The Steel Guitar Forum

from time to time i get e-mails from new players that feel a bit intimadated posting a question because they feel they will come across as sounding stupid or they have read someone elses post and could bearly read it let alone understand it
i truely beleive that every one here tries to help
but sometime fail to take into account just how new they are

perfect example : a couple of years ago a guy got a student guitar for christmas and asked a buch of questions here on the forum and got decent answers
well about this time of year( around may) i got an e-mail from him asking me if he was supposed to bend his picks ..he didn't want to sound stupid after 6 months so he would not dare post the question on here ..of course it was not a stupid question he simply had not asked it as soon as he got his guitar but instead he had been (trying ) to learn to play with his picks sticking stright out
many here would have made fun of the guy
thats why i pose some of my posts the way that i do

JD, I think you misunderstood my post. I was simply conceding the point that Calvin made that occasionally there are going to be some folks who may be showing off more than trying to help. I don't think it's the majority and I argued that the onus falls on the original poster to either ask for clarification or sort it out for themselves.

I was talking about this thread with my wife earlier and she said that the problem is that we're mostly guys, and guys don't like asking for directions. Brint's camshaft analogy was perfect, and I think we're more likely to nod at an unfamiliar reference than risk being ridiculed for our ignorance. But ultimately, that's an individual weakness and it isn't reasonable or practical to expect people to walk on eggshells or to make sure their responses are easily understandable to players at all skill levels. Music is complicated and the pedal steel is a complicated means of creating it. Regarding Calvin's conversation with the player who was ashamed to ask about fingerpicks, I think most of us have been in that position of being ashamed to ask about something simple, but that shame is self-inflicted.

Perhaps there should be a Beginners section in the forum, where newcomers might feel less intimidated to ask about the little fundamental things.

I participate on several Forums, this one having been the first. While things tended to blow up every once in a while in it's early stages, it was after all a Forum which started almost since internet started to become accessible to the general population and we first had to learn to handle not just it, but this new form of communication, THIS IS THE ONE Forum I feel NO ONE should ever feel ashamed, unwelcome or intimidated to ask even the most essential and basic questions.
Yes, some questions are repeats and pop up every once in while and long time posters may seem a little uncompassionate when they limit themselves at mentioning that fact and suggesting to use the search button first. But in general, while I we've been blessed with the presence of some of the greatest on our instrument and music in general this Forum can pride itself of having received and answered the questions of ALL levels of players without prejudice or ill meaning attitude.

There is nothing wrong about being a beginner, even Buddy Emmons, Jerry Byrd and Curly Chalker have been beginners at one time. As such, I think, there is nothing shameful about asking, much to the contrary... I think there is more shame in not asking.

... J-D.

J.D.
just so you know , i now have mikes book and will do a post on it soon as i have had more time to work with it , from the quick scan i did i think i am really going to like it

Charlie McDonald wrote:I'm sorry, that's Mies van der Rohe.
He wouldn't take kindly to me calling him a Hohe.

I was going to say ...

FYI: http://www.myspace.com/ludwig_mies

J D Sauser wrote: NO ONE should ever feel ashamed, unwelcome or intimidated to ask even the most essential and basic questions.

AMEN!

To all you newbies: we're here to help. When we were newbies the more experienced players helped us, now it's out turn to help you, and in a few years it will be your turn to help the next generation of players.

That's how it works.

I've never seen anyone, give anyone bad information on here. The real problem is: That usually one of the people asking the questions, gets the correct answer, but it's NOT the answer they want to hear.

That's a fact.

Oh! BTW: Anyone here know Tracy?

Keep up the great work, Tracy. That was the problem I had. I played everything, just from hearing, then after retiring, I got into the Theory of why it was I played what I did.

But! Folks wonder how we did it, and then, when we can't really give them the gift, of telling them, how we were able to hear it, they think we're trying to be a smart A, or something.

"The world is strange (at times) indeed."

