Why Guitar is not taught in schools
edspy...@yahoo.com
were telling me there are classroom lessons for most wind instruments
except piano and guitar.
I can see why piano is excluded - schools would need too many
expensive painos and keep them tuned.
But guitar is another matter. I'm thinking it's because all the other
instruments have one basic teaching method, "classical". Guitar has
multiple methods for steal string and classical guitars, methods for
folk, popular, rock, jazz and classical, pick style, finger style folk
and classical, etc, but not one basic (accepted) way of learning the
guitar.
Since there are people here who have direct experience with teaching
children, individually and in school environments, can you comment on
the reasons guitar is considered a one on one teacher/student taught
instrument?
Ed S.
ktaylor
1) Instructional ignorance.
2) Curricular absence.
3) It is thought to be a solo instrument (that is why piano is rarely
taught).
4) Resistance by band instructors.
5) Lack of qualified, literate guitar teachers in the schools.
6) No acceptable ensemble repertoire.
I suppose I could think of a few more reasons. But I have to go teach,
now.
Kevin Taylor
www.childbloom.com
Steve Freides
news:cbbb11e3-6768-4b35...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
A lot of school instruction is group instruction, and it's much harder
to teach polyphonic instruments in a group setting (also another reason
piano isn't taught in schools). At least in my town here in NJ, when
you play an instrument, you go to both ensemble rehearsal and small
group lessons, the latter possibly including more than one instruments,
e.g., all the winds or all the brasses.
And, of course, what Kevin says is true - it's outside the mainstream
and there aren't, e.g., guitar parts in school arrangements, although
there could easily be.
-S-
dofrenzy
The reasons why we don't see more guitar taught might be related to
the reasons why the other instruments ARE taught. I imagine it's much
easier for a child to play one note at a time.
Most instruments that are taught also have relatively fixed hand
positions. Much easier for a child to adapt to.
Other instruments fit better into an ensemble. This provides a bit of
socialization. In an ensemble setting, children also learn to play
with others (something guitarists are notorious for being unable to
do).
Most school instruments will fit in a locker and are easy to transport
on a school bus.
All of these reasons and more add up to arguments against the guitar
in a typical school setting. What we can hope is that a child's
*music* education is strong enough to be applied to another
instrument, such as the guitar, in a different setting.
Also, guitars need frequent tuning. And they need new strings all the
time. High maintenance! Unlike a flute, sax, clarinet, trumpet,
etc. For the most part, with typical school instruments, it's just
assemble and play.
Lare
"ktaylor" <child...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cbbb11e3-6768-4b35...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Let me add that the guitar...
1) has an adolescent pedagogy, and our collective results are historically
poor. There is much recent improvement, though.
2) has a lack of respect or recognition for the instrument's repertoire.
Most department chairs have no idea that the guitar has a concert and
chamber music history because it is documented/discussed in any classroom
music history texts, such as Grout-Palisca or Stolba.
3) has a "tavern house reputation". If the pipe-organ is the "King of
Instruments", and violin "The Queen", then the guitar is certainly the
"cheap, drunk carnival strumpet" (maybe this is why I'm attracted to it).
Back to practice...
Larry McDonald
Tommy Grand
> But I have to go teach, now.
I hope your not teaching punctuation!
dsi1
Band in school is mostly about playing music as a group while the
guitar's great fault is that it's a great solo platform. There's no
point in teaching the guitar at school if it does not fit in a band
environment. A kid could try out for that one spot for electric guitar
player in the jazz band. Most of the guitar players that want that spot
will probably end up playing bass. It always ends up that way. :-)
School is also not a place to have kids carrying around guitars - they
might just whip out their axe and start playing. This is disruptive.
Better they carry around clarinets and flutes which they are only likely
to open in the band room.
In my school that does not exist, the kids would be encouraged to bring
their guitars and whip them out and start playing if they felt the need. :-)
david
Tashi
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the republicans do away with the
arts in public schools? My son has gone to school here in New Mexico
form 1 through 12 and I don't recall ever hearing about any musical
instrument being taught in public schools here.
I did happen to find him a good guitar teacher, as well as a cello
teacher, but it had nothing to do with the public school system.
MT
all thumbs
You live in New Mexico. If you lived in the civilized world you would
find schools that devote almost as much money and school real estate
to the music program as they do to the football program.
sycochkn
"all thumbs" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9fb2fa2-f7f8-4df4...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The all children left behind program is not helping matters any.
Bob
Dicerous
Did you teach him where to buy his pot?
David
ktaylor
Tashi wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the republicans do away with the
> arts in public schools?
