The Steel Guitar Forum

I'm against it. Seems like a "I'm better than you contest." Book learning doesn't make you a good musician. Playing makes you a good musician.
It seems to me that the only test is if you’re hitting the right cords or your not. There's no in-between.





Edited. I was wrong.Many apologies to whom it may concern.

It would be a waste of time. you can study all the tab, tapes, utubes etc. I don't think you can learn to play a steel in tune, or to have a sense of rhythm, or have soul. I think it comes from a higher power as a gift.

Just practice, play and enjoy it or take up golf.

Ultimately, what is the point? A trophy? A piece of paper? I need neither.

Just because a person is trained, it doesn't mean they can “play” . When I was young two of the woman I dated were trained musicians. One was a violinist and the other played keyboards (organ). Both were brilliant, but taken out of the structured environment in which they lived and they were lost. With sheet music in front of them they were perfect, not so with rock and no direction. My niece is the same on piano, no sheet music, no music. Their training made them great musicians, but robbed them of something. I'm not saying this is true for all, but here are three examples.

If your goal is to play in an orchestra, I guess some rating would be useful, but to play in a band? Either you can play the tunes or not! I don't need to see a piece of paper to tell if someones got chops or not.

The perceived threat is the main motivation for the negative comments.

I'm not remotely concerned about the "threat" of vastly improved players. Geez, I haven't been at PSG long enough to be threatened by anything. There are lots of really fine players out there now, and I think most of us would honestly like to see more great players. As Bob Hoffnar points out, there are already excellent teachers and materials out there now for someone strongly motivated and interested in developing musically. Still, I think if the emphasis of a program like this is to develop better teaching pedagogy, great.

But I am concerned about the institution of a caste system of certificates and gradings, based on ??what?? standards?? This is, quite possibly, the most non-standardized instrument on the planet, and it's pretty tough to imagine that radically changing. It's one of the big charms of the instrument, IMO.

Another point - do you remember back in the "dark" days before the dominance of jazz-oriented schools like Berklee and a much more standardized jazz pedagogy? Surely you've noticed how poorly earlier jazz players - horribly deprived of such critical training and pedagogy - like Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Charlie Christian, Barney Kessel, Bud Powell, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, Pat Martino, and so many others played - and just how far superior younger jazz players are today.

It would be great to hear what some of the top players think about this subject, so if you're listening speak up.

I agree that it would be good to hear from them, but I can't imagine why they would want to walk into this buzz saw. We've already heard the argument advanced (not from you, Alan) that the reason for opposition is, essentially, sour grapes and a sense of threat from increased competition. If y'all want to argue this idea on its merits, I think it would be a very good idea to stick to that, and completely steer clear of this type of ad hominem commentary.

I was playing for a dance one night,, this guy brought in a saxaphone and set a music stand in front of me,,... I looked him right in the eye ,,and said wow,.. I can't read those chicken tracks!!!! If I had to learn chicken tracks .. I would never play a steel guitar!!!

I'm not a beginning steel player, but I am a beginning marimba player. I can see the value of a graduated course with testing after several lessons, to confirm what I have learned.

I don't see any value in publicly displaying test results, unless someone wants to broadcast their own results.

I've always been self-taught, from books and from my own invented methods. Tests to validate my knowledge and to find gaps in it would be welcome. I've never encountered such things, but I can see how they would be useful to a student like myself.

We already have a Steel Guitar Forum grading system.
You start at the top and slowly get beat down.

will there be merit badges for 'most drugs consumed while still remembering my name'...and maybe 'DUI avoidance techniques'...?

Really interesting thread here. Great food for thought.
For those who find negative comments too, um, negative, I would suggest that that's part of the function of a forum, to throw out ideas and learn from and build on the reactions and opinions of others.
This proposed graded system would probably be of great benefit to those who aspired to and agreed with the style, approach and limitations of the program.

Just a quick perusal of the past "learning/teaching" threads on the forum should indicate how very divided the steel community is on that level.
For example, (with a nod to an earlier post), I did study and pretty much learn every example in the Winston book, and consider it the foundation of my approach and understanding of the E9th tuning, and incalculably valuable to me. There have been several posters here who won't even open that book because they see it as being based on "Red River Valley".

My point is that while a graded approach does offer the regimented structure that some students profess to want, the material and even tunings might be a deal breaker for many. (for example: C6 lap steel tuning requirements, where would that leave a fledgling David Lindley or Ben Harper?)
And if there are recognized "grades" for steelers, I can certainly imagine a trend toward the "classic" tunes and styles that seem to be the central focus of so many bands, and especially steel shows and bedroom pickers. Where does that leave players who have no interest in pursuing those directions and styles, especially if there's a "recognized" ladder system in place that excludes them and their interests?
The millions of guitarists who don't want to be strictly classical players don't have much interest in the graded classical hierarchy for just that reason.
From watching the forum, it's apparent that many (not all!) of the players who really do like the "classical" steel tunes, styles and approaches also are very resistant to the study of music theory, the number system, jazz, and other things that are integral elements of the styles of several of the masters spoken of.
Do you have any idea how difficult the "advanced" section of a course designed by Emmons or Franklin would probably be?

I think I'd have to fall on the side of imagining that for an instrument of such breathtaking scope and beauty, with so many variables in style and technique, that a regimented, graded structure would just further compartmentalize the steel world into "the old guard" and everyone else, and hence be counterproductive.

We can also start at the bottom of the learning curve here on the Forum and gradually get beat up.

Bill Hatcher Wrote:

There are plenty of folks that graduate from all sorts of schools that are at best just marginal players even though they jump through all the scholastic hoops at the school....Most never make a living actually playing.

I have a pretty good Idea What Curly Chalker would say about this grading idea? However I can't say it in mixed company.

The single most perplexing thought is, Who in The Hell would grade Curly?