Theory Vs. Application : Why So Many "Guitar Students" Abandon the Instrument

 

I was scrolling through some posts on a music discussion site, and I ran across an interesting thread a fellow posted that really caught my eye, as it's been a source of many a raised hackle. Here's his original post:

Years ago, my late wife had a cousin, about 15-16 at the time, who had been taking guitar lessons for a few years. They asked if I could show him some things. So when they were up for a visit, I borrowed the bro-in-law's acoustic and we went to a back room to go over some things.

I wanted to get a general idea how far along he was, so I would know what to show him. So I asked that question. His response? "We're on eighth notes now."

The instant he said that, I knew he couldn't play a lick. He proved me right. He didn't know how to tune, only knew a couple of open chords, no barre chords, and his picking method involved holding his arm out in open space with no control at all.

His lessons with his "guitar teacher" seemed to have involved this "teacher" just going through the book with him. That's it. This kid couldn't play for squat.

So, I showed him some really-for-real things he could play, taught him the riff to "Sweet Home Alabama" and a few other little things, things that anyone would recognize. His "teacher" had never done anything of the sort. His parents, ignorant of music and guitar but well-meaning, simply didn't know any better. All this "teacher" had been doing was "teaching" him the exact crap he could have learned on his own for free by going through the book. It reminded me of the few hideous guitar lessons I took from a woman in my hometown, and to this day I have no idea if she could even play guitar.

Which brings me to the point.

WHY do people insist on drilling into a kid's head that they have to spend 20 years studying theory to make a sound??? For that matter, WHY do they insist on starting them on reading notation on Day One? It's ridiculous. Why not teach them to play something recognizable instead, something to inspire them? But no. They have to dive into the Mel Bay method of playing "Polly Wolly Doodle" or whatever. They present this wall of music theory and give them the impression that they have to learn all of it to play guitar.

I have NOTHING against learning theory. Nothing at all. I wish I knew it much better than I do. But some people seem to think that everyone must START with that.

I've had more than one person tell me at times that they learned more in an hour with me than a year of guitar lessons, and I'm sure some of you have experienced the same. But I could never be a guitar teacher. Why? Because the ignorant but well-meaning parents would go, "What? You're not teaching him/her to read music??? WHAT KIND OF TEACHER ARE YOU??!!" Never mind that musical notation is very limited where guitar is concerned in the first place.

I know there are some fantastic teachers out there, obviously. But it's also clear that there are some really bad ones. If I had been paying for lessons for my kid for 3+ years and he still couldn't play for squat, I would be asking why. But if the parents don't know any better, that's what they get.

I tried a "legitimate lesson" when I first started guitar and bass at 15 years old, and I was done with formal teaching. ONE lesson. Kind of like your wife's cousin, my original "teacher" was achingly inefficient, and was definitely going by the script (which I could've literally done on my own) definitely tried to do the "push the music theory first, we'll learn the actual guitar stuff...eventually" method. Needless to say, he lost me. Even back then, something in my brain told me that this guy was just dragging it out so he's got an indefinite source of income, and to this day I struggle to respect "teachers" who use this methodology. My parents weren't super-supportive early on with me learning guitar. I guess like a lot of parents, they figured it was a "phase" and that I'd bore of it, move on to the next hobby and they'd just sell or donate my pawn shop guitar, never having to worry about me spending a lifetime deluding myself into thinking I could be a professional musician. That backfired stupendously now, dinnit? Point is, the question my dad wanted to know was "when are you going to learn an actual song?", not "what is an 8th note?", "tell me what 11/4 time signature is" or "WHY CAN'T YOU PLAY A PHYRGIAN SCALE YET???" That being said, I don't get why the guy's wife's cousin's parents weren't concerned with his lack of any notable progress. A few weeks? Maybe. But a few YEARS and still nothing to show for it? You'd think they'd want to know what they were paying for. 

But I saw it a lot when I gave lessons. I was a glorified babysitter for a lot of these kids on days they didn't have after-school programs, tennis lessons, etc. I also came to the painful realization that most of my students didn't even practice on their own time. I had two students in particular who I'm certain I had to give the exact same lessons 6 or 7 times. I even occasionally would send emails or texts to the parents reiterating the importance of a practice routine, but most of the time those messages would go ignored. But the parents who DID pay attention, have their kids put in the work in between lessons, and have the kids show them what they're working on were great. Those kids went on to not need lessons, and some were already forming bands when they were finishing up working under me. Obviously the different types of parenting will affect the kids' level of commitment, and the ones that put in the effort made giving lessons much more rewarding. I tried to keep lessons fun, subtly-educational and RELEVANT to what the students were interested in.