Happy Playing to everyone,

Don

"someone can hand me the tablature...practice till it sounds good...didn't learn much"
I disagree !!
"Muscle memory" and a "good ear" can go a LOOOONG way in getting the sounds you want !!
You like the sound, and the position, then you can use "parts" of it "somewhere else", when you want that kind of change. It will take a while, but...it comes.
Theory can always make it easier, but it's hard to beat the natural flow of things when you go on "auto-pilot"
just IMHO
Rick
PS: I am now, and always a theory buff

I think the poster is probably right. It's not easy to explain music theory plainly. The tendency (my tendency anyway) is to ramble on a bit too long and confuse the issue in the explanation. But ultimately, theory goes a long way to freeing up your playing.
I think the best bang-for-the-buck for a beginner is to learn the "sound" of the first six chords of the major scale (I ii iii IV V vi) and how to play them. In the key of C that'd be C Dm Em F G Am. Once you know their functions, you can play along with a song and pretty much know what chords you need to play next. You don't need theory to know, "that's the home chord" or "that's the sad chord." Add some passing tones and voila! You're ready to gig.
That way, you start with your ears, not a bunch of intimidating note names and key signatures. Then, along the way you study and learn theory and if you're lucky, you learn half of it before you die.
I guess what I'm saying is, eartraining first, theory second.

FWIW...I have a an indelible memory of the day someone explained the mechanics of major and minor chords it went something like this: " It's like this Don, when you play an E chord on guitar and you let up on you first finger you are flatting the third tone G# to plain old G and that makes it an E minor. That also tells you which major scale will sound best over that chord..." Well a light went off in my head. Actually it was more like the sky was had an extra sun. Don D.

Tony Prior wrote:but, before you can come to the conclusion of what to leave out, don't you have to learn it all ?

That is the point, Tony, but without saying that I could possibly know it all. I learned piano by ear and wanted to play jazz. That leaves a lot of notes to leave out, even if you don't know much.

I guess I should say Mies didn't know it all, he just knew what he liked.

I find music theory to be much the same.
Calvin may become the focus of the topic since it's his, but each of us becomes a vehicle for learning.
What music does he want to play?

It's like the man who asked the bartender (or the preacher) "Do you believe there is a hereafter?" and he answered "Depends on what you're here after."

Bill P, I hate to disagree with what you said, but! Simply knowing the "Key" the song is in, is in fact Theory.

Knowing the progression is again, knowing theory regardless of how you learned it.

Some people tend to feel that simply the word "Theory" is some deep, dark thing to stay away from. I know, because that's exactly how I felt about Theory. Who needed it, since I played by ear.

What I didn't know (at the time) was, from the time I'd started playing music at around age 5, I had been in reality, learning theory all along the beaten path, in bits and pieces.

So then basically, I'd have to now say, I believe to play anything, a person absolutely must know theory to some extent, or else they'd not be playing anything that even remotely sounded as though it went together. When in fact, regardless of how one knows, but just in knowing, C,F & G, is definitely music theory. Regardless whether or not, they also know the notes inside, that make up each of the cords. That's simply a little larger portion of the theory.

Anyone disagree?

I was asked about playing with relative minors. Heck I play hide and seek all the time with my brother's kids.

Don Brown, Sr. wrote:Anyone disagree?

I couldn't agree more.

The word "theory' it's self seems scary and intimidating to some. once a person gets past that, and gets into it a little, it's actually an enjoyable subject.

We learn by repetition, and perform that repetiton smoothly with muscle memory, and developing that muscle memory into smootheness becomes work soon, but ya gotta do it to get there. It's called work. Work and work, just so we can play? THAT'S a weird theory, huh?

i'm not saying that anyone gave "bad" information
but when the new player doesn't know a C from a Bb and is just trying to make a noise that doesn't make the dog leave for parts unknown i don't think we should overload him at that point

I've never known anything worthwhile that's been achieved WITHOUT work, and that's just the way it is.

