For example, pentatonic scale degree. It’s just not common english.
Five note pattern number. Is plain english, self explanatory.
Understandable to a beginner with no real explanation needed.
Once thats there. Extra words can easily be attached with far less stress…
And in my personal teaching the mass of info is actually counterproductive. So many people teach basic theory with with foreign words, then you have to go on another search for what they just said means, memorize it. Then go back to original info, and hope it’s clearer.
Well, that’s taking it back to criticizing terminology. That’s sort of a windmill tilt. One may just teach the scale without pointing out that it has five notes at all, no?
The diatonic scales just are, and they’re sometimes defined in terms of seven notes (@Drew’s off the hook with our theory overlords. phew!). Differentiates from chromatic. Something may be diatonic to a particular key (hence the definition from “that guy,” @Squeaks ). Couple of usages. For example in the key of ‘C’, note F is a member of the related diatonic scale. F# on the other hand, is not diatonic to C major.
I mean, two things are kind of jumping out at me here.
First, your issue seems to mostly be with “foreign” words being used to describe theory. That doesn’t make much sense to me, partly because they’re not foreign at all, they’ve been adapted into the english language, and partly because, well, plenty of other “foreign” words are regularly used in English - a car chassis, for example, but because they’re well understood, it’s not a problem - words are just a means to share information, it doesn’t matter where they come from as long as they can convey information to others.
Second, your “just call it the 2nd note of the five note pattern rather than the minor 3rd” robs it of the context that I think is so critical to the use of scale degrees. In the harmonic context, it’s NOT the “second note.” It’s the “third” note of the diatonic scale, and the pentatonic scale just omits the second and sixth notes. The interval between the root and the third degree determines if the scale is major or minor, regardless if you’re playing a pentatonic minor (1, b3, 4, 5, b7) or a diatonic minot (1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7) and calling it the "second note of the 5 note pattern instead of a minor 3rd, glosses over the fact that the pitch in question is the third degree relative to your tonal center, regardless of how many notes occur in the scale between it and the root, and neglects to say anything about the quality of the note, major or minor.
Simply, “second note in the five note pattern” does almost nothing to identify the pitch, because it leaves too many questions unanswered. WHICH five note pattern, for one? If you’re playing a pentatonic scale comprised of the root, b2, 3, 5, b7, for example - a nonstandard form, but still technically pentatonic, and kind of a cool, vaguely phrygian dominant flavored scale - then the "2nd note is only a half step off your root, a minor 2nd. If you’re playing a major pentatonic, its a major 3rd away.
The beauty of the system of scale degrees we use is it clearly defines notes based on the interval between the note and the root. “Third note of a five note pattern” tells you nothing. “Perfect fourth” tells you exactly how far from the root the note is, and how it sounds in relation to the root. In your example, the “second note in a five note pattern” and the “third note in a seven note pattern” are, provided both scales are major, actually the same pitch and the same interval to the root… but you’d never guess that based on your descriptions, and the fact that they ARE the same interval from the root is musically important.
So, try not to arbitrarily think of words as “foreign” or “english,” and try thinking about scale degrees not as telling you which number they are as you ascend through the scale, but as defining the relationship between the root and that particular note. Pentatonics are actually a really good filter to think about this through, because a minor third is the same interval from the root, regardless of if it’s the second pitch in a pentatonic minor scale or the third pitch in a diatonic minor, so having a different way to describe it depending on which particular scale you happen to be playing at the time is needlessly complex.
TLDR;
Learning musical theory is as hard as learning another language? Of course. Since music IS another language.
Learning new stuff is always confusing, and terms and definitions could be quite confusing too. It’s not a problem of music theory it’s a problem of any codified theory. How many people could understand arithmetics if you teach them in a strict way (like give them a bunch of Peano axioms)? One percent, or two?
And usually you have to learn some boring basics before interesting things would start. For example, relativity theory is actually quite easy if… if you understand tensor analysis.
There’re no ‘easy ways’ of learning any more or less complicated system. You whether try hard or just whine.
P.S. musical theory actually is an interesting thing. and it’s very very easy compated to math or physics or linguistics or whatever.
The idea of teaching fairly unmotivated people reminds of something Steve Vai said about Joe Satriani’s teaching method. Vai said that if Joe asked you to learn something for the next week’s lesson, when you came back the next week you’d have to play it for him. If you hadn’t learned it, Satriani would stop the lesson right there and say “This lesson is over. I told you to have that ready for today.” I agree with that philosophy. I don’t believe that anybody deserves to waste a teacher’s time.
