Low end laps and S-10s might not be too hard to come by in your area. They are plentiful there, and you wouldn't have to ship them.

Does anybody know of any organizations that donate instruments?

Might there be some kind of CW preservation society in your area?

What opportunities do your students have for playing steel at your school?

Thanks for the info. I think higher ed has been part of the conversation. It's implcit not only in the term "schooling" but also "one-on-one." A lot of Berklee ed is one-on-one, right?

K-12 and higher ed always work together. A lot of K-12 is about how to get people to college, and a lot of college is about how to start with a high school student and finish with a college graduate. So if steel is to spread, it would be better to coordinate the two. Does Berklee have cooperative programs with high schools?

The nut raiser option is boon I hadn't thought of. Schools (of all levels) cover guitar, and a lot of teachers/profs would probably be open to guitars with nut raisers, so it would be a short step to laps and resos.

Although psg in schools would be ideal, the real situation is that psg will be left out due to money, popularity, and the focus on band and orchestra. (Trombone ain't really popular.)

It's encouraging that laps can be cheap, and reugular guitars with nut raisers will work.

Maybe lap makers could take a page from Taylor and sell cheap but functional beginning models the way Taylor does with the baby Taylor. Like Taylor does, a lap maker could use the entry model to encourage the student to stay with that brand. As I understand it, Taylor makes nothing on baby Taylors. They profit from them by establishing name recognition and brand loyalty. An advantage for lap makers is that a student lap wouldn't have to be small.

Mike, does Carter make a lap starter? A psg Carter starter would be a bit steep for people and schools to buy and Carter to donate. The low end laps out there wouldn't have to be made cheaper. What kind of instrument donations does Berklee get?

That was a great slogan I remember from the ads for MI or GIT in Guitar Player Magazine in 1986-87. I wonder how many of those graduates ever recouped their investment over the years. What's more interesting is whether they could have learned it from buying their favorite heroes' instructional videos or tablature.

Darryl, you ask many questions, most of which I suspect are Socratic and rhetorical, so I'll try to answer the ones to which you want a serious answer. My point is that the Internet and the proliferation of musicians' trade rags (especially Guitar Player, Guitar One, etc.) have made it unnecessary to bring steel into a classroom setting. I don't know what it costs (if anything), but I'll bet you music teachers in a public school system have to get some extra compensation or budgeting for teaching steel. Someone's got to pay for it - as long as it ain't me. A real teacher could probably shed light on that subject.

"Who is ""WE"?

The steel guitar community in general. And 100 kids buying literature from a select few vendors and individuals isn't helping me or the ninety plus percent of the players who don't sell anything. It's actually cluttering up the session and gig marketplace with upstarts who are playing for nothing and, thus, bringing down the already low rates that I would charge if I made a living doing sessions & gigs.

"Some here also benefit by buying and selling instructional materials..."

That's right - some. Not the majority of us, though. I'd be interested in knowing whether those same individuals are paying a mortgage off or putting the kids through school. I doubt what they actually make is anything of significance.

"What do
you mean by "formal education"?"

I mean exactly that - one done at a brick & mortar school (K-12) that taxpayers and parents have a hand in. You can include college level where a degree is the goal. This is in opposition to the one-one-one instruction that I favor where you go to a teacher's house or studio. Only a teacher can tell us where they make more money as it relates to steel guitarists.

I attended both Berklee (summer of '87) and University of North Texas (got a degree there, but not in music). With the exception of maybe 3 theory and ear-training classes, the rest didn't help me out as a player. Emphasis on player. I felt that I knew more than most of my classmates at the time because of independent study and reading that had nothing to do with the class. I won't say it was a waste of time, because you obviously need those (and the more advanced ones) if you're going to be a teacher, arranger, or perform in a symphony.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here are a few musicians who didn't necessarily depend on institutionalized education for their advancements and/or success: Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Alan Holdsworth, The Edge, Johnny Marr...

"...would it be good to minimize complacency by minimizing formal training?"

As it relates to something as special as the steel guitar, I think it would.

"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"?"