Calvin Walley wrote:i'm not saying that anyone gave "bad" information
but when the new player doesn't know a C from a Bb and is just trying to make a noise that doesn't make the dog leave for parts unknown i don't think we should overload him at that point

Calvin,

I'm not trying to sound condescending, but I think it's essential for any steel player to know a Bb from a C, that's just basic steel guitar literacy. Otherwise it's like trying to write a novel without ever learning to read ...... I don't think someone has to inundate themselves w/ music theory to play steel, but a basic knowledge of the fretboard is a "bottom-line" essential.

The amount of theory that one has to know to be able to play at jams or on the bandstand is really very little. Just understanding the intervals in a major scale (= relative minor) and how to construct the 4 types of triads plus 7th and 9th chords, will allow you to understand most country song chord progressions.

Hey....... music theory is not rocket science. The only mathematical knowledge you need is a just decent understanding of even and odd numbers.

Don Brown, Sr., I agree entirely with your post. But I'm not at all against theory; I'm a music teacher, and it pays my rent. I was just trying to address Calvin's original post. Sometimes when a beginning player on the forum asks a question like how do you go from G to C, a well-intentioned response might include tritone substitutions and the Lydian-flat-seven mode within a paragraph or so. Maybe it's a jazz thing.

Sorry Bill, I didn't take it to mean I felt, you were against Theory. I was only pointing out that lots of folks, don't realize that knowing anything that has to do with music, is in fact, Theory to some degree.

Again, sorry if it came off sounding otherwise!

Don

And owwww....is Tony right on the money with this one!!

Let's face it....music is mathematical.
Odd and even numbers.....

Ron

I agree that more is not always better. But neither is less always better. I think most posters here try to answer things as clearly as they can - but they're not mind readers and don't always know an original poster's background. Then again, some musicians can only respond in a somewhat music-theoretic way. If I want to understand them, I must know their language. Not everyone can understand everybody else - if it was that easy, we wouldn't need schools, teachers, and so on.

That's my answer to your direct question. In answering questions, I think it is important to directly answer the question without requiring the reader to wade through a bunch of other stuff. But once that's done, expansion on that idea may be useful - remember that this is an open forum which many, many steel players read. Many here try to give answers which not only address an original poster's narrowly defined question, but things they see as closely related.

My expansion on the original point: I think there are a lot of approaches to learn a new instrument, or learn about music in general. Some people find it useful to study music theory like they were learning classical piano - memorize all the notes, memorize all the key signatures, learn to rapidly sight-read, and all that - as they are learning to play. Some people prefer to just sit down and play by ear and never think about anything. Then others have a more mathematical approach to it - for example to think more in terms of home keys and numerical interval relationships.

To me - whatever approach one takes to start - once you get going, it's useful to learn as much about the other approaches as possible. They all support each other.

The other thing about learning anything - in my opinion - one must not be afraid to fail. The minute you start limiting yourself to things you already know because you can't face failure while attempting to learn really new things, you stop learning. I think this is something that needs to be constantly fought. When I find myself routinely retreating to the comfortable womb of stuff I know how to do, I try to kick myself in the butt and force myself out. I think people who really are open to learning must, by necessity, have true humility because it means you're going to be constantly going into uncharted territory and making mistakes. That kind of humility emphatically does not mean you should beat yourself up for making mistakes - quite to the contrary, it means accepting that you will make mistakes and be OK with it, but then gradually learn by getting good feedback and correcting your errors.

If this was easy, everybody would be doing it. Guitar Hero, anybody?

Dave Mudgett, what an outstanding, kind, and well spoken post. Almost as if you had studied this very subject in great detail and you were a teacher at a university.

Dave

what you said makes a lot of sense ,i have to agree that once the question has been answered in a simple way, expanding on it would open his eyes to the bigger picture and get him thinking.
not a thing wrong with that

and by the way, if i remember correctly Dave is a teacher

and by the way, if i remember correctly Dave is a teacher

My guess is that right now, during finals week, at least a few of my students might disagree with that notion.

I have studied this kind of stuff quite a bit, but I'd be the first to tell you that how people learn is still very much an inexact science - it's at least as much art as science. But I really think that passion to learn has more to do with human learning than anything else. If one has real passion to learn, roadblocks become dust that are quickly overcome. I wish there was an easier way, but I don't know one.