Thoughts?

Playing steel with a wind band is not as easy as it sounds. Unless the steeler wants to turn up his amp until the felt paper vibrates, he won't be heard.

Anyways, just like learning the recorder in elementary school, junior high had an introduction to the guitar. Man, those guitars were setup sooo horrible that we would've been better off playing them with a bar!

-Mike Pace

[This message was edited by Mike Pace on 22 November 2006 at 05:12 AM.]

Band programs also feature instruments of wide appeal, easily taught by one teacher (using lesson plans that are widely available and accepted by state and district authorities). That normally includes orchestral and marching band instruments, and sometimes a "jazz combo" sideline project, where a six-string guitar and drumset (rather than individual drums) might might be included.

Steel isn't going to exist in the lesson plans; 99.9% of the teachers aren't gong to be familiar enough to teach it (especially at a sight-reading level) along with all the other instruments; and it's going to be tough to fit it into established materials or groups - it's not going to work in marching band, nor in the orchestra; in the "jazz" combo it would, but the teaching resources that would pass state muster aren't there - i.e. where's the textbook and the "music"?

------------------
HagFan

100% True Story right there!!!

Casey

------------------
Known Coast to Coast as
"The Man with The Plan"

In my experience, even if educators had the money and everything else, they would discriminate against what they see is a white male instrument. And sacred steel won't go because it's Christian. If you show them Cindy Cashdollar or Robert Randolph, they get mad at you for showing them their stereotypes.

I also asked at two music stores that teach guitar (and other instruments) if they teach Steel guitar. Both said the same thing: "we have a lot of folks ask if we teach that instrument, but we don't know of any instructors"... So there you go. People willing to learn; lack of instuctors. Or if there are local instructors, the music store does not know about them.

Just my observations. I'm tickled that I have found an instructor. Practice, Practice, Practice.

------------------
--------------------
Don

West Coast Double 8,
Nashville LTD,
Nashville 112

Darryl: you really think public schools aren't equiped with pedal steel guitars because it's a "white male" instrument????????

Where d'ya hear that? On O'Reilly?????

And the other statement about "showing them their stereotypes..." I don't even know what that means...

Are you implying you ACTUALLY went to an elementary school principal and tried to make a case it was OK for the school to buy steel guitars because a chick and a black guy played it???? Or did you just make that up?

I'm not following...

(Edited 3 times for bizzaro spelling...)

[This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 23 November 2006 at 10:00 AM.]

First of all, I don't belong to any party, and there is no party that would have me. And I don't believe in any of the general political categories such as liberal and conservative. I believe liberalism and conservatism (and Democraps and Republihuns) are all valuable but have contradictioms. I like to think about various positions on things. In my long life, I've changed my mind about a lot of things, and I will probably continue to, so I don't want to be too dogmatic.

Casey said he went to college and was treated like a hillbilly. I believe him because I think the education establishment discriminates against working class white males. I'm always happy to see the exceptions, like the one you mentioned.

You are right that most people who say that there's reverse discrimination are conservatives. But some conservatives enforce reverse discrimination, which the Supreme Court made the law of the land, and the corporations generally endorse. Meanwhile, there are some people on the left who believe there is reverse discrimination.

I don't agree much with O'Reilly, but then I can't think of any famous pundit or journalist that I usually agree with. I do find most of them interesting, though.

So I believe that a spectrum of things should be considered, and I believe that education doesn't do that. From my experience, educators (like a lot of other folks) get steamed when you show them their biases. So hypothetically, if you point out the Cashdollars and Randolphs, the general response would be that such exceptions exemplify how the white males control beliefs.

So I don't think you're confrontational as much as puzzled by what I said.

------------------
"The less I was of who I was, the better I felt." -- Leonard Cohen

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 23 November 2006 at 09:57 PM.]

And Darryl, I think, you're also right in your second post that what we need these days is REALISM, not IDEOLOGY of any sort.

The reality is that our public school system is in shambles, rating someting like 35th among industrialized nations, with shortage of qualified teachers, books, computers, etc, and YES, the demise of art and music programs that are essential to the kids development...