That's absurd. Bush is spending more on education than Clinton did.
Happily, the federal govenment does not determine specific curriculum
in public schools - though it would if it could. Doing away with art
programs is a local decision. When it happens it is based on budgetary
constraints. Budgetary constraints are caused when the local public
schools are not getting the economic support they need from the local
community and must rely on funds taken from other communities. Music
education will always be de-prioritized in a fiscal fight.
Kevin T.
Tashi
> Tashi wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the republicans do away with the
> > arts in public schools?
>
> That's absurd. Bush is spending more on education than Clinton did.
I'm sure he is. Funny those Republicans Clinton had a nice
surplus, and Bush's absurd war is bankrupting this country, along
with his cronies, and private contractors.
>
> Happily, the federal government does not determine specific curriculum
> in public schools - though it would if it could. Doing away with art
> programs is a local decision. When it happens it is based on budgetary
> constraints. Budgetary constraints are caused when the local public
> schools are not getting the economic support they need from the local
> community and must rely on funds taken from other communities. Music
> education will always be de-prioritized in a fiscal fight.
>
> Kevin T.
Everyone knows the republicans want to do away with everything
including NPR and funding of the arts!
I long for the days when the Roman emperors coated the buildings
with marble.... they knew how to set priorities.
MT
Tashi
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and your ilk can't possibly understand the concept of pro-creation
and the difficulties involved. A typical response from an
irresponsible pleasure addict.
MT
JacquesMoran
conference. There was one lecture (really more a sales pitch for a "learn
to teach and play guitar in one week" summer workshop) on starting a guitar
program in middle or high school. It was geared at non-guitar playing
band/orchestra/choral directors. The few pedogical tidbits that I heard
were more dreadful than you can imagine, but it was interesting to hear
about the growth of school guitar programs. My guess would be that since
traditional band/orchestra programs are on the decline (by 50% in CA over
the last ten years if I'm to believe a recent article in a music educator's
journal) the folks running these programs have to look for alternatives if
they want to keep their jobs.
Wollybird
Yea, Tashi. be a man and vote to have your property taxes upped 30%. I
did. My two older kids play flute, basoon, saxaphone and voice. of
course, if I wasen't paying $5,000 per year in property taxes, I could
probably afford private lessons
Dicerous
woah daddy-o don't be so harsh!
David
Lare
"Wollybird" <woll...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:747045d8-1c6c-4151...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
***********
I pay $6000 a year in property taxes and I still have to pay for my
daughter's private lessons. Paying more taxes doesn't help, Wollybird. Our
large, multi-campus high school doesn't have an orchestra, and we are in one
of the richest per capita districts. Take this from a Wi$con$in resident;
vote your taxes low, Tashi.
But Kevin T. isn't wrong in this. According to NAMM surveys (I'm a member),
entry level band and orchestra instrument sales and rentals are up a healthy
4-6% nation wide in 2007, continuing a steady, multi-year growth cycle.
Apparently, these instruments are going into the hands of new students.
Cool.
More problematical for us is that domestic introductory grade guitar sales
are way, way down. I've heard whispers that sales are off as much as 40% in
3 years. These figures include not only traditional guitar shops, but the
big box sellers like Sam's Club and Costco as well. This could mean that
many fewer kids are starting guitar and/or that the U.S. guitar market is
saturated.
Larry McDonald
Richard Spross
Ed and concerned readers.
Some times schools K - 12 offer guitar in the classroom.
In the K - 6 grades I've seen it offered as an after school
class. I taught such a class for children of combined grades 5 and 6
once upon a time many years ago. My approach worked and as far as the
administrator and myself were concerned it was a success. The only
drawback which hindered my continuing was the hour long drive to get
to the school, so I bowed out.
I have seen it offered in Middle School as well as High School,
but in these instances it could be called "general guitar" playing,
that is learning to accompany, learning the fundamentals of reading,
learning chords and progressions etc.
These things occurred when there was a serious interest in promoting
music in the public schools and were in fairly affluent neighborhoods
in the suburbs of the S.F. East Bay.
I can't speak authoritatively of much of the rest of the Bay Area, but
I would wager that there are such programs appearing in the South Bay
San Jose and environs since that area is very habitable for families.
Very low crime rate, higher average income, a couple of strong guitar
societies, such as the "South bay Guitar Society" and the San Jose
Flamenco Society or something along that line.
In private high schools, in the East Bay, there is a likelihood of
such classes. I believe at one Catholic High School here in Oakland,
Bishop O'Dowd high school there is a guitar teacher who teaches classes
in guitar.