More than you might think among professionals. About every other issue of Guitar Player magazine echoes that sentiment regularly in interviews with established players and songwriters. Off the top of my head, Brian Setzer, for one. And that guy who plays for Los Lonely Boys. Look at some of the interviews in the old Steel Guitarist and Steel Guitar Player magazines and you'll read exactly the same complaints.

"Are there any other factors besides schooling that have increased crap production?"

Sure, if you mean the commercial pressure exerted by labels to be successful. But that's a different topic.

Anyway, I'm ranting. This discussion is about a general interest in playing and kids, not necessarily survival and creativity as professionals. The popularity of Robert Randolph and other upcoming popular steel icons I think will take care of that perceived lack.

quote:

---

I wonder how many of those graduates ever recouped their investment over the years.

---

Sure, I guess if the only possible goal is to become a nationally syndicated punk-rocker, the last thing the a kid should waste his time on is learning proper techique... Course, he'd have better luck if he spent the same amount of money he's bound to lose chasing that dream on the lottery instead. There just doesn't seem to be much opportunity for breaking into a career in music where know-how doesn't count for anything.

[This message was edited by Duane Reese on 28 November 2006 at 11:24 PM.]

Duane, I never said don't seek out a teacher. This discussion isn't one of "you're either for or against me" like so many other threads on this forum. I simply said don't bring it into schools at someone else's expense. Don't cheapen or erase its mystique and allure by making it too accessible.

The 'ukulele is enjoying immense popularity now due to all the efforts by manufacturers, educators, and cultural preservationists in Hawai'i. You hear it on Rice Krispies and car commercials. But be prepared for the inevitable backlash. It's been turned into a fad.

I only took exception to the idea of what I perceived as the discouragement of music eduaction in general; no matter what the instrument, someone who wants to learn should be encouraged to learn the right way, and not get the false impression (I think it's false) that there is a demand for innovation by the "pros" that only blazing one's own trail can accomplish.

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

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 29 November 2006 at 09:58 PM.]

If you want to do something to bring steel to more people, please see this thread above.

If you can do that, you'll convince me.

In fact I'm curious to know if any of you who are professional teachers in the music field can do the same with Bachelor of Music graduates. Double the bonus points to those who can find the same number of graduates in Pop, Rock, or Country whose influence was as profound as those I've listed above.

This should be fun.

So that's your defense against having your argument exposed? You can't defend your ludicrous argument so you start another one equally ludicrous.

If your assumption that RLS is the measure because of his sales, then most of the greats aren't as good as he. But most of the hacks are. And Garth Brooks is greater than 99% of musicians. If profit in the private sector is the measure, then Mother Theresa was downright evil.

Name ten PhD's in political science who have changed the course of politics. Name ten historians who changed history. Name ten PhD's in accounting who revolutionized business. IT'S NOT THEIR JOB. You might as well name ten Hawaiian steel players who changed the direction of Hawaii.

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

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 30 November 2006 at 08:51 AM.]

So the world is out of step with you. Why is it no industrialized nation has realized the truth of your argument?

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

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 30 November 2006 at 09:58 AM.]

But let's stick to music. Go here to see a short list of some of Berklee's more influential alumni:
http://www.berklee.edu/about/alumni.html

A great many of these people are leaders in music, especially jazz or popular. Tell me that great players like Joe Lovano, Gary Burton, Joe Zawinul, and so on, are soulless technicians. I'm pretty confident that a similar breakdown can be made at other serious music schools like New England Conservatory, Julliard, Eastman, N. Texas State, MI, and others. One makes what one wants out of an eduction. The fraction of real innovators is always small, regardless of formal education, IMHO.

Just personal criticism. I CRITICIZED YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU DIDN'T DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENT. INSTEAD YOU ATTACKED MY PROFESSION AND MY ABILITY TO DO IT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

The fact is many professors can't or won't create anything other than students who are technicians and little else. AGAIN, EVIDENCE?

But somehow, I DID IT BY BEING IGNORANT AND LAZY. you've managed to secure a position in academia, no doubt tenured, OF COURSE, BECAUSE IT'S SO EASY, AND EVERYBODY MAKES THE GRADE. GETTING TENURE DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T BE FIRED. NOT GETTING IT MEANS YOU ARE FIRED. that allows and enables you to judge, criticize, and analyze the creations of others AND INVALID ARGUMENTS THAT JUDGE, CRITICIZE, AND ANALYZE MY CREATIONS. without contributing anything new yourself. AGAIN, EVIDENCE?