So in that context, why, as a matter of public policy, are public school not equiped with pedal steel guitars??? Uhhh???

And Darryl, the reason why I reacted to your statement, is because you seemed to be dragging what I would call "white-christian-male discrimination fantasies," into the mix.

Are white christian males really persecuted in this country? I'm not going to even debate that, because this is a steel forum.

And last, yes my anecdotal evidence means nothing statistically, but I'll just say this. My daugher is in the school orchestra, where they play a lot of americana pieces, and if a kid played the steel and offered to play it in the orchestra, everybody would find that immensely cool.

I won't discuss this any further, because it's the wrong forum.

Just know that this is in no way personal. Just had to follow up on your statement.

Best.

Duane,
I hope somebody here like Stephan has more examples of steel in schools. It seems clear that marching bands are impossible. But talent shows would be a place where steel could appear.

Which leads me to you, Alan. What is this Kids on Stage program? Since steel is accepted suggests that talent shows aren't the only place where steel could show up.

Mike,
What happens with the kids who play lap? That might be the most likely entry point, because they already like guitar. What opportunities do they have to play it at school?

Jim, would a six-string lap and reso get past all of the roadblocks you mentioned?

Ben, could it be that the less funding there is for music, the more more schools will welcome anything students bring on their own?

Another possibility is that some religious schools might catch on to sacred steel and that it might slowly (very slowly) spread to public schools.

As far as the coolness factor, maybe the more that steel shows up on all of the different cable and net programs, the more it will catch on (however slowly). And the more crossover there is (like Franklin with Knopfler) the more it will catch on.

It would be good to know how the young steelers got interested in steel. Anybody got any examples?

------------------
"The less I was of who I was, the better I felt." -- Leonard Cohen

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 24 November 2006 at 12:29 PM.]

I'll bet they do a lot in the nearby schools. Does anybody reading this know what Cal Arts and other colleges are doing in the schools?

How about hearing about music education from others around the world?

quote:

---

Are white christian males really persecuted in this country? I'm not going to even debate that, because this is a steel forum.

---

They said that anybody who showed up with an instrument that the doesn't always use would not be allowed to play it. So something that you sometimes find in jazz bands like banjo, mando, or lap would be rejected no matter if you played like Bela Fleck, Tiny Moore, or Cindy Cashdollar.

That situation is even worse than I thought, but it's only one school district.

Don't they have talent shows anymore, where you could play almost anything, even in a trio of cimbalom, sakbut, and kazoo?

I get the impression that most of the accomplished players in and outside of this forum learned it on their own without the benefit (curse?) of a formal education. I would credit their determination and desire to learn the instrument more so than what they were "spoonfed" via a teacher. I'm not undermining the importance of teachers and instructors: I had an awesome teacher in Susan Alcorn and benefitted greatly from one-on-one instruction from her. I just don't like the creative complacency that formal music training seems to breed. I think a student should be worthy enough to take on learning this instrument and make his/her own discoveries in the process.

There's a complaint among those in the guitar community that there's a real lack of originality and freshness among the newer, younger players and I think some of that has to do with the over-abundance of formalized music training. Too much schooling has produced a generation (or two) of "cookie cutter" musicians that bring nothing new to the table. I'm not so sure I'd want the uniqueness of the steel guitar to be watered down or even standardized.

------------------
Matt

[This message was edited by Matt Rhodes on 25 November 2006 at 09:05 AM.]

And I do agree that most carreers in the arts are vocational and self motivated in nature. None of the things I do, I was taught in school. I was always the weirdo for playing guitar, drawing and writing... And now I work in the movie business as a writer/artist and also work as a musician...

So I'm not sure what trying to teach the jocks how too draw Mickey or play the PSG would have accomplished...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for teaching music in school, but maybe, as far as the general population is concerned, it's OK to keep it generic.

But aside from steel specifically, I have to say that as far as the worry about kids not producing fresh and original material due to too much education... You know when I was in my teens, I had the same idea (I was playing rock guitar then). I figured that if I learned music theory, like scales and standard progressions and things, suddenly my whole train of creative thought would be forced into conforming to unoriginal tendencies, and all the hit material I felt obliged to come up with would never come to fruition. So indstead I decided to throw the basics to the wind and go my own unique direction with music, as the only possible way to break the new ground necessary to break through to musical greatness (or whatever)...

