How would you teach a total newb?

[Idunno]

Teaching a total noob -

 

Good question. Doing some serious retrospection to find those shoes again.

 

As I remember, first off, I was very ambitious. The desire was pretty intense. I taught myself so that's why this is a good question for me. It makes me recount what took me from the street to the studio.

 

The desire to learn was at 10 on a meter from 1 to 10. I set some basic goals. I wanted to fingerpick an acoustic steel string guitar and sing at the same time. Nothing outer-worldy, yet serious, the regimen was to play as often and long as possible each time I picked up the guitar. That wasn't really anything that needed much self-discipline because I was so cranked to learn. I practiced every night after work until I went to bed and countless weekend hours. In one year I was playing/singing the way I wanted to and 6 months later nailing Classical Gas.

 

If I was tasked with teaching someone I could only do so if that person had similar passion as I did at the outset. I don't think I could work with someone who couldn't show me that. That's a tall order right out of the gate but those people usually teach themselves so maybe that's not being fair to the question.

 

Set up -

 

I would demand losing the plectrum (flatpick) immediately. Doc Watson and others made good use of them but there's so much more available on the guitar than a pick alone can yield. I'd also demand learning to fingerpick with all five digits on the picking hand for the same reason. Learning to use them all fluidly is essential, IMHO. I would not require the traditional classical pose because it actually imposes discomfort by assuming an asymmetrical posture. Not good and painful after an extended period of time. I would recommend the use of a lap bolster to elevate the neck. In other words, there are things about traditions that I'd throw out and others I'd intensify and expound upon. In no manner, drunk or sober, would I ever hint at learning theory as a natural compliment to the mechanics of play. That's about as counter-intuitive (and counter productive) a chore as I can fathom for a student. It's like saying "This is going to be fun eventually but at least you'll hate the learning part that will last seemingly forever."

 

I'd begin with the basic major chords and teach all the various embellishments of them. This would go on until I could tell the ears are developing to a satisfactory extent. Then I'd bring in the minor chords and continue in this manner until the neck was fully explored via chord melody methods. All the time it would be via exposure to various picking patterns and then inter-mixing them. By the time the student was done with me he or she would be able to write their own music because their experienced hands would be capable of executing what their experienced ears want them to do. That would be my ultimate goal for them.

[1001gear]

Teaching a total noob -

 

Good question. Doing some serious retrospection to find those shoes again.

 

As I remember, first off, I was very ambitious. The desire was pretty intense. I taught myself so that's why this is a good question for me. It makes me recount what took me from the street to the studio.

 

The desire to learn was at 10 on a meter from 1 to 10. I set some basic goals. I wanted to fingerpick an acoustic steel string guitar and sing at the same time. Nothing outer-worldy, yet serious, the regimen was to play as often and long as possible each time I picked up the guitar. That wasn't really anything that needed much self-discipline because I was so cranked to learn. I practiced every night after work until I went to bed and countless weekend hours. In one year I was playing/singing the way I wanted to and 6 months later nailing Classical Gas.

 

If I was tasked with teaching someone I could only do so if that person had similar passion as I did at the outset. I don't think I could work with someone who couldn't show me that. That's a tall order right out of the gate but those people usually teach themselves so maybe that's not being fair to the question.

 

Set up -

 

I would demand losing the plectrum (flatpick) immediately. Doc Watson and others made good use of them but there's so much more available on the guitar than a pick alone can yield. I'd also demand learning to fingerpick with all five digits on the picking hand for the same reason. Learning to use them all fluidly is essential, IMHO. I would not require the traditional classical pose because it actually imposes discomfort by assuming an asymmetrical posture. Not good and painful after an extended period of time. I would recommend the use of a lap bolster to elevate the neck. In other words, there are things about traditions that I'd throw out and others I'd intensify and expound upon. In no manner, drunk or sober, would I ever hint at learning theory as a natural compliment to the mechanics of play. That's about as counter-intuitive (and counter productive) a chore as I can fathom for a student. It's like saying "This is going to be fun eventually but at least you'll hate the learning part that will last seemingly forever."

 

I'd begin with the basic major chords and teach all the various embellishments of them. This would go on until I could tell the ears are developing to a satisfactory extent. Then I'd bring in the minor chords and continue in this manner until the neck was fully explored via chord melody methods. All the time it would be via exposure to various picking patterns and then inter-mixing them. By the time the student was done with me he or she would be able to write their own music because their experienced hands would be capable of executing what their experienced ears want them to do. That would be my ultimate goal for them.

