Conference napalm::guitar

    I have the same question. I have a three year old who loves the
    sound when I play (my best fan, only one too!) but most guitars
    are bigger than he is. I had pretty much decided that around 5
    years old or so we would see what the situation is. That may even
    be too young. I began playing trumpet at around 6 or 7 and kept
    it up through college. A uek is not a bad idea. That way, if 
    interest dies away you haven't lost a lot of bucks on an instrument 
    that *you* cannot use. I want to start him out right but not too
    early.                                                  
    
    Dave.

	How about a tenor guitar for a start?  It's fairly small but
	still a guitar.

	As far as age, I wouldn't think any earlier than 5 or so since
	it may be hard to keep the childs interest in it as anything
	more than a toy.

	-gary

    If were speaking of very young kids, I really feel that it is better
    to start them out on piano/keyboards.
    
    There are so many reasons to do this:
    
    o Try and find a guitar to fit a 4-11 year old.  Having the kid
      play an instrument that doesn't fit him can be very discouranging
    
    o Guitar requires a certain amount of strength that most young children
      just don't have.  Again, this tends to discourage the kid
    
    o You really want the kid to learn "music", not guitar.  You want
      him to undertand keys and chords and intervals and ...  You don't
      want him to learn a song as a set of finger patterns on the guitar.
    
      Keyboards are the best instruments for teaching music theory.
      
    o No matter what your main instrument is, being able to play a little
      keyboards is tremendously valuable, especially these days.
    
    o It is easy to find small keyboards for small hands.  You can even
      find these in most department stores!  What's more, is they can
      be had for under $100.
    
    o Electronic keyboards can do lots of things that keep kids interested
      (different sounds, buttons, etc.)

    	db

    If you find the right size guitar let me know also. My six year
    old son has a small acoustic and a noname electric (hand-me-downs
    from his uncle) but his hands are still a bit small. I bet that
    one more year should be about right, I remember taking classical
    lessons at age 10, I'd like to start him a bit earlier.
    
    He seems to have the desire. He can play a mean air guitar along
    with the radio and the jumps off the bed, across the room and into
    a split are (for lack of a better word) frightening. I'm an acoustic
    only person, this is going to be tough...
    
    Nick

    For help with the image, if not the technique, I've seen a pretty
    good looking strat copy called a Blow Hard guitar - it's inflatable!
    (just a toy - no strings or anything) I was going to get one for
    my daughter but the guy wanted 14 bucks for it! Anybody seen them
    for less?
    
    -Dave

	I've taught kid's from 5 to 50 years old. Even my own son a little,
but I agree with Dave B that piano is a better instrument to learn about
music on. Since all the notes are right in front of you it makes it easier
to understand than guitar. I find even in teaching older kids music theory
it was much easier for them to understand after I compared what I was doing
on guitar to the piano. Teaching music theory to younger kids who want to
play guitar is kinda defeating the purpose behind them learning I always 
thought. It's suppose to be fun! But if they have the interest in the how's
and why's then there is no reason not to explain some of it to them until
they feel that they understand.
	Yamaha made a 3/4 size guitar which had a thin neck and small body
but my experiance has been they are very hard to find. Starting a beginner
out on a classical guitar of standard neck width I would think would be
somewhat frustrating and would not recommend it. There are some 3/4 size
instruments however beware of string action,a properly setup and adjusted
instrument should only be a little painful at first until some callose's
develope. Some students had instruments that could have been used for Dobro's 
or bottleneck playing. I always thought it was a conflict of interest to
tell parents that the $10 guitar they had bought at a flea market wasn't
adequate and the reasons why. But when given the oppurtunity I explained
the advantage's of a better instrument.   
	Age is not always the answer,but to look at a kid from a develope-
    ment standpoint as far as maturity both physically and mentally
    is really the issue. Obviously no teacher can meet with a kid and
    determine this in 30 minutes,but should be able to in a couple of
    month's time.	

    One thing I feel very strongly about is that the FIRST (second,
    third and fourth) priority is holding their interest, and keeping
    it fun.  More simply put, the most important thing is to MOTIVATE
    them to learn and improve.
    
    I think it's a mistake to force a kid to learn a particular thing,
    or practice a certain amount of time each day.  Forcing a kid to
    practice makes music almost like a chore, and turns the kid off.
    In fact, I've even seen practice used as an instrument of punishment
    ("just for that you have to practice TWO hours instead of one").
    
    Regarding learning things, I think that for young kids, the idea
    is is not to "teach" but "direct".  Let them play/do whatever they
    want musically, but try to get them interested in doing something
    worthwhile.
    
    	db

    I started to play the guitar (age 9) because I liked the way the
    guitar sounded and thought it would be interesting/fun to learn
    how to play.  However, after being forced to practice for an hour
    each day for several years, I hated it.  Eventually I complained
    so much that my parents cut the practice time down to 1/2 hour per
    day.  I stll hated it, but 1/2 hour was easier to take than 1 hour.
    
    This situation lasted until I was in Jr. High.  Then lightning struck.
    Some of the guys I knew wanted to form a band and they needed a guitar
    player.  Well, suddenly the guitar was fun again!  There was no way
    that I could come to terms with my guitar teacher; we had agreed to
    ignore each other by that time.  However, I was lucky enough to find a
    new teacher who was not opposed to doing "Stormy Monday" in addition to
    working on theory and/or classical pieces. By the time I was in high
    school I was practicing 2-3 hours a day and loving every minute. 
    
    I agree with Dave B that it is very important to motivate kids to
    want to learn and keep it fun for them.  Finding the right teacher
    is also very important; the lessons won't be interesting if the
    teacher is boring.                  
    