A wise fellow who ran a local music store taught me a few things about being a well-rounded musician, and I'll never forget the one line when it came to "guitar lessons". He said:

"Classically-trained guitar players get scholarships. Guitar players who learn from watching their peers and idols, and by really training their ear to learn from their record collection...well...those guys are the ones that actually get GIGS."

That has definitely been the truth from my observations and experiences, 30 years later. It's not black-and-white, but it's mostly accurate.

When I started wanting to give lessons, I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't be a boring teacher, nor would I put these individuals coming to me for lessons in a position of having to learn what amounted to mathematical equations, esoteric terminology and mindless regurgitation. Sure, I'd sprinkle in some practical scales, basic understanding of the most common chord voicings (maj/minor/7th/9th/etc) and picking/strumming techniques, but in context that made sense, or applied to--and this was the important thing--what THEY wanted to learn. Not just what I wanted them to learn, or what I was comfortable with (which is what most guitar teachers tend to do). There is something to be said about the teacher having to adapt or even learn some new things themselves, in order to educate their student. Keeps you on your toes, and keeps it interesting for all involved.

My methodology was to find out upfront what students were trying to achieve, and what made them want to start playing. You had some "my parents are making me" type answers, as well as the "I want to form my own band" (which thankfully were the majority). Then I'd find out what kind of music they were into, some of their favorite artists, and tailor a plan according to their tastes, focusing on music that will keep them enthusiastic about playing. I'd teach them how to use a tuner, the parts/workings of their instrument and how to change/replace strings--things I think EVERY guitar "teacher" worth his/her salt should teach their students, but you'd be shocked how many guitar students haven't been taught those things and waste all kinds of money paying some dipshit at the local guitar shop to do things they could do themselves. We'd start with some applicable standard chords (first on "charts" and then the equivalent on guitar tab) to the simplest songs I could find on their preferred artist/genre lists, let them work on getting those calluses built up, and after they're grinning ear-to-ear strumming away on a song they love, I could start working some other information in there: the notes on the fretboard, a major scale, etc. Then you can move into alternate chord shapes, some rudimentary "lead guitar" scales/patterns and different picking/strumming techniques. 

By keeping the students engaged that way, I could tell which ones were going home and playing on their own time, coming back week after week ready, prepared and looking forward to learning the next song. The ones that really worked the hardest were forming bands within less than a year, putting their knowledge to work. Some were even experimenting with writing their own songs as well, which I LOVED seeing happen, as a songwriter myself. Meanwhile, some of them had friends who were taking "guitar" at school (something that wasn't even "a thing" around here when I was in school), who were mediocre-at-best on their instruments, had no creativity, and COULDN'T play a damn thing without sheet music in front of them or someone conducting them. The "classically-trained" kids couldn't improvise, couldn't "jam", and didn't remotely know where to begin regarding trying to figure out a song they heard on the radio by ear. Were they "educated in music theory"? Yes. Were they "competent guitarists"? That's arguable. They could "play" to an extent, but were completely lost without their sheet music/direction, and in many cases, didn't even seem to actually enjoy playing guitar, whereas the kids I was teaching were gleefully chugging out their Green Day and White Stripes songs or impressing their parents with some riff from a recognizable oldie, classic rock or country tune at will. This, I'd imagine, is the drive and elation felt by all of our guitar heroes who learned from listening to the radio, wearing out vinyl records and sneaking into shows to watch others play and see it firsthand.

I suppose it all comes down to it, which method works best depends on the intent of the student. If a parent is trying to create a classical musician in the family, go for all the theory and the "proper lessons" where they're learning how to read their sheet music and follow a conductor, but understand they're going to struggle play with any genuine feeling or passion, and it's just academic to them in most cases. But if a parent wants to let a kid explore music from a more emotionally-connected ideology, all they need is a decent-playing instrument (i.e. NOT the "cheapest thing you can find because you don't know if they'll stick to it", because it's gonna' play like crap and they WON'T stick to it), some songs that make them inspired to pick up said instrument (I was hooked at that opening hammer-on/pull-off staccato-picked intro of "Thunderstruck" by AC/DC) and the determination to succeed at it.  I've learned some theory along the way, but the stuff that gets me gigs, helps me write songs and keeps me interested all boils back down to inspiration and learning by example, NOT and kind of formal musical education. To each their own, and some folks may feel the complete opposite of me. We're both right. Or we're both wrong. But back to the original post, when a student clearly wants to learn but the teacher is holding them back, it's definitely time to reevaluate the situation and match that student up with a mentor who can help them hang on to that flame, not snuff it out with outdated, irrelevant or inapplicable methods that don't suit that particular learner. Everyone learns differently. But with music, unless you're planning on joining the symphony or something, it seems counterproductive to be teaching a kid, who obviously wants to play some familiar songs and (most of all) HAVE FUN with it a bunch of stuff he may never actually use when they could actually be out there enjoying themselves.