 

You are likely the exception. You likely had a good model - heard and liked some music? - before deciding that's the life for you. What about those not so destined?

[Idunno]

A good model? You may be onto something there. My "time" was late 60's and early 70's. The acoustic music scene was at its height during those years. I stopped listening to broadcast music in '76, opting to write and pursue my own course for a very short period. I never went back to listening to broadcast music after that initial departure.

 

Destined? I guess that has some bearing on how my music evolved but my "destiny" was/is an aircraft mechanic by trade and musician by hobby. After attaining the skill level of play that allowed me to play somewhat sophisticated pieces (classical) I put the guitar down completely for 29 years while developing my own businesses, career, raising a family, etc. I returned to playing in 2004 somewhat recharged with the original passion that launched me and it feels like I'm in it for the remainder of my life.

 

If a person doesn't have passion for something then they will not excel in it, or life for that matter. Destiny is a word coined by uniformed people thinking that there's some form of external control over their lives (and they blame destiny for a crap life, too). Nope. You make your own destiny as defined by your passion but you have to have that to start out with. People who have no passion for any one thing are destitute, IMO, and have my sympathy. If what you mean by "destined" is the means ($$$) to follow passion's directives then, yes, I can see what you mean and those people still have my sympathy.

 

But, we're talking a simple acoustic guitar that can be had cheaply and maintained the same way. If you don't have the stuff to drive that thing to great musical heights then you have to expect mediocrity and the nagging feelings of dissatisfaction and frustration. Kind of a math problem, really. If you can't do the numbers, don't expect the solution.

[1001gear]

Good points. I don't think on your scale but mostly agree.

[JonR]

Teaching a total noob -

 

Good question. Doing some serious retrospection to find those shoes again.

 

As I remember, first off, I was very ambitious. The desire was pretty intense. I taught myself so that's why this is a good question for me. It makes me recount what took me from the street to the studio.

 

The desire to learn was at 10 on a meter from 1 to 10. I set some basic goals. I wanted to fingerpick an acoustic steel string guitar and sing at the same time. Nothing outer-worldy, yet serious, the regimen was to play as often and long as possible each time I picked up the guitar. That wasn't really anything that needed much self-discipline because I was so cranked to learn. I practiced every night after work until I went to bed and countless weekend hours. In one year I was playing/singing the way I wanted to and 6 months later nailing Classical Gas.

Not dissimilar to the way I began. It wasn't Classical Gas for me (never liked that tune ), but I had that same 10/10 desire to learn, learned quite fast, and saw no need for a teacher, because I knew exactly what I wanted to do. (There were no guitar teachers teaching rock/folk/blues guitar in those days anyway. Everybody taught themselves.)

If I was tasked with teaching someone I could only do so if that person had similar passion as I did at the outset. I don't think I could work with someone who couldn't show me that. That's a tall order right out of the gate but those people usually teach themselves so maybe that's not being fair to the question.

Right. Speaking as a teacher now, my ideal is the same - I expect a student to show much the same desire to learn as I had. But - as you say - that tends not to happen because learners with that much passion teach themselves. They believe teachers have little or nothing of any use to show them. (That was certainly my view! The arrogance of teens...)

So we end up with learners who DO expect a teacher to give them something they can't get by themselves. That's good - it shows humility - as long as there is enough drive at the same time.

In my experience, it's actually quite rare to find learners with the right balance in that respect. Typically they start off with lots of enthusiasm, but find it tougher than they hoped. IOW, they might have a 9/10 level of passion, but 9/10 is not enough to get past those technical hurdles we all faced: changing chords in time, barre chords, etc etc. And if they're adults, they always have other demands on their time. They have jobs or families.

Set up -

 

I would demand losing the plectrum (flatpick) immediately. Doc Watson and others made good use of them but there's so much more available on the guitar than a pick alone can yield. I'd also demand learning to fingerpick with all five digits on the picking hand for the same reason. Learning to use them all fluidly is essential, IMHO.

Here I disagree. I don't "demand" anything of my students, other than that they find some time to practise between lessons (oh yes, and that they pay me!). Most beginners just want to strum chords to songs they know. I help them do that. Fingerpicking is a relatively advanced skill. Some beginners want to do that - as soon as they can - others are not that interested.

IOW, most beginners have individual goals, and it's crazy to demand they follow a course I set down, because of the music I happen to like.

