The Steel Guitar Forum

I have seen a couple of threads that have touched on this subject but I thought I would put my idea forward and see what people think, so feedback please good and bad.

I recently studied for grade 4 classical guitar and after trying to progress for many years on the instrument I found the grading system very helpful for a number of reasons.
1) Gives the student something to aim for or work towards.
2) Stops you working on pieces outside your technical and musical ability.
3) Provides a sense of completion and achievement.
4) Helps you to know where to go next (next grade)
I know some people just love to play they have a list of songs or musical achievements they want to learn and they get on and do it. Also some players have better opportunity to learn from and play with other musicians and steel players. Ok these are some of the arguments for and against grading and I’m sure you can and will bring up many more.

Having done the grade 4 for classical guitar and starting to move to 5 I thought it would be helpful if there were a grading system for steel guitar.

How it could work?

1) Steel Guitar Forum devise a grading system for pedal steel guitar and maybe Lap and Dobro.
2) Volunteers from the SGF would form a Grading System Team/working party
3) 6 grades to be developed 2 beginner 2 intermediate and 2 advanced would be written up and agreed.
4) 3 pieces would be selected for each grade from existing material e.g. Jeff Newman workshops, Winnie Winston book (all with permission of course)
5) An aural awareness for each grade devised (time and pitch)
6) A musical knowledge test devised for each grade around the real methods used today e.g. The Nashville Numbers System.
7) An improvisation section developed at each level where the student would have to play chords fills and solo over a recognized song or chord sequence.
6 workbooks with CD guides produced for purchase from the SGF.
9) Examinations could take place at the St Louis, Dallas and Ireland festivals
10) Examiners would be the best volunteers from the top players.
11) The Team should aim to get the system recognized by the main music colleges and universities in the US and UK.

A rough outline and lot of work I know, but I think it would be beneficial for the recognition and future development of the instrument. What do you think??

Alan

Very laudable Alan and a definite guideline for the implementation, except you say

9) Examinations could take place at the St Louis, Dallas and Ireland festivals

Why NOT include the UK in the examination venue list, the Guitar Registry already has examination criteria and venues, plus recognition of its grades from the UK Department of Education, and the London School of Music ?

QCA Accreditation

The QCA has now formally accredited all the RGT guitar and bass grade examinations. Andrew Hatt explains why this is such important news…

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) was established in 1997 to regulate all types of qualifications and curricula, and to advise the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about these matters. Among its objectives is the creation of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), which will list approved qualifications in all subject areas and show how they relate to each other in terms of equivalency of standard, credit transfer and so on. Among the first qualifications to be considered for admission to the NQF are graded music exams, primarily as established examination structures are already in existence for these subjects.

We are delighted to announce that our graded music exams have now been awarded both Part A and Part B approval, and consequently have been accepted onto the NQF framework.

The full text of this article is available as a pdf file.
It can be found in our online Guitar Teacher Magazine.
NQF COMPARISIONS

Whilst the exact details of the ‘entry and higher levels’ are still to be confirmed, LCM/RGT grade qualifications fit into the NQF as follows:
Entry Level Steps, Preliminary, etc.
Foundation Level 1 Grades 1-3
Intermediate Level 2 Grades 4-5
Advanced Level 3 Grades 6-8
Higher Level 4 DipLCM
Higher Level 5 Associate diploma - ALCM
Higher Level 6 Licentiate diploma - LLCM(TD)
UCAS points

Click here for more info on locations of present exams and structure.

Thanks for the reply, Yes this is what I sort of mean by 11, getting one of the institutions like RGT, Trinity and Associated Board to take the grades on and provide an examination body.

Alan

Examinations might be okay for classical guitar, since it's a very limited arena. But for steel guitar, there is no such equivalent. Pedal steel playing and even lap steel playing are composed of so many different musical styles that objectivity goes out the window. Basically, if you want personal feedback and recommendations, you just need a good teacher, or you need to find some talented "playing buddies" that you can learn from.

