Song level
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:11 pm
- Status: Offline
AndyT - that made the most sense - that's it pretty much to q T
Thanks John. That's the way I understood it to be. And the scale applies equally to fingerpicking as well as strumming.
Before I started teaching I would have never put them in this kind of rating system but now that I had to create lessons for different people it makes perfect sense. It's really the best way to rate it. Once you understand the rating system, then you will be able to gauge where you are at on it instantly.
I think most of the people here are under the impression its based on difficulty. That of course plays a part, but you have to break it into ability levels. A student at this level should be able to use these techniques. A student at a higher level should be able to use all techniques up to his/her level.
Obviously the more techniques you master, the better player you are. And as you master each one, you become able to play any song that uses that technique. So every new level of ability adds large amounts of songs to your book. And also lets you play older ones with increasing fluency.
If you rate this one hard because you had trouble with it, then the next guy happens to know the techniques involved, its easy for him. Way too subjective. This system allows you to correctly gauge the students level, not by how hard it is, but by what he/she can actually do.
A teachers dream of a rating system.
Before I started teaching I would have never put them in this kind of rating system but now that I had to create lessons for different people it makes perfect sense. It's really the best way to rate it. Once you understand the rating system, then you will be able to gauge where you are at on it instantly.
I think most of the people here are under the impression its based on difficulty. That of course plays a part, but you have to break it into ability levels. A student at this level should be able to use these techniques. A student at a higher level should be able to use all techniques up to his/her level.
Obviously the more techniques you master, the better player you are. And as you master each one, you become able to play any song that uses that technique. So every new level of ability adds large amounts of songs to your book. And also lets you play older ones with increasing fluency.
If you rate this one hard because you had trouble with it, then the next guy happens to know the techniques involved, its easy for him. Way too subjective. This system allows you to correctly gauge the students level, not by how hard it is, but by what he/she can actually do.
A teachers dream of a rating system.
AndyT wrote:
Be Well,
Jim
Excellent post Andy! you are spot on.Thanks John. That's the way I understood it to be. And the scale applies equally to fingerpicking as well as strumming.
Before I started teaching I would have never put them in this kind of rating system but now that I had to create lessons for different people it makes perfect sense. It's really the best way to rate it. Once you understand the rating system, then you will be able to gauge where you are at on it instantly.
I think most of the people here are under the impression its based on difficulty. That of course plays a part, but you have to break it into ability levels. A student at this level should be able to use these techniques. A student at a higher level should be able to use all techniques up to his/her level.
Obviously the more techniques you master, the better player you are. And as you master each one, you become able to play any song that uses that technique. So every new level of ability adds large amounts of songs to your book. And also lets you play older ones with increasing fluency.
If you rate this one hard because you had trouble with it, then the next guy happens to know the techniques involved, its easy for him. Way too subjective. This system allows you to correctly gauge the students level, not by how hard it is, but by what he/she can actually do.
A teachers dream of a rating system.
Be Well,
Jim