You've become AGAIN, EVIDENCE? NO PERSONAL ATTACK? pretty much a symptom of the academic world's self-importance. A DEFENSE OF EDUCATION ISN'T SELF-IMPORTANT. AN ASSERTION THAT EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD IS WRONG BUT YOU IS SELF-IMPORTANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT CACADEMIA IS FULL OF SELF-IMPORTANT HYPOCRITES, LIKE THE ONES WHO LET CASEY KNOW HE'S A HILLBILLY, AND ALL OF THE OTHER PC PROMOTERS OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION--THE ONES WHOSE PHD STANDS FOR PILED HIGHER AND dEEPER.

The surprising thing is that I'll bet you RIGHT and many other professors didn't start with those intentions. WRONG. MANY OF THEM SEEM TO BE BORN SCHMUCKS. ESPECIALLY THE MILLIONAIRE ADMINISTRATORS WHO ARE JACKING UP TUITION.

HERE'S THE SURPRISING THING. IF I HAPPENED TO CATCH YOU IN PERFORMANCE, I'D PROBABLY LOVE IT (BUT THEN I LIKE EVERYBODY'S PLAYING EXCEPT MINE AND SRI CHINMOY'S). AND I'D TALK TO YOU AFTERWARD, AND WE WOULDN'T THINK OF THE OTHER GUY AS A WIENIE.

In any case, Darryl, you've certainly given me and others something to think about and this has been a great discussion. I'm afraid I have nothing else useful to say about this topic. I AGREE, AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING USEFUL TO PLAY. I'LL BET YOU CAN PLAY CIRCLES AROUND ME. WE JUST HAVE DIFFERENT TALENTS. BUT I MUST ADMIT THAT THERE'S SOMETHING I DO THAT YOU DO WELL. AND THIS ISN'T B.S. BECAUSE ANYBODY IN ED WOULD THINK THE SAME THING: YOU'RE AN EXCELLENT WRITER (LIKE ALMOST EVERYBODY ON THIS FORUM, BECAUSE IT TAKES BRAINS TO PLAY STEEL). Thank you.

MORAL OF THE STORY: DON'T TALK ABOUT POLITICS AND RELIGION.

GOD BLESS YOU, YOU DAMNED REPUBLICAN.

My deepest apologies for angering you. They're just opinions and don't necessarily need to be supported. If I was in your class trying to earn a grade, I'd say otherwise.

But nearly all of your responses had what felt like a personal dig, so I replied in kind. Then I thought the better of it 10 minutes later and retracted it. I was hoping you wouldn't catch it, but I was too late.

I'm not a vindictive person and never thought I'd let myself use the forum to make such a response. But I slipped and it was an unfair and uninformed jab.

Sincerely,

I was just jiving about the Republican bit. I actually defend them and Christians because ed is so biased against them.

I know what you mean. After I sent the last one, I thought, "Why am I so hostile?" I got into a beef with somebody else here about a month ago, and I came away thinking, "What a waste of time." And there was a real corker about tone that went to nine pages, and finally bOb stepped in and said, "Cool it."

By the way, call me "Gramps." That's what my friends, students, and profs call me now. It used to be "Rockin' Doc," but them days is long gone.

Wow guys - that got WILD MAN.

Hey, I think I've got my answer to this puzzling question of mine, regarding the prestent or future status of steel in the school...

THINGS ARE GOOD JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.

Hey by the way: I actually didn't vote for Bush either, but I sure as heck didn't vote for Kerry!

Dr. Jeffries, you might be surprised to know that, because of one of your "Letters To The Editor" (Steel Guitar World Magazine) in the mid-to-lated 90's, you put me on a three year course of classical steel guitar studies. Your method of playing without picks works very well for that genre. Thanks again.

When were you in Valley-Ho? I grew up in Sack o' tomato (Sacramento) and used to go to the Bay Area to see what life was. You could even fish on the edge of the marshes just north of Vallejo without catching something that had two noses, three eyes, and four ears.