|
Post by jonnymosco on May 27, 2013 12:32:12 GMT
I'm in the process of registering with RGT (Registry of Guitar Tutors) so that when I return to the UK my transition to teach there will be more straightforward.
I intend to teach Classical and Acoustic. To prepare myself I thought I'd order the grade books... even though I may never put anybody in for the exams.
The Acoustic syllabus is interesting and I think would help most guitarists make concrete/develop their knowledge/skills/musicianship. But what about doing an exam?
Lots of guitarists started with classical and sat the exams (which took the joy out of it); this, in part, explains the reason they play acoustic: a symbol of the antithesis of that classical stuffy world.
What do you all think? Have any of you been tempted? And why? What would you get out of it?
Jonny
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,546
|
Post by davewhite on May 27, 2013 13:15:46 GMT
I think that the exam for Jazz Guitar Improvisation might be fun but on the whole I don't think there is a lot of point but some people may be more motivated with exams as a goal, who knows. Would you have to make up your own "Woke up this morning . . ." song for The Blues Exam
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2013 13:44:50 GMT
I've never been tempted to go through exams as an amateur guitarist despite needing some theoretical grounding. I've developed quite good aural skills (my music teacher from years ago said it was more innate but look where it got me, hehe...) but have always wondered whether learning more theory would confuse that side...
However if I was to teach others, a few credentials may be able to up the fee and would therefore take some exams without any hesitation.
It ain't gonna happen,so no exams here.
#tootraumatisedbyshool
|
|
|
Post by earwighoney on May 27, 2013 14:26:12 GMT
Lots of guitarists started with classical and sat the exams (which took the joy out of it); this, in part, explains the reason they play acoustic: a symbol of the antithesis of that classical stuffy world.What do you all think? Have any of you been tempted? And why? What would you get out of it? The relationship between theory and the guitar isn't as close as it for some other instruments, which I believe is one of the reasons why it is such a successful instrument; the pleasure of music activity without the stress or strain of too much additional academic discipline of theory. I don't think I would ever get around to doing a exam in music theory, but I can see why some might, in particular those of a younger disposition. I've been trying to learn some bits and pieces of Gypsy Jazz guitar which requires quite a lot of theory, which I was somewhat perplexed by. Personally I wish I did learn theory as having 'taught myself' I kind of worked things out as I went along, which I've come to appreciate right now probably wasn't the best thing.
On that note I will post a quote from Mitch Hedberg, one of my favourite comedians. "I taught myself how to play the guitar, which was a bad decision, cause I didn't know how to play it. So I was a sh*tty teacher. I would never have went to me."
|
|
|
Post by grayn on May 27, 2013 14:26:49 GMT
I think academic studies and music exams have there place, providing motivation and in some cases recognition.
In general I think the whole music grades system is there to give music teachers and there students a reason to exist.
Lets face it, most trained classical musicians will never make a living from performing. So what else are they to do?
Then again, anytrhing that gets someone into music, at what ever level, has my backing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2013 15:42:45 GMT
In general I think the whole music grades system is there to give music teachers and there students a reason to exist. Sorry Grayn, cannot agree with this statement. There will always be students wanting to learn to play an instrument and teachers are always the best way of learning. I'm not one for exams I have to say. When I was learning classical guitar I stopped at grade 5 and simply started learning what pieces I wanted to learn. I don't need someone to tell me that I shouldn't be learning a piece because its 2 grades higher than my supposed level. Also I found working on 3 pieces intensely and their associated scales boring in the extreme. I have never put any of my students through exams, preferring instead to develop a whole range of skills and study a wide range of music. Having said that I find the Rock School exam syllabus one of the better graded systems, which does in fact allow for students to be musicians i.e play the music they really want and gain credit for playing in a band with other musicians. Perhaps to turn Grayn's answer round a bit, graded exams (certainly for classical instruments) only exist to allow conservatoires a reason to exist. Robbie
|
|
|
Post by grayn on May 27, 2013 18:03:29 GMT
I get your point Robbie.
The comment you quoted was aimed at classically trained teachers who follow the grade system, for the orchestral instruments. It's just a shame that for the few elite, that make it, their are a massive majority, who at best, can be teachers. It's kind of self perpetuating. But as I said, if it gets folk playing, who cares.
|
|
|
Post by jonnymosco on May 27, 2013 18:37:20 GMT
I've always been one to learn the rules to enable me to break them and can understand why having a piece of paper to prove it could be useful in certain circumstances.
For example, you get UCAS points for uni applications from grade six and above which may be a decent enough reason to do some grades.
I have the grade eight acoustic book, there are some great tunes in there I normally wouldn't come across. To be honest I think there is a disparity between the expectations at grade 8 classical and grade 8 acoustic - I'd say the acoustic grades are a lot more straightforward and easily within the reach of lots of players with a bit of experience... they even state that you don't have to stick to what is written, which is refreshing.
There is no sight-reading required, but an aural and musical knowledge test. The accompaniment section is a bit basic which surprised me, given the level of the performance pieces; here's an example, a melody is played and the candidate has to play: |:Bb/Gm/|Cm |Eb/F/|Bb |Dm/EbF|Cm |Eb/FCm|Bb :|
I can see why following a strict syllabus just to get an exam is not a great idea, but this exam seems to be very liberal. I've come across many classical guitarists who just learn the pieces for the exam and have a very limited knowledge beyond that... the emphasis for acoustic players seems to be different, I can't imagine an acoustic guitarist would just study the grades to get the exams.
Here are two of the pieces for the acoustic grade eight which are pretty decent.
Jonny
|
|