And you know what the result was? Everything I came up with was RUBBISH. To write any music that sounded decent was basically impossible because I didn't even know how or where to start, and anything I did start was so devoid of any kind of direction or hook that it was either never finished into a piece, or came out so bizzare and unlistenable that it was useless; I mean, putting lyrics or a melody to it was out of the question. Much of these "song ideas" were the result of cobbling together chords, often played as arpeggios, in a random and incoherent manner; the chords themselves were often made of notes that were also selected randomly and/or without any sense. It was only when I learned what the heck I was doing that I was able to write music.

Who is ""WE"? "Kids learning steel" would benefit forumites by furthering what bOb
states is one of the primary purposes of the forum: that steelers "share their
knowledge." The more kids who learn, the more sharing of knowledge there will be.

Some here also benefit by buying and selling instructional materials, and if more kids took up steel, more instructional material would be produced and sold. Likewise, people who sell CDs, guitars, etc. would benefit. Some people even benefit by sharing information about where to buy art or get foreign language lessons.

Do you mean "WE" as America? Since some countries lead others in the education race, those who are wiping up the rear would do well to see what the leaders are doing. Did the French Steel Guitar Forum's discussion of steel in the public schools focus on how to minimize it in the public schools? Or to minimize it in both private and public? Did they favor less "formal" education, whether public, private, group, or one-on-one? Did they wonder if kids learning steel would be a "benefit"? Do they try to teach music and art to jocks, or do they focus on people who can learn?

If you mean "WE" as the world, then the learning of music is a benefit in itself. For example, it's good that the Hawaiian Steel Guitar Association's mission is "the
promotion and perpetuation of traditional Hawaiian music." As part of that effort,
their definition of "WE" includes "a global network of players and lovers of
traditional Hawaiian music." Similarly, SGF benefits from the interaction of steelers
the world over.

Apparently your primary categories are "one-on-one" versus "formal education." What do
you mean by "formal education"? Do you mean systematic and programmatic with an
emphasis on theory? What do you mean by contrasting formal and "one-on-one"? Some
formal education is one-on-one, some isn't. Or does "formal education" mean "schooling." If so, some schooling is systematic, programmatic, and theoretical, and some isn't. Likewise, some schooling is one-on-one and some isn't. And by schooling, do you mean K-12, higher ed, or both? Some K-12 is one-on-one, and some isn't. Some K-12 is systematic, programmatic, and theoretical, and some isn't. Some higher ed is one-on-one and some isn't. Some higher ed is systematic, prgrammatic, and theoretical, and some isn't. And for all of those factors, do you mean private, or public, or both?

If "formal" means schooling and higher ed, then we could inquire of Henry Allen, a
steeler who taught at the University of Hawaii Maui. Or if "formal" means schooling
and K-12, we could inquire of Lorene Ruymar, a steeler who was a classroom teacher in Vancouver. Or if formal means both K-12 and higher ed, we could inquire of both. We could as them whether they want more schooling or less. If they want more, let's ask them if better funding would help make public schooling as good as private schooling. Let's also ask them if less one-on-one would help make private schooling as cheap as public schooling. Let's ask Loren what one-on-one lessons from Jerry Byrd cost and how that quality of instruction could be made available through schooling for people who can't afford one-on-one outside of schooling.

It would be good to find out if "formal music training" really does create "complaceny." If it does, would it be good to minimize complacency by minimizing formal training?

It would be good if we could compare and contrast the variables implicit in the terms above. It would be good to poll accomplished musicians who've had both formal and informal instruction to see which they think was of more benefit. It also be good to poll accomplished musicians who had schooling and who didn't to see which they think was of more benefit. But that would be quite a project, especially since you'd have to control for those who had one-on-one and those who didn't. You'd also have to define and quantify each category. So far all we have are overlapping categories: Schooling and formal versus one-on-one. Apples and oranges. You can't find the difference
between a Fuji and a Braeburn by comparing them to an orange.