Alan,
I think it's a brilliant idea, especially regarding the info you discribed, musical integrity, knowlege of scales and number systems, musical notation, reading music. Why not a steel guitar examination board.
These theory exams can be applied to any instrument as far as the theory exams go, but as you know The playing exams are nylon string guitar in classical music at the London school of music.

An exam for the steel would be great, where one does not have to specialise in say a paticular style.
Just my thoughts,
chappy!

As someone who is still very much in the learning phase I LOVE the idea of a regimented and standardized learning scale for the reasons you mentioned Alan.

I feel a bit rudderless plugging away mostly on my own, and i kind of lack the self discipline that seems necessary for a more rapid and complete progression. I tend to pick and choose what I want to learn in an almost random fashion or when i discover I need it NOW in order to play with others and if it proves too boring or frustrating I will often just fall back into playing what I already know. I need guidance, goals...all the things you mentioned for all the reasons you mentioned.

Without getting into the logistics of how to handle testing and the different stylistic variations Donny mentioned this idea really appeals to me as a student.

I too can't see this for Pedal Steel Guitar.

What criteria would it be based on? What Buddy Emmons has played? or how he plays Night Life? I was always told the object is creativity and not to copy or play the song exactly as someone else plays it. Who is to say or who would decide what is "right" or "proper"?

If this idea appeals to some, more power to you. There's more than one path to follow in this world.

I was never all that enthusiastic (to put it mildly) about regimented and graded environments, and I can't imagine anything worse for poisoning the appeal of steel guitar for me.

Music, in my view, is a supremely personal and subjective activity. If I couldn't make Grade X by playing such-and-such scales at X metronome marking or flawlessly sight-reading a piece of someone else's choice, so what? My playing could still have meaning for me and possibly (hopefully) others.

Where music is concerned, learning good, grading bad. IMHO.

Thanks everyone for the replies a few points I want to raise.

1) Everyone learns from someone else and then finds a voice of their own.
2) The more advanced your musical knowledge and experience becomes the better player and improviser you become.
3) Item 7 covers an element of improvisation and could be extended.
4) This would not be the be and end all of learning just a tool to help you advance
5) There is lots of steel guitar material out there that could be graded and selected in order of playing technique and musical content. e.g. 51 Jeff Newman Woodshed Workshops, Paul Franklin courses etc, etc.

Keep it coming

Alan

Good grief--color me OUT!! Standardization?? Regimentation?? Scores?? Does my guitar need to be black , or lacquer in order to qualify?? Who needs it!!

if nothing else this would give beginers a direction to follow .
i know from my own experence i was wandering /jumping from one thing to another
trying to figure out what was beginer level, intermedate level and so forth
as a beginer you have no idea
what you even should be attempting to play
and thus have no idea of what path to
follow to reach your personel goals

Just so as not to be misunderstood, I'd like to add emphasis to my previous statement of my entirely personal opinion:
Where music is concerned, learning good, grading bad. IMHO.

I realize that what doesn't work for me may well work for others, however.

Second the motions and reinforce the expressions of
J. Stoner, B. Hannay, and tbhenry!!!!!!!

FWIW, I don't totally agree, or disagree with any of the above posts, Anyone wanting to learn PSG, find a good teacher and/or get a simplified "I ain't no musician but want to learn this thing" coarse, and progress accordingly, and don't go for Nite Life, or Flint Hill Special after the third lesson.

this is why so many stop posting

no one here is willing to listen to any one but themselves
every new idea will be shot down without ever once giving it a fair chance to be heard
any new thought here is always met head on with nothing but put downs

Larry Bressington wrote:Alan,
I think it's a brilliant idea, especially regarding the info you discribed, musical integrity, knowlege of scales and number systems, musical notation, reading music. Why not a steel guitar examination board.

