Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

Jay Vaughan wrote: Umm, that's exactly how I approach the thing. Ditto for guys like Paul Lansky and a host of other musicians who use the computer to compose, record, and produce music. Otherwise computers aren't really very interesting things for me. They don't usually come with extensive manuals anyway, but at the first lesson I do describe the instrument to the student so they know what to ask for or say when they take it in for repairs or even a simple restringing ("Which E string did you need replaced, sonny ?"). I don't make them memorize the details, they'll "get it" if they stay with the study. Pardon me, but a sh*tload of study (aka "reading and thinking") needs to be undertaken when a player ventures into a domain like classical or jazz guitar. Performance practice details make a difference, unless you don't care that your treatment of Villa-Lobos sounds exactly like your Dowland. To do the job right requires both doing and reading. Frankly, since the advent of players like Steve Vai, even rock guitar playing has raised its entrance bar. One of my students has had some problems understanding aspects of rhythm that were bound to dance forms. I suggested he take dance lessons, he did so, and his rhythmic sense has greatly improved. That's a study re: musicianship, it wasn't directly involving his instrument, and it made all the difference in the world to his playing. I'll speak here as a professional instrumental teacher. The only context in which "the instrument should work, by itself" applies is whether it's actually playable, i.e., it isn't a broken or otherwise flawed or unplayable instrument. The statement that "users should -never- be -required- to get trained before the instrument will work" is too weird for me to comprehend. How exactly does a guitar "work" by itself ? It can sit there, look good, and do nothing, and that's all it can do before someone who knows how to play it (i.e., they are trained, either by self or other) picks it up and plays it. Much of my discomfort for the "it should just work" mantra comes from knowing that it takes real effort to acquire any degree of performance skill. I happen to like the fact that the arts are still non-democratic, i.e., you *must* be able to put up, or you should shut up. Don't get me wrong, I'm most happy that the arts are open for anyone's involvement, and computers have made it possible for more people to try their hands at making music *without having to master an instrument*. I don't believe that everyone needs to learn how to read standard music notation or study music theory. In fact, my first goal is to get the student *playing* something as soon as possible (I follow Francois Couperin's advice here). Inspired by this achievement, the student more easily acquires the harder stuff, but always with the concrete goal of performance. However, if a student wants to learn to play classical guitar, then indeed they do need to learn how to read standard notation (tablature sucks at representing counterpoint and polyphonic rhythm), and if they want to become sight-readers then they are compelled to study theory (and I advise composition studies for more advanced players: there's nothing like writing a sonata yourself to get into the depths of playing one). Or maybe I'm not understanding your POV ? :) Best, dp