You're right that most accomplished players here didn't learn steel through
schooling. That's because schooling in steel, as others here have been saying here, is rarely available. How many accomplished players would have turned down steel instruction in the schools even if it had been available without-one-on-one
instruction? It would be good to have evidence of what per cent of those who had the curse of schooling became accomplished, and what per cent of those who didn't became accomplished.

We probably all agree that you are right in saying that "a student should be worthy
enough to take on learning this instrument." Would a student not be taking on the learning of an instrument if he or she were introduced to it at a school?

We probably all agree that the learner's "determination and desire to learn the instrument" are the most important factor in learning not only steel but in learning anything. However, it's not the only factor. Almost as important is the quality of instruction. A teacher offering one-on-one to eight students is going to get a general result for the whole class, and particular results that vary with each student. The same instructor teaching a class of thirty (with no other variable) is going to get a general result for the whole class, and particular results that very with each student. Generally the class with one-on-one will do better.

How widespread is the "complaint among those in the guitar community that there's a real lack of originality and freshness among the newer, younger players"? I was under the impression that there is a complaint that it's harder and harder to make a living in music because the competition keeps stiffer. Or do musicians find it difficult not because there are more accomplished players but because there are less accomplished consumers, who don't know excrement from nourishment? Are there more people buying crap now but not more people who are accomplished?

If "too much schooling has produced a generation (or two) of 'cookie cutter' musicians that bring nothing new to the table," if the over-abundance of crap is the fault of schooling, then wouldn't a reduction in public schooling lower both taxes and crap production? Or would there be more self-taught crap producers and consumers? If "schooling" causes "some" of the "lack or originality and freshness," then what causes most of it? Are there any other factors besides schooling that have increased crap production?

Casey,
It's too bad if you can't afford private one-on-one instruction and can't get it
cheaper through public schooling. But T. S. hillbilly. We got ours.

I believe that school should have music programs. It is important to 1-expose the general population to the basics of musical culture, and 2-give the few students who agree actually motivated a chance to take it further.

I just don't know that the school can specifically support very specific instruments such as PSG. Maybe it's fine if a student learns the piano, and studies music theory at school -- then pursues the PSG on their own.

It may be that I'm lucky to live in the right area, but my kids' elementary school has several different music programs, inclluding an orchestra, and the kids can borrow flutes, sax, clarinets, violins for the year from the school district at practically no cost. The high scholl also has many music programs, including a regionaly active jazz band.

Yep, the money is probably the biggest problem. As a nation, Amrica has the money, but the money is going elsewhere.

It sure would be great if other schools welcomed steel and had possibilities for playing other than band and orchestra. I thought most schools had those additional opportunities. I'm really disappointed that (according to the few people I've been asking) most schools don't even have talent shows anymore. It used to be that some schols had not only talent shows, but musical clubs where you could play anything. Some even had music at the daily, weekly, or monthly assemblies.

So I thank you for the posts, and I'm still hoping we get more posts about Duane's question from around the country and the world.

During the summer of 1942, a car hit me and badly damaged my left hand. I almost lost ring and little fingers on that hand but because an old country doctor had nerve enough to sew them back, I have them yet today although there is little strength. That effectively ended guitar lessons. My guitar teacher told me that maybe I might want to try to play a Hawaiian guitar since all fingers aren't needed on the left hand. She didn't know much about a Hawaiian guitar but she showed me G-major high bass tuning and how to play Aloha Oe.

The next summer I cut grass for the summer in exchange for neighbor's Model 27 Dobro. An extension nut installed and I was on my way. In 1945, another's neighbor's son was drafted and my mother bought his Rickenbacker with its 5 tube cigar box amplifier.

Since I played trombone well enough to produce a recognizable tune, I played in the school band. The school's music teacher was a real gentleman who encouraged me even to play my Rickenbacker with the school band during practice sessions. Everyone liked it probably because it was something different. However, I never took the Rickenbacker to marching sessions.

After WW2 and still in high school, I played nearly every weekend in clubs and bars. I finished my engineering degree after a stint in the Navy but I played very little after that except for my own pastime.

