I reckon this subject has been danced around and discussed a lot here on the forum. Perhaps it's my penchant for covering old ground that leads me to grapple with it again.
My workmates and I were discussing 2nd languages the other day and talked about people who describe themselves as "fluent" yet can barely hold a conversation. We agreed that there is a lot of terminology floating about in the language field to describe various levels of skill.
The language of guitar fluency seems much more stable. Beginner, intermediate, advanced. Easy.
My question (finally) is how would you define each? Why is it important? It's not really! I mean, strum a few chords or play Classical Gas...doesn't matter much just play and enjoy.
So I'm simply interested. How would you define the difference? I guess beginner is relatively easy...but what's the magic skill that takes you from intermediate (where I reckon most of the regulars on here sit) to advanced (where I assume most of us want to be)?
Beginner? Intermediate? Advanced? What gives?
Tony, I'm certainly not there yet, but I've caught glimpses of advanced play in a couple of people lately. And to me anyway, it is the abiltity to be so familiar and comfortable with the guitar and ALL of its notes/chords, that one doesn't even have to think, to just adlib or make something up that really sounds good.
It will be interesting to see the definitions coming out . I would say beginner is when you learn strumming (working on patterns, but not having the feel for it yet), the chords, thinking about finger position in general. Intermediary is a step up I would divide that in 2 : low intermediary and high intermediary. Low intermediary is where you can do cover of songs reasonably well but is stock into partitions rigidity. The high intermediary have a good understanding of theory, can do cover without any problems and starts working on composition. The advanced player understand music inside out, this where a professional is, where the theory meets the creativity. An advanced player have all the tools to be in a band or solo and create their own complex material.
Marc
Marc
sbutler wrote:
Marc I see theory ranks very highly in your response, which I don't disagree with at all. But is it possible to be an advanced player and have very poor theory? I reckon I have read about several well known musicians who can't even name chords! Or is that a myth?
I think that's a pretty solid definition Scott.And to me anyway, it is the abiltity to be so familiar and comfortable with the guitar and ALL of its notes/chords, that one doesn't even have to think
Marc I see theory ranks very highly in your response, which I don't disagree with at all. But is it possible to be an advanced player and have very poor theory? I reckon I have read about several well known musicians who can't even name chords! Or is that a myth?
Marc I see theory ranks very highly in your response, which I don't disagree with at all. But is it possible to be an advanced player and have very poor theory? I reckon I have read about several well known musicians who can't even name chords! Or is that a myth?[/quote]
There will always be people that can perform very well without the education (theory) and you can see that in many fields. Most of the time these people have natural talent that are way above normal people. I would say without the fear of Zeus sending me a lightning that most professional have an advance understanding of theory. Theory does not bring rigidity but allow to have an easier understanding for arrangement. I doubt that professional musicians cannot name chords some of them might not care at all for the theory, but if they are working with other musicians, they have to be able to communicate and share ideas
Marc
There will always be people that can perform very well without the education (theory) and you can see that in many fields. Most of the time these people have natural talent that are way above normal people. I would say without the fear of Zeus sending me a lightning that most professional have an advance understanding of theory. Theory does not bring rigidity but allow to have an easier understanding for arrangement. I doubt that professional musicians cannot name chords some of them might not care at all for the theory, but if they are working with other musicians, they have to be able to communicate and share ideas
Marc
tovo wrote:
And I think it does go without saying, that a solid foundation of theory is what allows some of those gifted souls the ability to do what they do. I think Natural rhythm has got to be in there somewhere too. I think anyone could, with time, learn notes and chords. An advanced player will show you what to do with them.sbutler wrote:I think that's a pretty solid definition Scott.And to me anyway, it is the abiltity to be so familiar and comfortable with the guitar and ALL of its notes/chords, that one doesn't even have to think
Marc I see theory ranks very highly in your response, which I don't disagree with at all. But is it possible to be an advanced player and have very poor theory? I reckon I have read about several well known musicians who can't even name chords! Or is that a myth?
Tony- I see learning a musical instrument as a continuum with no markers along it indicating skill level. These classifications are artificial and while interesting for discussion don't really define much.
Case in point, how many times has Neil posted a lesson that was at a certain level and you felt "gosh, this is pretty easy, or hard, for a Level X song"? Seems to happen all the time.
Plus, if we add the difference between "guitar players" and "musicians" the questions becomes even more complex. There are many guitarists that play well but don't know a lick of theory. How can you be called intermediate or advanced if your knowledge of theory is rudimentary. I think we all know an advanced player when we see one but are hard pressed to define one.