Regardless of whether a guitar "teacher" is a stodgy, by-the-book "classical" teacher or one who tailors their lessons to match the desired outcome of their students, let the student be the guide. If your student has a different goal than what your teaching style allows, send them to another instructor who will better suit their needs. Don't hold a beginner on the instrument back, and don't destroy their enjoyment of playing because their goals don't align with your "method".

Also, if you're one of those by-the-book guys, fine, but don't you dare judge the learn-by-ear guys or the "tab-only readers", because I've ran into MANY, MANY sight-readers who couldn't play their way out of a wet paper sack without their "notes" in front of them, while us pedestrian non-readers can hop up onstage and wing an entire set from memory (or by simply observing what the other musicians are doing). It REALLY sucks when I see kids taught that reading music somehow makes one a "bEtTeR mUsIcIaN", even if they can barely eke by on the instrument itself. Case in point:

I recently had to intervene with a conversation between my stepson (who we'll call "Al") and another member of the school jazz band (who we'll call "BH" for "bass hog"). They both played bass guitar in the jazz band (well, Al played half the set on bass and half on trumpet), and this other kid had literally cockblocked Al ALL SEMESTER from using the school-issued bass amp in class. BH used the bass rig, and Al was forced to use a dinky guitar amp which couldn't even be heard. So I was already pissed. Now, a little quick backstory:

Al's mom and I already had him playing bass for a couple years, and the kid has learned and memorized dozens of songs--my only gripe is he would RATHER be on YouTube on his iPad, and he's always complaining about taking time to work on his bass...and that I can't get him to also learn how to use a pick for certain songs. He had to start learning bass clef for jazz band (he already knew treble clef from his trumpet), but otherwise had a great amount of "fingers on the fretboard" experience. He still struggles to read bass clef, but mostly I just think it's some kind of subtle rebellion for being "forced" to play an instrument and enrich himself instead of spending every free minute watching Mr. Beast videos or dicking around aimlessly on Roblox. Anyhow, back to the recital, where I got to meet BH...

For the recital performance, the electrified musicians were instructed to bring their own amps. ALL OF THEM. I loaned Al my ex-wife's old SWR practice amp (yay divorce) and showed him how to hook it up. When the kids were getting ready, we found out that BH did NOT bring an amp (claims his is "broken"), and without really marinating on how this little prick treated her kid all year, my wife inadvertently told Al that BH could use the amp when he moved over to play trumpet. Needless to say, I. WAS. PISSED.

Hold up...this little shitstain was a narcissistic little twat to your kid, and you let him use MY amp? This arrogant, screechy little Adam Goldberg-lookin' crotchgoblin was benefiting from MY gear, and I was livid.

After the performance, I went up onstage to assist Al in packing up the cords and stuff, and BH came over, being a real dick to Al, telling him he missed a bunch of notes, and how "bad" a bass player Al is...just showing what a little douchenozzle he is. When we made our way back to the band room to get Al's trumpet case and start making our exit, BH came over again, and made a quip about Al not being as good at reading bass clef, and talking about how much better a bassist he was than Al. I told the kid that Al's been learning from me, and I've been a professional musician for 30-something years now, have a couple hundred songs at the ready at any given time in my head and I can barely even read tab. I asked him what all he played. He rattled off about 5 or 6 songs. I asked "what else?", and his response was, "that's it" and "those are the songs he has sheet music for". I told him Al knows 5 or 6 times that many songs by heart. He made some quip about "bUt He CaN't ReAd ThE bAsS mUsIc", and I retorted, "he may not be as good as you at the sight-reading portion, but he doesn't need to outside of this class, and he could get up onstage and literally sit-in with a group without so much as a one-time-through of any of the songs and play along with them without having to rely on music, soo..."

That shut him up, and he wandered off. I wasn't trying to decimate the kid's ego for the sake of my own enjoyment (although when you see a kid bullying others, I don't have one ounce of remorse for helping shift him down a peg or two), but I think it was a public service to let this kid know that musicians can be just as viable or "good" whether they sight-read music, learn by ear or mimic by watching others' hands. Teach kids better, people. Even if you're an insufferable twat, you don't have to raise your kid to be one.

In closing, I don't give a damn whether you read music or don't. But the second you want to puff out your chest and pretend like you being able to sight-read somehow makes your ability to play "superior", we're going to go have us a "duel" at some random-ass open-mic night and see who can hang with some strangers and entertain better. 😉