 

As you probably know, classical orthodoxy doesn't require all 5 digits to pick with - 4 is standard - and most folk or blues styles only require 2 or 3. Merle Travis managed fine with thumb and index alone. Of course, I wouldn't tell anyone not to use their pinky as well, if they found it easy or useful; but it's quite obvious that nobody has to.

I would not require the traditional classical pose because it actually imposes discomfort by assuming an asymmetrical posture. Not good and painful after an extended period of time.

Any position is painful after holding it for too long. But classical position is perfectly desgined for playing classical guitar, and -while it seems awkward to start with - is not at all uncomfortable if done right. Both hands are in the optimum position.

Still, I certainly wouldn't (and don't) "impose" it, unless the student actually wants to learn classical guitar. For fingerpicking in other styles, the less formal right leg position is fine. (Even so, some folk/blues learners actually like the classical position, and that's fine.)

I would recommend the use of a lap bolster to elevate the neck.

I agree it's important to have the neck relative high, which is of course what the footstool does for traditional classical position. Thigh supports can of course do the same job. Even a footstool under the right foot (if guitar is on that leg) can help. So can crossing the leg, although that's not good for long periods of time (stops the circulation in the leg).

Personally I always managed fine with no such support, and probably the majority of professional fingerstyle players would agree.

IMO, it's a matter of preference in the end. I would certainly tell the student (and may demonstrate) all the possible options, and explain them. And as I watch each student play, I can often tell if one particular modification of position would suit that person. A lot depends on body size and shape, after all. (The person's as well as the guitar's!) Age also has a lot to do with it.

In no manner, drunk or sober, would I ever hint at learning theory as a natural compliment to the mechanics of play.

I agree there. Theory can be useful sometimes to help understanding, but it has nothing to do with the mechanics of technique. One can learn to play brilliantly with zero understanding of theory.

Theory - beyond the absolute basics of note and chord names without which we couldn't teach - is only worth introducing when students have the kind of questions that have theoretical answers, or start to spot patterns in songs that intrigue them (where a theoretical term can be illuminating).

Having said that, some students (a sizable minority) actually want to learn theory: notation, scales, etc. Of course there are those who think they have to - and I put them right ASAP. But some do want to know about the nuts and bolts, the underlying patterns and rules - they find it actually helps them make sense of the technical stuff.

 

I certainly agree that nothing to do with learning music should ever be a chore. That's the absolute bottom line for me. A lot of things may be tough; but one should enjoy the process enough for the difficulties to be an exciting challenge, not a tedious chore. Climbing a mountain is not a chore for a mountaineer.

If you're not enjoying it, you're doing something wrong.

I'd begin with the basic major chords and teach all the various embellishments of them.

All?

This would go on until I could tell the ears are developing to a satisfactory extent. Then I'd bring in the minor chords and continue in this manner until the neck was fully explored via chord melody methods.

Wow. I take it you've not actually taught anyone to play guitar?

"continue in this manner until the neck was fully explored via chord melody methods" - that's a few years of learning right there. In my experience, most students are still struggling with open position cowboy chords (major and minor, triads only, maybe a few 7ths) after 6 months. At 6 months, barre chords feel like an insurmountable obstacle. After a year, some are just starting to get to grips (literally ) with them.

I dream of being able to take a student to the level where they can handle "chord melody methods".

All the time it would be via exposure to various picking patterns and then inter-mixing them. By the time the student was done with me he or she would be able to write their own music because their experienced hands would be capable of executing what their experienced ears want them to do. That would be my ultimate goal for them.

You can compose your own music without being able to play much at all. I wrote four tunes in the first week I had my first guitar. They weren't any good, of course , but that's not the point. Composition is not something every musician can do, or wants to do. Many great virtuosos never composed anything at all (or very little). Some people just want to play (other people's) songs, never want to improvise or compose. Others want to compose and improvise - do their own thing - right from the start.

 

 

[groovezilla]

Find the newest and easiest songs to play and teach those first. Success begets success. And everyone starts playing guitar to help them get laid, so enable them to get laid and they will continue to practice.

[JonR]

Find the newest and easiest songs to play and teach those first. Success begets success. And everyone starts playing guitar to help them get laid, so enable them to get laid and they will continue to practice.