I taught an after school guitar class and private lessons once upon
a time at a private boarding and commute prep high school in Danvile,
California named 'The Athenian School'. Very prestigious with really
energetic bright young people. I lasted two years. There was no contract,
the school collected the money and paid me at the end of the term after
taking out money for their operating costs.
I don't recall exactly what got to me, but it probably had something
to do with the effective renumeration vs the time and work spent.
So getting back to what are some of the obstacles, and some one mentioned
objections from "band teachers". There is some truth to that, since most
budgets are limited, but the real problem goes back systemically to
the teaching in college, where students are required to choose a course
direction, such as majoring in music performance or music education,
or music theory/composition or music history.
Each of these 'tracks' have their own projected futures.
Performers are the idealists. Educators are the pragmatists.
Theorists and Historians are mostly academics.
The performer goes off and quickly learns that there is a scarcity for
their performing service, especially soloists, unless they are playing
an orchestral or band instrument which can be converted to popular usage.
The Educator gets in to their job, as the "all knowing, all seeing,
all doing" musician who is the center of all learning for the young.
Here is why guitar doesn't get a foothold. The music educator mostly
has little or no knowledge of classical guitar, if they come with a
self taught background in popular styles they can combine that knowledge
into their curriculum, but if they don't they don't want their
territory subdivided into more choices which would affect their job
security. Especially if said teacher is well entrenched in their music
program and feels threatened by an "expert" performer who might
inadvertently challenge what is being taught.
I gave a demonstration to a middle school class in which everyone
had learned to hold the guitar on the right leg with the neck level
to the ground. I tried tactfully to show the difference between holding
it that way and the way we hold it, going around and making sure that
every child could hold it the way I was teaching so they could 'feel'
the distinction. Well unfortunately the effect of unintended consequences
occurred and I had just shown the poverty of what their teacher knew.
That was just the beginning, and when all was said and done, I was
hurried out of the classroom, briefly thanked and never invited back.
Heh heh. I can only hope that some of the kids were wise enough to
see the value. Mind you, I never ever criticized what their teacher
was doing. Anyway.....
So there is this systemic distrust between Educators and Performers
when Performers due to the lack of performing opportunities, attempt
to make a headway into the public school system.
'Disclaimer'. I'm sure in some communities across America there are
pockets of successful music teaching in all grade levels and that in
a few the guitar is included. After all I believe the guitar is include
as an acceptable instrument in the National String teachers Association
which tries to influence string teaching in the public schools. I just
don't know where.
Here in the East Bay, the battle lines between K - 12 public schools,
private prep high schools and the Community College Districts have
been established for well over 50 years.
Well I haven't heard of any improvement, and it could be that I'm not
up on the current situation, but to give an example, when I taught
the private students at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, Ca
back in 1991-93 before losing my position to lack of funds, I had
tried to get the head of music education for the Diablo Unified
School District to be aware that DVC was now offering private instruction.
Well the head of the music dept at DVC, was not concerned enough to
contact the other administrator in fact it hadn't even occurred to him
to do so. So guess what? All the students from the local high schools
who might have benefited by going to the community college for the
first two years and then could have transferred to the State University
system were left uninformed of the opportunity.
The director of the music education programs for the School District,
never responded to my letter and had no interest in contacting DVC's
music dept head even to verify my information!
Today i believe they have reinstated the guitar's private lessons
there, but it is one of the few JC's in the State of California, which
has followed the law requiring that AA degrees in the JC programs
be on parity with the State University and the University system in order
for their transfer students to qualify as transfers. Before this edict
the JC students would arrive generally unprepared and would need an
extra two years of private instruction to make up the loss.
The legislature eventually wrote into law the means to correct this
injustice, but by in large it has been ignored and no one in power
cares to find a way to make it happen.
I remember talking to my dear friend and third teacher Jim Bertram,
20 years after graduating about this dilemma, and had mentioned to
the ombudsman for DVC, who just happened to be privately studying with
me, that there was this systemic disconnect between educational
jurisdictions. Bertram a few weeks later called and said, " I can't
believe this, so and so called and asked me if anyone from his
community college had ever inquired about the requirements for entering
CSU, Hayward, ( recently renamed CSU East Bay ). I said, "And what did
you say?" He then told me, that that was the first time anyone from
an institution below the college level had ever inquired about said
requirements. Bertram was amazed. So was I. However these things
quickly go back to the path of least resistance and I doubt seriously
anything has changed.
There you go folks. Some anecdotal information from a weary warrior
of the front lines of battle in the music field. I respect Che's
ability to not have fit in and still have had a great life with the
guitar. I have years of other stories, but times change, people change
and life goes on.
