainted, or some such.

----------


## JonZ

> What I'm taking away from this conversation is that I've been leaving half the good stuff on the plate during a lot of my practice time:  focusing my attention completely on internalizing the finger pattern and paying too little attention to the "sound pattern" that corresponds to that finger pattern.


That's interesting. For me the sound patterns become quickly internalized. When people say to sing the patterns, it does not really ring a bell with me. I think it is because I have done a lot of singing, and it is easy for me to pick up a melody, or sound pattern.
I seem to need more work on connecting the sounds to how they function within the harmonic framework of a song.

----------


## catmandu2

> That's interesting. For me the sound patterns become quickly internalized. When people say to sing the patterns, it does not really ring a bell with me. I think it is because I have done a lot of singing, and it is easy for me to pick up a melody, or sound pattern.
> I seem to need more work on connecting the sounds to how they function within the harmonic framework of a song.


IMO, this is a tremendous advantage for you--perhaps more than any other factor.

If you are already proficient with singing--then it is simply a matter of analyzing what it is you are already doing, so that you can understand it--conceptualize it.  Generally speaking, this is the easy part--cognition, since it is basically a matter of doing your homework; in your case, a matter of the brain catching up with the ears, et al...usually, the brain catches on faster than ears, hands, fingers, etc.  You've already got "an instrument" under your fingers (coordinating sound with physical movement) which is usually the hard part--taking the longest amount of time to develop.  Now, you break it down to see what the elements are doing to form _music_.  As John said, there are only 12 notes in a chromatic scale--a very finite exercise...especially compared with the technique of playing.  Typically, the task of acquiring a basic understanding of color theory and ocular perception is acquired faster than learning _how to_ _paint_.

----------


## SincereCorgi

Maybe a lot of this discussion comes from not exactly knowing your goal, Jon- what exactly do you want to do with the arpeggios?

----------


## John McGann

> Yes, i have read the whole thread. Mr. McGann should be recognized as a Worldwide Treasure, or Sainted, or some such.


Wow, thanks, I am really happy to help; I'd settle for solvency :rimshot:

----------


## JonZ

I want to get in on that Jedi action that John McGann mentioned.

I am at the level where I know the arpeggio patterns, and can find them on the fretboard. I think my next step is to be able to move them around the fretboard and over chord changes at higher speed, and also to have an awareness of what the notes and scale positions are that I am playing as I play them. I would like to see the patterns on the fretboard, as Catmandu mentioned.

The next level would be to be able to use them as the basis for improvisation, eventually at full speed.

I understand that improvisation that is all chord tones is not the goal. But as John McGann says, you have to KNOW your arpeggios.

----------


## Lou Giordano

Looks like a happy ending here. Cool!!! Lots of good stuff. 

 Also thanks John McGann.  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## catmandu2

Here's the link, Jon:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f44/

FWIW...this bass site has good forums--particularly in theory and pedagogy.  There's a whole lot of great info on theory all over the place here.  For improv-related questions, check out the "Jazz Technique" forum..

----------


## JonZ

I found an interesting guitar discussion that deals with some nuts and bolts triad learning techniques.

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/archive/i.../t-224507.html

----------


## Paul Cowham

Interesting thread, and echo the thanks to John McGann's posts espacially no. 80

I'm not convinced that Bloom is a great model for learning music, but I quite like Kolb (incidentally I suspect that Kolb's theorists and reflectors and more likely to enjoy this thread than activists or pragmatists!)

A learning curve model that I really like though and can be useful when thining about learning music is a 4 stage process:

1 *subconcious incompetance* (when you start to learn something you don't know what you don't know and what you need to learn)
2 *concious incompetance* (after much practice you realise what you don't know and can't do)
3 *concious competance* (after much more practice you can do what you are trying to but you really have to think about it)
4 *subconcious competance* (after much more practice you can do what you have been trying to and don't need to think about it)

For music to sound good I think the 4th stage has to have been reached (to make instrument a vehicle for communication you can't be thinking too much about what you are doing). I would rather listen/watch simple music played subconciously competantly than complicated music played conciously competantly..

----------


## John McGann

> I would rather listed/watch simple music played subconsciously competently than complicated music played consciously competently..


Yeah, the art is to conceal the art (or the effort!)

----------


## JeffD

> A learning curve model that I really like though and can be useful when thining about learning music is a 4 stage process:
> 
> 1 *subconcious incompetance* (when you start to learn something you don't know what you don't know and what you need to learn)
> 2 *concious incompetance* (after much practice you realise what you don't know and can't do)
> 3 *concious competance* (after much more practice you can do what you are trying to but you really have to think about it)
> 4 *subconcious competance* (after much more practice you can do what you have been trying to and don't need to think about it)
> ..


I saw something like this in a management training program. But it ranked them differently

1 - you're not good at it and you don't know why
2 - you're not good at it and you do know why
3 - you're good at it and you don't know why
4 - you're good at it and you know why

In management class mastery included knowing what you were doing right and why it worked.

Management class was the single greatest influence in my decision to never, if I can possibly avoid it, never ever be a manager.

----------


## Marcus CA

> Yeah, the art is to conceal the art (or the effort!)


For me, the art is to conceal the science with artistry.

----------


## John McGann

> For me, the art is to conceal the science with artistry.


Well put!

----------


## HddnKat

This is a fascinating thread - applying education theory to self- teaching -and it really requires you to step outside of yourself and try to analyze exactly what it is that you are doing as you learn - apply those metacognitive skills.  Back to the original question, though - if you are working to learn arpeggios - what will be your criterion of success?  Must you be able to improvise an arpeggio in a given key ascending or descending in a closed position, etc? Or is the goal to be able to use that to produce an improvised melody over a set of changes?  I agree there is a certain tension between the skill and mechanical ability to produce the arpeggio, and the artistry of producing something that sounds good and goes along with the melody in question.  so to throw a different educator into the mix - do what Stephen Covey says and begin with the end in mind.

----------


## Pete Hicks

I'm not sure that understanding precedes remembering.  Years ago, I learned 'Well You Needn't", by Monk by memory.  I could only play it well one way.  Over the years, I came to understand what Monk was up to. Now that I understand it better, I can improvise and make sense of it.
On the main subject, I think Bloom's Taxonomy is very applicable to music learning.  It has been used for years in language teaching.  Music and language both involve aquisition of knowledge and applying that knowledge through performance, i.e. speaking, singing, or playing. The taxonomy is a nice organised approach to learning.

----------


## Brent Hutto

> The taxonomy is a nice organised approach to learning.


Is it an approach to learning? Or to teaching? Or to teaching about teaching?

----------


## draino

> Is it an approach to learning? Or to teaching?


In the present context, one would hope that these are synonymous.

----------


## Brent Hutto

One might hope but hoping doesn't necessarily make it so.

But I've said too much. Forgot which thread this was for a moment. Sorry.

----------


## draino

> One might hope but hoping doesn't necessarily make it so.
> 
> But I've said too much. Forgot which thread this was for a moment. Sorry.


This thread is aimed at self-guided learning.  How do you propose that teaching and learning can be separated in this context?

Moreover, you seem to accept that Bloom's taxonomy may provide "a nice organized approach to teaching".  If it does that, then it inherently provides "a nice organized approach to learning" because the learning comes from the teaching.

----------