Uhh, I noticed you never mentioned actual playing? (I would think that would be pretty important, too.)

I know guys that can spout theory and music all day long, but they're not very good players.

Conversely, I know guys that play very well, but can't read a note of music.

Think about this...

How would Emmons have graded Pete Drake?

How would Drake have graded Curly Chalker?

You see, what's important to you isn't important to everyone else, and that's the problem.

A player once sent me a tape to critique of a fairly well-known steeler that he was obviously very impressed with. He just loved the guy's sound and playing. He asked for my honest opinion, so I told him the guy had what I felt was a damp, soggy tone, that he used too much reverb, and that his playing was a little too "pitchy" for me to really enjoy what he was doing.

Well, I never heard from him again!!!

Seems some people get very upset when their "idols" get a failing grade.

Structured and standardized learning appeals to some people, myself included. The reasons why are stated very nicely in the first post from Alans own experience. Logistics aside, I dont understand the objection to providing this kind of structured learning for those who think it would benefit them.

Some painters just grab a brush and start painting.
Some go to art school. First a bachelors, then a masters. They study theory, art history, technique, they engage in critique of their work with and by their peers. I have my preference for how i would like to learn. Just getting a course or a friend to show me a few things hasnt worked out as well as i would have liked. I seem to need more structure and discipline in order to progress. For those of you who dont or didnt...more power to you.

as an observational aside...the novice players in this thread seem to like the idea (myself and calvin, larry i dont know where you are at in your playing). the seasoned vets do not.

Larry Bressington wrote:
Alan,
I think it's a brilliant idea, especially regarding the info you discribed, musical integrity, knowlege of scales and number systems, musical notation, reading music. Why not a steel guitar examination board.


Uhh, I noticed you never mentioned actual playing? (I would think that would be pretty important, too.)

I do mention playing the student would have to play 3/4 pieces demonstrating good timing tuning tone and expression.

I know guys that can spout theory and music all day long, but they're not very good players.

Conversely, I know guys that play very well, but can't read a note of music.

Yes I agree with both of the above but I also have had students who have been playing for years and are terrible and guys who I have given 1 lessons to who are now after a short time playing well. Talent has little to do with learning some guys are really talented but don't put the work in and don't play well. Some guys have little talent but work hard and play well.

Think about this...

How would Emmons have graded Pete Drake?

He wouldn't have both are established players

How would Drake have graded Curly Chalker?

ditto

You see, what's important to you isn't important to everyone else, and that's
the problem.

Its not about what's important its about leaning how to play well while developing your own style.

A player once sent me a tape to critique of a fairly well-known steeler that he was obviously very impressed with. He just loved the guy's sound and playing. He asked for my honest opinion, so I told him the guy had what I felt was a damp, soggy tone, that he used too much reverb, and that his playing was a little too "pitchy" for me to really enjoy what he was doing.

This often happens I once demoed a song for a famous Manchester band, while in LA they recorded the song using a very well known player/ producer I thought it was very poor but they loved it.

Rules are there to be broken but its good to know what they are before you try to break them.

Well, I never heard from him again!!!

Seems some people get very upset when their "idols" get a failing grade.

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.

For those of you who like this idea, I say go for it if you think it would help you. It will take a lot of organization and you'll probably spend about as much time fiddling around with administrivia and arguing about what's "proper technique" as learning anything. But that's just my opinion.

Personally, I'd rather spend an afternoon in the dentist's office having a root canal than spend it back in the learning model I went through studying classical piano when I was younger. But again, that's just me.

Let me give an example - I'm a college teacher, and I've taught engineering, math, system design, probability and statistics, and a bunch of other things like that. I've also taught guitar, off and on, over the years. I've tried all kinds of teaching methods, and have found some work well, and others are an abomination.

