3 ms·

I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression

by Nadya 8y ago

I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression - I'd be able to do so. I still fumble trying to find the right notes quickly enough to play music. I feel it would be insulting to other pianists if I called myself a pianist - even though I play piano almost daily. My office has a grand piano in the lobby and I'm the first one in every morning by a few hours, giving me time to dabble with it alone. Dunning-kruger doesn't prevent them from being able to explain things (even if not necessarily in "formal terms", there are plenty of talented musicians out there who don't know a lick of music theory!) or perform at levels that an unpracticed person could. Almost anyone who picks up a guitar could learn a basic version of Deep Purple or Ironman or the intro riff to Enter Sandman in a few hours, barring any physical limitations. But you're not going to be cranking out improv solos or a jazz chord progression without any practice whatsoever. To ask again, in your own words, what are the differences between a master pianist, a pianist, and someone who can play the Hot Cross Buns melody? I personally feel there is an important distinction, if only to convey information accurately, between saying "I am a master pianist", "I can play piano", and "I am learning to play piano."

beat 8y ago
Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little. For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same time, and won all of those games. And I suck. This really is a complicated question, though. First, perspective. Are you describing yourself, or someone else? Is there any sort of a formal rating system? (For example, a Bachelor of Science degree is a formal rating system.) Take the guitarist example. Every guitarist I know, no matter how good (and I know professionals) is quite limited in what they can play. Neil Young can't play classical. Classical players can't play Neil Young, either! They might be able to get the notes right - by ear, even - but they'll lack feel, expressiveness, and tone. Measuring guitar, or many other forms of art, in terms of technique can be blindingly wrong. What's good guitar technique? Playing fast? Knowing a lot of scales? Piffle. Good guitarists can express what they want to express. Period. That's my measure. So you see why I have a problem with the idea of "convey information accurately". I think it's philosophically wrong.
- Nadya 8y ago
  There are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone - and is heavily biased towards those with the right pedigree or luck. Not to say nobody gets into college through hard work, just that it's skewed. I feel most people are able to identify a good guitarist whether or not they like the music the guitarist plays. Even when the guitarist only plays with 1 string [0]. >For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. I blame your questionnaire for not defining the levels of play or being granular enough (1-10 scale). With those options I would assume "beginner" means "doesn't know how a knight can move across the board or the difference between a rook and a bishop", a 1 on a 10 scale. For example, I'm a "novice" chess player for sure - but not a "beginner" (some people may use these terms interchangeably), a 2 or 3 on a 10 scale. Assuming the students in the club knew the rules of Chess - it's not a surprise nobody answered "beginner"! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc
  - beat 8y ago
    One of my favorite books on guitar theory, The Advancing Guitarist by Mick Goodrick, has a whole section called "The Science of the Unitar", about learning to play on just one string, as a way of thinking of the guitar differently. To use your analogy, it doesn't take long in a conversation to tell if the person you're speaking with is well educated or not.

by Nadya 8y ago

beat 8y ago

Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little. For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same time, and won all of those games. And I suck. This really is a complicated question, though. First, perspective. Are you describing yourself, or someone else? Is there any sort of a formal rating system? (For example, a Bachelor of Science degree is a formal rating system.) Take the guitarist example. Every guitarist I know, no matter how good (and I know professionals) is quite limited in what they can play. Neil Young can't play classical. Classical players can't play Neil Young, either! They might be able to get the notes right - by ear, even - but they'll lack feel, expressiveness, and tone. Measuring guitar, or many other forms of art, in terms of technique can be blindingly wrong. What's good guitar technique? Playing fast? Knowing a lot of scales? Piffle. Good guitarists can express what they want to express. Period. That's my measure. So you see why I have a problem with the idea of "convey information accurately". I think it's philosophically wrong.

Nadya 8y ago
There are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone - and is heavily biased towards those with the right pedigree or luck. Not to say nobody gets into college through hard work, just that it's skewed. I feel most people are able to identify a good guitarist whether or not they like the music the guitarist plays. Even when the guitarist only plays with 1 string [0]. >For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. I blame your questionnaire for not defining the levels of play or being granular enough (1-10 scale). With those options I would assume "beginner" means "doesn't know how a knight can move across the board or the difference between a rook and a bishop", a 1 on a 10 scale. For example, I'm a "novice" chess player for sure - but not a "beginner" (some people may use these terms interchangeably), a 2 or 3 on a 10 scale. Assuming the students in the club knew the rules of Chess - it's not a surprise nobody answered "beginner"! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc
- beat 8y ago
  One of my favorite books on guitar theory, The Advancing Guitarist by Mick Goodrick, has a whole section called "The Science of the Unitar", about learning to play on just one string, as a way of thinking of the guitar differently. To use your analogy, it doesn't take long in a conversation to tell if the person you're speaking with is well educated or not.