Maybe some day some where some people in public education will take
advantage of all the guitar offers for musical growth and appreciation.
Richard Spross
Wollybird
> "Wollybird" <wollyb...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
I don't miss the property taxes in Sconie. They are 3 times (on your
average house) what they are in Minnesota, unless you have commercial
property (you do have commercial property, don't you?) Then it can run
a nifty 5% of assesed value. I'm OK with the band programs here for
the average kid. We pay $100 per month for bassoon lessons, which
isn't taught in school, and the kids are fortunate to get voice
lessons at their church, where they sing, from a full time music
director. The tax increase for our community was in part for the music
programs. The local school board was threating to eliminate it.
ktaylor
Lare wrote:
>
> More problematical for us is that domestic introductory grade guitar sales
> are way, way down. I've heard whispers that sales are off as much as 40% in
> 3 years. These figures include not only traditional guitar shops, but the
> big box sellers like Sam's Club and Costco as well. This could mean that
> many fewer kids are starting guitar and/or that the U.S. guitar market is
> saturated.
>
> Larry McDonald
That's interesting. How do you know this about the decline in guitar
sales? NAMM data?
Have you checked with Strunal Inc? I can usually get the worldwide
scoop from them.
Our teachers had a banner year last year. Generated about 900 new
students and over $1,000,000 in tutiions. I still think there are
about twelve million potential guitar students in the US.
If its saturated, I'm in big trouble.
Kevin T.
Tashi
You know David I'm pretty sick of your derogatory comments about my
son on this forum. You may think your being funny, and cute, but
it's highly disrespectful. Your free to say whatever you like about
me, I could careless. It's obvious you have a lot of problems with
your own father to constantly ridicule me. Take it somewhere else!
MT
Dicerous
All my pupils are dilated Mike!
David
Tashi
Wollybird complain, complain, complain........is that all you guys
know how to do. Poor Wolly one more tax horror story after another,
it brings tears to my eyes.
Your buddy Bush is coming to the rescue and is handing out economic
stimulus bribes. It should keep you guys satisfied for the next four
years. In the meantime please "stop your sobbing" see link
below.......
Wollybird this ones for you......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cguXYfVuSg
MT
Dicerous
< * > < * >
^
0
Dicerous
^
/
/
/
your son, wondering why his daddy-o is such a bitch. You know Mike
you spoke awhile back about megalomania...all I can say is that it
takes one to know one. Go to hell.
David
Miguel de Maria
> "Wollybird" <wollyb...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:747045d8-1c6c-4151...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 27, 5:59 pm, ktaylor <childbl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tashi wrote:
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the republicans do away with the
> > > arts in public schools?
>
> > That's absurd. Bush is spending more on education than Clinton did.
>
> > Happily, the federal govenment does not determine specific curriculum
> > in public schools - though it would if it could. Doing away with art
> > programs is a local decision. When it happens it is based on budgetary
> > constraints. Budgetary constraints are caused when the local public
> > schools are not getting the economic support they need from the local
> > community and must rely on funds taken from other communities. Music
> > education will always be de-prioritized in a fiscal fight.
>
> > Kevin T.
>
> Yea, Tashi. be a man and vote to have your property taxes upped 30%. I
> did. My two older kids play flute, basoon, saxaphone and voice. of
> course, if I wasen't paying $5,000 per year in property taxes, I could
> probably afford private lessons
>
> ***********
> I pay $6000 a year in property taxes and I still have to pay for my
> daughter's private lessons. Paying more taxes doesn't help, Wollybird.
I would guess he threw out the $5000 he thought it made him look good,
not because of any opinion he holds about taxation.
Carlos Barrientos
BANDS ARE AN ADJUNCT TO FOOTBALL. Sometimes the travel comes out of
Football budgets. And that's in the 'enlightened' programs. Wanna
scolarship? Play the Tuba and be ready to march. Then audition for
Deathtongue- the band!
> Each of these 'tracks' have their own projected futures.
> Performers are the idealists. Educators are the pragmatists.
> Theorists and Historians are mostly academics.
And composers... well, we know...
>
> The performer goes off and quickly learns that there is a scarcity for
> their performing service, especially soloists, unless they are playing
> an orchestral or band instrument which can be converted to popular usage.
See above.
> The Educator gets in to their job, as the "all knowing, all seeing,
> all doing" musician who is the center of all learning for the young.
> Here is why guitar doesn't get a foothold. The music educator mostly
> has little or no knowledge of classical guitar, if they come with a
> self taught background in popular styles they can combine that knowledge
> into their curriculum, but if they don't they don't want their
> territory subdivided into more choices which would affect their job
> security. Especially if said teacher is well entrenched in their music
> program and feels threatened by an "expert" performer who might
> inadvertently challenge what is being taught.