I credit two teachers for giving encouragement with Hawaiian guitar, my lovely classical guitar teacher and my teacher at the public school.

In Columbus, do they have opportunities for kids to make music other than in band, orchestra, and choir? Do they have talent shows? Music in the cafeteria during lunch? During assemblies? It only has to be one song at the beginning of an assembly. Do they have high school dances where they can play?

I never thought I'd be the behind-the-times geezer who says "Back in my day...." But here goes. In the 60s during the folk music craze, we had a folk song club that met every week. Without being made to feel like a hillbilly, I could play the banjo stuff that I'd learned from Tiny Moore (who could hardly make a living because as an alum of the Texas Playboys, he was dismissed as a hillbilly). So I could do in school what was laughed at elsewhere. And kids from different chools got together for folk music jams called hootenannies. One of the kids who got his first taste of performing was Timothy B. Schmidt.

I think kids today should have a lot of opportunities to play any old weird instrument they want to play. But it takes time for teachers to organize and supervise such things, and they are already overburdened, so you'd have to hire more people. There's the money problem again.

------------------
"The less I was of who I was, the better I felt." -- Leonard Cohen

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 26 November 2006 at 10:14 AM.]

quote:

---

I get the impression that most of the accomplished players in and outside of this forum learned it on their own without the benefit (curse?) of a formal education. I would credit their determination and desire to learn the instrument more so than what they were "spoonfed" via a teacher....

---

Yep, that's where I'm at. Again, don't get me wrong - I'm all for kids learning, but I just don't see much going on in an awful lot of schools. I think the really motivated students would learn the things they want pretty much no matter what. The others just fake it, IMO.

Rather than bore you with a lot of windy arguments, my friend and colleague Larry Spence wrote an essay, "The Case Against Teaching", several years back for Change, a journal/magazine that you can read if you're interested in a different point of view. It's easy to find online, but there's one right here. The basic thesis is that time spent lecturing students and teaching to a test, to have students regurgitate memorized stuff on an exam, doesn't help students learn useful things well at all. Rather, he suggests that instructors should design "learning experiences", and place the responsibility for learning much more in students' hands. The difficulty with the typical lecture/assimilate model is that it's i. boring, ii. inflexible, iii. doesn't actively engage the student, and iv. students can't generally remember or use what they "learn". It's just too easy to use the lecture/assimilate model to squeeze the life out of a subject. We use the model of how youngsters learn language or serious musicians learn how to play a musical instrument to rethink how we teach things like math, system design, information systems, and the like. In general, I think this approach works better one-on-one, but we try to find ways to make this scale up to a classroom experience. Believe me, it's a challenge.

I agree that there is huge rigidity in the vast majority of elementary/secondary music programs I have seen. I don't think there's much chance of getting a steel guitar accepted as a "legitimate" musical instrument in most of them. But again, I don't see that as a problem. I think the issue holding the steel guitar back is general popular acceptance. All of this IMO, of course.

Edited for formatting only.

[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 26 November 2006 at 11:02 AM.]

I'm with you on most of your points. I stated my agreement with the part you quoted from Matt. I don't see any big contradiction between what you and I are saying.

Matt, you, and I agree that kids who want to play steel can learn no matter what. But maybe this is the disagreement. It seems to me that you and Matt are saying this: Steel can be learned out of school, therefore it SHOULD be left out of school. If that's what you're saying, and if that principle applies to all musical instruments, then why have musical education at all? I know you don't want that, but does it logically follow from your statement?)If it doesn't apply to all instruments, then which ones does it not apply too and why?

Or are you saying this: Steel can be learned out of school, therefore it's possible to play it even though it can't be played in school. If so, then this follows: steel COULD be covered in school. If not, then this follows: Steel SHOULD not be covered in school.

By the way, what does "Edited for formatting only" mean? Did you type that? Or is there some way to edit for formatting quickly--without going through it laboriously line by line?

edited twice for content
------------------
"The less I was of who I was, the better I felt." -- Leonard Cohen

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 26 November 2006 at 06:23 PM.]