Hmm, doubtful strategy. There are many ways of getting laid, and many of them will be easier (or cheaper or quicker, or more fun) than learning guitar. So if they get laid some other way, maybe they'll stop the guitar lessons! There goes your income! (Unless you're also a pimp, I guess... )

 

 

[kreepydo]

make them play slide

[Caffeinated Cat]

I'd ask what style he's interested in, what songs he likes, teach him some of the easiest songs in that style, and give him some basic theory to get him started writing his own songs in that style. I'd try to come up with some exercises to help him develop his technique, like chord changes and basic scales, maybe starting with box #1 of pentatonic minor and get him going on some basic improvising along with backing tracks or whatever. I'd record some backing tracks for him and encourage him to write and record his own, to get into the habit of playing in rhythm. That's assuming that he wants to become a musician and isn't just into "I wanna learn to strum a couple of songs to impress my buddies" or whatever. In that case I'd just teach him to strum a few songs and not burden him with a bunch of stuff he's not interested in.

[Ambugaton]

Wouldn't it be safe to say after reading all the replies on this topic that a good approach would be to 1) Identify the type and style the student has interest in; 2) Pick a couple songs that he knows and has known to learn; 3) Identify applicable theory and exercises that may be relatable to the material to branch off into; 4) Have student not only know the song but why and how the song is structured and extend the patterns that are present.

[mbengs1]

I'd teach the way i was taught. pick goes near the bridge, left hand goes on the neck/fretboard. all the notes of the guitar are on the fretboard made by pressing the left hand fingers. next lesson would be the basic open chords. next would be barre chords. then learn a whole pop song. then learn the chord variants like sus2, sus4, minor/major 7th etc..

 

 

[AJ6stringsting]

Better hand the student some condoms while you're at it !!!!

[AJ6stringsting]

I teach them a song they like, only after they learn their ear training, a little theory,scales / modes, "chord relays" and finger exercises. I like it when they start playing on the edge of their abilities and they get more fired up about the guitar, music theory and teaching them to listen to music passively or while playing with others.

[jclements]

Rhythm. Rhythm, and rhythm. If there is no rhythm, it isn't music. Before even holding a guitar, (and I am stealing this from somewhere else that I read this) I would get a newb to march to a favorite song, to get them to bodily feel the beat and internalize this, and to have them practice that at home. They have to be able to play solid with beat. I would explain what basic time is, what the downbeat is, the one, two, three, four, what accents are, and get them to recognize that in a song, how cymbal crashes often start on the one with the kick drum in much popular music, the snare on two and four, etc. How in some styles accents change from different beats, how a guitarist might be called upon to accent strongly on downbeats or backbeats or offbeats. But then to start playing, I agree with an earlier comment about emphasizing correct posture and holding the pick and being able to play without undue tension in the shoulders, arms, hands etc. And then, after forming basic chords, get them to one and two and three and four and count it out. And then mute play certain beats, etc, hearing the mute strum as a beat, and then learn to play without the mute strum to skip a beat, come back in in time - and playing with a metronome. Open up a basic songbook with cowboy chords (perhaps with a song they know so they can hear the melody in their head), and then have them count out while playing until they can do that in their head. And then play a melody to them strumming basic chords as an accompanist so they can feel and hear that basic interplay between musicians. Doing these things are the most basic things a good musician needs to learn and experience so that it sinks in to muscle memory or all the rest of it, melody, theory, style, harmony, scales, chords, patterns, reading - are all groundless intellectual exercises, and music is going to be a long unfulfilling road. I've known guitarists been playing for years who can barely strum upwards.

 

And then, before getting on to melody, theory, etc, teach them how to tune a guitar by ear - to match up two sounds note for note, and then basic interval training, from unison to octave to perfect fifth, etc.

 

And an overview of a practice mentality: to turn off your negative critical emotions (some would say turn off all emotions), to emphasize that training your fingers is a function of repetition, starting off slowly, and that one will not improve in a day, that good learning also takes place while you sleep; the massive amount of time it will take to master anything (10,000 hour rule), to not compare oneself to others (especially pros), and to forget about pet ideas about natural talent and giftedness; I would emphasize that virtuosity and pro results come to anyone who works for it.

 

Oh, and start singing early. Even if they never want to perform vocally.

 

In other words, things I wish I'd done.

[Lutz Richter]

Before teaching anything, I would ask him where he wants to go on the guitar, style etc.

Don't try to teach a whole song in the beginning, this is way too much. Start with easy melodies and easy open chords, Em is good as first chord!

[axegrinder77]

I would always strive to have something musical occur. When I studied classical, I fell in love with Fernando Sor (not literally) because his etudes were so beautiful. It inspired me to continue practicing and learning. On the other hand, some exercise routines are so boring that they would discourage any aspiring musician, leading them to lifestyle of confusion and alcoholism.