I'm not convinced that artificial labels like "beginner" or "advanced" serve any useful purpose. Few of us stay at the beginner level for long and fewer still have the nerve or confidence to say we are advanced. So we all stay in that vast intermediate sea of players.
:cheer:
Case in point, how many times has Neil posted a lesson that was at a certain level and you felt "gosh, this is pretty easy, or hard, for a Level X song"? Seems to happen all the time.
Plus, if we add the difference between "guitar players" and "musicians" the questions becomes even more complex. There are many guitarists that play well but don't know a lick of theory. How can you be called intermediate or advanced if your knowledge of theory is rudimentary. I think we all know an advanced player when we see one but are hard pressed to define one.
I'm not convinced that artificial labels like "beginner" or "advanced" serve any useful purpose. Few of us stay at the beginner level for long and fewer still have the nerve or confidence to say we are advanced. So we all stay in that vast intermediate sea of players.
:cheer:
Definitely agree Rick on the classifications. Right now I'm working on Blackbird which is a 4 but gee it's a great exercise in moving up and down the neck with precise finger placement. I sure feel it is a great learning tune and I'm learning more than I might expect if I just focused on the number.
I think you are right in what you say. Good for discussion anyway.
I think you are right in what you say. Good for discussion anyway.
This is an interesting question but one with many answers. We humans seem to want to categorise everything. I know several people, one a semi professional if you like, who has a day job but gigs every night or most nights and weekends. When you watch him play it is mesmerising. I would say he performs at intermediate or advanced intermediate level, but the guy has very little theory knowledge, everything is played by ear. So he performs at a high level but his theory is lower. On the other side of the coin I know someone who knows a lot of theory but this is not matched by their playing skills. Which skill is the most important and how would you rate these guys next to each other?.......difficult.
This is why I think it doesn't matter what label is put on a player and you will know when someone is good or better than you. I think a label is just that, a label....... and as long as you are playing and enjoying and improving, that's all that matters.
Tom N..
This is why I think it doesn't matter what label is put on a player and you will know when someone is good or better than you. I think a label is just that, a label....... and as long as you are playing and enjoying and improving, that's all that matters.
Tom N..
As Tom N mentioned we humans have a desire to label things, in relation to Tony's query very difficult to define for me its quite gray . Anyway I believe we label things as humans have a basic need to belong somewhere (Maslow hierarchy of need) and by labelling we can achieve that and see where we fit into society, not perfect by any means though.
Personally I would say with different songs and different moods I can be all three; beginner, intermediary and advanced (not advanced very often though). I don't believe there are clear cut boundaries it is more of a sliding continuum which can change with mood, frame of mind and many other factors. Theory and playing ability are not necessarily at the same place on the continuum and not necessarily correlated either for all players.
I think it is important to know where you are on the continuum,or what general bracket you fit, otherwise how would you know where you are going how you were improving.
You could further complicate matters by having a different continuum for different styles of playing e.g. you could be way up the finger picking continuum but way down the bottleneck continuum and halfway up the theory :huh: . As for Jazz, the sliding scale doesn't go low enough for me :laugh:
What was the question again? Define beginner etc etc , I don't think you can as its way to subjective unless the question is narrowly defined. You can see from this thread already we are throwing theory into the mix and I've added style of music.
But we need to belong so we decide ourselves in our own mind where we want to be and 'label' accordingly and we then apply our standard of labels to other guitarists.
If anything this discussion highlights the difficulty Neil has in determining what level a song is at, cos its not a one size fits all.
Personally I would say with different songs and different moods I can be all three; beginner, intermediary and advanced (not advanced very often though). I don't believe there are clear cut boundaries it is more of a sliding continuum which can change with mood, frame of mind and many other factors. Theory and playing ability are not necessarily at the same place on the continuum and not necessarily correlated either for all players.
I think it is important to know where you are on the continuum,or what general bracket you fit, otherwise how would you know where you are going how you were improving.
You could further complicate matters by having a different continuum for different styles of playing e.g. you could be way up the finger picking continuum but way down the bottleneck continuum and halfway up the theory :huh: . As for Jazz, the sliding scale doesn't go low enough for me :laugh:
What was the question again? Define beginner etc etc , I don't think you can as its way to subjective unless the question is narrowly defined. You can see from this thread already we are throwing theory into the mix and I've added style of music.
But we need to belong so we decide ourselves in our own mind where we want to be and 'label' accordingly and we then apply our standard of labels to other guitarists.
If anything this discussion highlights the difficulty Neil has in determining what level a song is at, cos its not a one size fits all.