So - for the example: remember math classes in school? Remember how rigorous, and often rigid, math teaching is? How much did you enjoy math? How many of you are now mathematicians? Do you think that mathematicians don't have a good handle on what's "proper technique" in mathematics? Are they not competent? Did you not have to sit and learn their "proper technique"? Then why aren't lots more people interested in mathematics?

There's more to learning than "proper technique". If you suck the enjoyment out of it, it's pretty durned tough to learn. This goes double for someone that's not really serious about it in a professional sense.

Really - I'm not trying to rain on your parade. But if you do this, you need to think about how to do it without sucking the life and fun out of it. I'm all for rigor - in its place - but rigor without passion and love for learning is nothing.

IMHO, of course.

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.

Very insightful post, Bill. I completely agree.

Dave

i think your a smart man, but i think you are missing the point :

for example , i always loved science but what would have happened
if i had picked up an 11th grade science book when i was in 4th grade ?
it would have been so far over my head, i would have soon lost interest in science algether
the school wasn't trying to make me a scientist,
it was trying to give me a good understanding about science one step at a time in increments
that i could comphrehend before moving on to the next
what can be wrong with approching the steel the same way?
there are lots of folks that don't need this approach, but i think it would benifit many

Dave Mudgett wrote:For those of you who like this idea, I say go for it if you think it would help you. It will take a lot of organization and you'll probably spend about as much time fiddling around with administrivia and arguing about what's "proper technique" as learning anything. But that's just my opinion.

Personally, I'd rather spend an afternoon in the dentist's office having a root canal than spend it back in the learning model I went through studying classical piano when I was younger. But again, that's just me.

Let me give an example - I'm a college teacher, and I've taught engineering, math, system design, probability and statistics, and a bunch of other things like that. I've also taught guitar, off and on, over the years. I've tried all kinds of teaching methods, and have found some work well, and others are an abomination.

So - for the example: remember math classes in school? Remember how rigorous, and often rigid, math teaching is? How much did you enjoy math? How many of you are now mathematicians? Do you think that mathematicians don't have a good handle on what's "proper technique" in mathematics? Are they not competent? Did you not have to sit and learn their "proper technique"? Then why aren't lots more people interested in mathematics?

There's more to learning than "proper technique". If you suck the enjoyment out of it, it's pretty durned tough to learn. This goes double for someone that's not really serious about it in a professional sense.

Really - I'm not trying to rain on your parade. But if you do this, you need to think about how to do it without sucking the life and fun out of it. I'm all for rigor - in its place - but rigor without passion and love for learning is nothing.

IMHO, of course.

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.

Very insightful post, Bill. I completely agree.

can i like the idea and not spend a single second organizing it or arguing over proper technique? I am the student not the school board president.

Do you think the students at Berkeley are having no fun? Does structure and assessment equal sucking the the life out of the subject? I have had many wonderful learning experiences in which a good balance was struck between structure and fun and it has been in these instances where the teaching was the most effective for me. Surely you give your students assignments and grades?

If we check the orchestra pits around the world I am guessing we will find more degrees than not. If we check the honky tonks we might find the opposite situation to be true. There wil be excpetions to both of course. "making a living actually playing" is not my goal. Becoming a great player is. I would venture to guess that MOST players do not make a living playing, please correct me if that is wrong.

Look...do i want to go to St. louis and have my palm blocking timed and graded? frankly, no. Do i think a structured learning program for the psg would be of greater benefit to ME than just floundering around willy nily learning whatever i can whenever i can from whomever I can and having no way of guaging my progress? yes i do.

I fully agree with what Jack Stoner said. I do nor believe in copying anyones works on songs. My idea is to play the song as is recognized. Then do your own insertion of licks, melody, and harmony. As long as your audience hears the song, and is happy, you have a winning combination. And by copying other artists, it is not you. Ronnie

G.I.T sayes it all, whats wrong with a S.G.I.T All volentary schooling, not forced!
If you want to , great!:P
If you dont beleive in it, dont go, its just like the London school of music, you dont have to go!