If someone truly wants to learn, the teacher will see it. If they’re not motivated, or if their motivation level is so low that they need music theory restructured in a way where it’s dumbed down to make it simpler for them, they don’t want it bad enough. Nothing worth doing is easy to learn and if it were easy, everybody would do it. Displaying one possesses the drive and motivation to do whatever is necessary to learn is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
some notes on fancy terms:
How do you call intervals in english? First, second, third etc
How they are called in russian musical theory? Prima, secunda, tertia etc which is italian (!!) for ‘first’, ‘second’, ‘third’
How do you call second inversion of a triad? ‘Second inversion’
How we have to call it here? ‘Quartsextakcord’… it feels like I’m going to summon some demon
OK, you have a boss so now I understand more about your particular situation. I didn’t know you weren’t your own boss like Joe Satriani was and like I’ve been in the past when I taught. I imagine you probably work for someone else because you get more students that way than you would if you were on your own; is that right? Do you eventually want your own teaching business or do you prefer working in a set-up like you have now? Just curious. Good luck with those difficult students
If it’s not too personal, what percentage of the amount a student pays for a lesson do you get to keep before taxes?
I can’t see how the question under discussion here isn’t “how can I teach theory to people who don’t want to learn any theory without using any of the terms in which the theory is commonly described”.
To which the answer is, just do what every other guitar teacher does - show them how to play the pentatonic box, maybe if they’re really lucky you show them a few positions, tell them to play it over whatever.
I’m not working for the college, I’m Doing a music BA there to become qualified to teach in schools and colleges, part of that is me teaching beginners the basics. Teachers get a set salary, not paid per lesson. Think of any other subject in school or college, it’s set up the same.
And I believe you can only teach students at least two levels below your own qualifications. Hence the need for higher education qualifications.
I would prefer whatever gives the most number of people an education. Institutionalised teaching us a relatively stable job. But a platform online would be great too. Can do both.
If I was to do the go home thing to even private students it’s foolish.
And ofcourse can’t do that when I start working. It’s just bad business to tell students to go home. And poor understanding of the students lives, personality etc.
I think you guys strongly overestimate the students willingness to learn terminology.
These students come from the schools, which have poor or no musical lessons. They are almost there because they don’t want other subjects. Like a easy way through college. Though I have seen a few exceptions where they have the basics down and sure, you can give those the full music theory as you all know it.
I’ve taught in this no frills manor to many students that know next to no terminology, and they get it. Because it’s logical, the SECOND you add an unknown term they stop following logic and go into a state of following along, but not absorbing what’s said. Because their mind is distracted by the unknown term, even if explicitly explained. It’s almost like slapping them in face, it snaps them out of a learning mode. I know it works from personal experience. And intend to improve on it.
That being said I’m taking everything each of you say in, and really do appreciate some explanations you’ve given as I’m very much still learning. And that gives me a unique perspective.
Most forget what it was like to learn this stuff, I’m in the trenches. But fully respect if you think I’m just ignorant. I’ll drop this as I never intended to derail this thread so hard. I apologize to you Bill for that.
Are you supposed to be teaching them how to play guitar (or whatever instrument), or teaching them music theory?
If the former, I wouldn’t bother with theory much at all, teach them scale patterns and chords and songs, and just get them playing - you can absolutely play guitar without knowing theory, and you can make it fun and accessible and get across some very basic theoretical content wiithout getting too far into the weeds (like pointing out the root notes in a pentatonic box so they know how to play the right scale in the right key.
If, however, you’re supposed to be teaching them music theory… Then if you’re trying to leave out terminology or core concepts like scale degrees, you’re not teaching them theory. Calling it “the second note in a minor pentatonic pattern” instead of a minor 3rd means you’re not conveying critical concepts, and simply put you’re not doing your job as a teacher.
Again, none of the stuff that we’re talking about here is all that complicated. The concept of degrees, identifying how a note relates to the root note, in place of what “number” in the scale I happened to be playing, is not a complicated concept, and as an adult learner myself, it was something I didn’t struggle with at all.
If you’re teaching a music theory course, your job is to teach them music theory. It isn’t to give them an easy way through college, and if they’re disinterested to learn basic theory concepts, then your job as a teacher isn’t to lower the bar, it’s to fail them.
If this is a music performance class or something, “learn to play guitar,” or the like, where theory isn’t expected to be a big part of the curriculum, then that’s a different story… But, if this is a Music Theory 101 class, if the expectation is that students taking this course are to learn music theory, and you’re not teaching them theory because it’s “too complicated,” then you’re failing them. End of story.
Former, mostly, it’s a mix. I’ve no intention of teaching incorrectly. And if I do end up hired I will be given stuff to teach them, this is more my personal beliefs and attempts at simplifying everything I’ve learnt, and it seem to work for me atm in my teaching. And we know how accurate personal beliefs are right lol.
FYI I’ve moved this off the “Yngwie’s technique” thread to its own thread. I just threw that title together - we can rename to whatever you think is most descriptive - just let us know.
To be honest Troy I’ve not much left to say, anything satisfying to members would require renaming loads of terms and going over everything I’ve found to be a roadblock, just to get my point across. And I could be completely wrong no matter my intuitive feelings on the matter.
Thank you though But Please don’t delete I want to read over posts.
). Couple of usages. For example in the key of ‘C’, note F is a member of the related diatonic scale. F# on the other hand, is not diatonic to C major.
But Please don’t delete I want to read over posts.