You mean overqualified for your own good?
Great post and tough life, sir, my hats off to you, particularly for
remaining ever hopeful!
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:ca...@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
David Raleigh Arnold
> I've been talking to several people with kids in grade school and they
> were telling me there are classroom lessons for most wind instruments
> except piano and guitar.
>
> I can see why piano is excluded - schools would need too many expensive
> painos and keep them tuned.
That's not just speculation. Remember the autoharp? Very easy to play
chords on, but forever to tune, so they rust away in storage.
The easiest possible instrument to learn a very few chords on is the
original four string banjo, 3 long and one short: (4)g' g b d'. C =
0012, G = 0000, G7 is 0003, Em = x002, and D is 7777. With polyester or
carbon strings it could stay in tune decently, and it is easy to tune.
One can move on to guitar, uke, lute, mandolin or any sort of banjo with
a considerable head start.
Another interesting starter instrument is the tin whistle.
>
> But guitar is another matter. I'm thinking it's because all the other
> instruments have one basic teaching method, "classical". Guitar has
> multiple methods for steal string and classical guitars, methods for
> folk, popular, rock, jazz and classical, pick style, finger style folk
> and classical, etc, but not one basic (accepted) way of learning the
> guitar.
I've been working at that. See the "Ten Lessons".
> Since there are people here who have direct experience with teaching
> children, individually and in school environments, can you comment on
> the reasons guitar is considered a one on one teacher/student taught
> instrument?
Sure. It's not taught in the schools, that's why.
Part of the problem is the essential insanity and immorality of funding
schools through taxes on residential property. When residential
property was income producing farms or home businesses, real estate
taxes were income taxes. The solution is to tax the owners of
residential property according to the adjusted gross income of the
residents, and for the federal government to do most of the funding of
the schools under their *mandate* to "promote the general welfare".
I think that it is unfortunate that the generic unamplified guitar is
not regarded with more respect as a melody instrument. Young guitar
players are bullied into becoming accompanists, will he nill he. Many
reasons for it are obvious, the existence of the electric guitar for
instance.
IAC, it's not a problem, it's a whole mess of them. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
Wollybird
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tashi, Bush ain't my buddy, some of the shit he does is so liberal, it
would make LBJ blush. You will be sending in a little extra with your
IRS return this year, won't you? Fire up the incense pot and meditate
with your swami on the effect of this on your son:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bush-big-govt.html
Wollybird
> > ***********
> > I pay $6000 a year in property taxes and I still have to pay for my
> > daughter's private lessons. Paying more taxes doesn't help, Wollybird.
>
> I would guess he threw out the $5000 he thought it made him look good,
>
It makes me look average, oh clueless one. I'd much rather pay taxes
to a local unit of government, btw than to a humongus central
government,. At least I get an up or down vote (sometimes) and I get
to see the results or lack there of, of the spending.
bobby...@verizon.net
edspy...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been talking to several people with kids in grade school and they
> were telling me there are classroom lessons for most wind instruments
> except piano and guitar.
>
> I can see why piano is excluded - schools would need too many
> expensive painos and keep them tuned.
>
> But guitar is another matter. I'm thinking it's because all the other
> instruments have one basic teaching method, "classical". Guitar has
> multiple methods for steal string and classical guitars, methods for
> folk, popular, rock, jazz and classical, pick style, finger style folk
> and classical, etc, but not one basic (accepted) way of learning the
> guitar.
>
> Since there are people here who have direct experience with teaching
> children, individually and in school environments, can you comment on
> the reasons guitar is considered a one on one teacher/student taught
> instrument?
>
> Ed S.
and can
All instruments are one-on-one teacher/student taught instruments,
really.
Public school music classes are meant by design as an exposure of a
student to an instrument as part of a well rounded, general
education, and the hope is that the student so inspired will continue
further studies on his own, just as a science student is expected
to further his desired speciality on his own.
That they accomplish as much as they do under those circumstances is
noteworthy, but to expect more than that is unrealistic.
As a private guitar teacher, I wouldn't imagine attempting to teach a
wide variety of instruments in which I'm untrained, for
the obvious fear of passing on bad habits and poor technique instead
of anything more reliable, a common occurrence in school programs (has
anyone here found a high school music protégé who can give a half
note 2 beats?).
The teacher usually has an instrument specialty, and is expected to
teach a lot of instruments at which he knows very little.
The hope of the school is that the students can perform some schoo