    As far as guitars for beginners go, I think size is less important
    than making sure the guitar is easy to play.  String it with light
    gauge strings and set the action low.  Too many beginner guitars
    are strung with piano wire and adjusted for slide work.  You wouldn't
    play such a guitar, why should they.

    re: .8

>    As far as guitars for beginners go, I think size is less important
>    than making sure the guitar is easy to play.  String it with light
>    gauge strings and set the action low.  Too many beginner guitars
>    are strung with piano wire and adjusted for slide work.  You wouldn't
>    play such a guitar, why should they.

    I have taught both tennis (a lot) and guitar/piano/music (very little) 
    to young kids.   I always found it interesting, fun and rewarding.
    I mention this because I thought it might explain why I have such
    strong opinions on teaching kids.
    
    Yes, this suggests an important point which I forgot (the things
    I have been saying are all part of my usual lecture to parents 
    of young students).

    I found there are many parallels between teaching tennis and music.
    
    One of the things I always recommended to parents of tennis students
    was to get their kids decent rackets to start out with.  I got pretty
    frustrated trying to teach kids who showed up at lessons with rackets
    with broken strings, major cracks, loose strings, or just sheer
    worthless junk.
    
    The usual story was that the parent would say "You start out with
    this racket and if you stay interested in tennis, we'll get you
    a better racket."   This would seem to make sense, but it is definitely
    flawed thinking.
    
    What would happen almost without fail was that the kid would try
    his darndest to play with the cruddy racket, fail miserably through
    no fault of his own (I couldn't hit the ball over the net with some
    of these pieces of junk!).  This would discourage the kid who would
    lose interest for lack of success and quit.
    
    But what really killed me was the parents probably thought, "Gee,
    glad we didn't waste the bucks on a decent racket" as if they had
    done the right thing.  What they wasted was their kids potential!

    The same thing happens with musical instruments.  Don't give the
    kid a piece of junk and then presume non-talent or non-interest
    if he doesn't accomplish anything with it.   The best motivator
    for kids are the tiny tastes of success that they get with work
    (they hit the ball over the net/they play "Smoke on the Water").
    
    It's almost cruel to give them something they have no hope of being
    successful with.
    
    Oh well, hope no one considers my tone in stating these OPINIONs
    as a sign of arrogance.  It's just something I have come to hold
    strong opinions about.
    
    	db

    I have a 4 year old boy, who got his first guitar at age 1. It was
    one of those plastic toys. He broke it in less than 1 week. Since
    he would not let me play guitar, because he wanted to play mine
    guitar. I went out and got him another one of those plastic guitars.
    That one did not last for more than a week either. We were out some
    $12 dollars.
    
    Since I still had the same problem, every time to try playing guitar
    he would not let me. I got him a Harmony small guitar for $17.50.
    He has walked on it and everything else a little boy would do to
    a toy. After lots of glue, the guitar is around. He still can not
    play it, but he knows the guitar will break when he walks on it.
    Also, he can strum the guitar, and makes his own songs as he goes.
    
    For his 4th birthday we got him a electric guitar. I went to Mcduff
    and asked them to show me the least expensive guitar they have.
    For $55 I got a blue guitar which I do not mind to play every once
    in a while. The guitar is small, but the kid is big for a 4 year
    old. He still can not play, but he likes it and he is trying to
    make chrds.
    
    Now as far as lessons go. I think that between 6 and 7 is a good
    age. At least for my kids.

    RE.9
    
    Agreed, from my own experience with my son, now 10 years old. First
    he wanted to play keyboards so we went and bought a toy keyboard
    for about 30.00. Well we ran into one limitation after another,
    for example the keyboard could only play one key at a time, thus,
    no chords. Needless to say, he lost interest in keyboards, next
    topic drums. Well this time I wanted to try a different approach.
    So instead of buying the traditional practice pad and saying "Now
    if you get better and stick with it.. you'll get a drum set", I
    just bought the drum set. The result is that he is extremely happy
    and is becoming better everyday. It's hard to learn without the
    tools. I equate this to golf. Think what it would be like to try
    and play golf without all the clubs or extermely cheap ones. I can't
    even imagine it !  You know, you would think that I would have learned
    this lesson since I started on a cheap KAY guitar from 1970, you
    know the ones strung with telephone wire 6 inches off of the fretboard,
    but somewhere along the line I forgot it.

    I used to make my living teaching guitar and I taught a lot of kids,
    from 6 to 72 years old.  I was often asked what was a reasonable
    starting age for kids and I've discussed the point with several
    other teachers.  The consensus was that most kids don't really benefit
    much from guitar lessons before about age nine, unless *they* rilly
    rilly want to do it.  Even then, I think it's important to not worry
    too much about technical development.  Just let them get acquainted
    with the instrument.  Pluck the strings.  Listen to the different
    tones it can make.  Feel the vibrations.  It would be nice to learn
    some chords and simple tunes, but don't push it.  Give them a chance
    to 'get personal' with the instrument and it's voice.  I believe
    the more sensual intimacy a person develops with the instrument,
    the more expressively they can play.
    
    I agree that a young (less than 8 or 9) kid's basic music development 
    is better served with the piano.  
                                        
    Bob
    

    Oh no - loud mouth opinionated Blickstein has something else to
    say:
    
    Well, you can hit "next unseen" at this point if you like.
    
    In .9 I sort of criticize the "use this and if you do good we'll
    get you a better one" approach.
    
    I want to clarify one thing.  I think reward systems are a good
    thing.   Ideally, the best reward should be the accomplishment
    itself, but you can reinforce it in a variety of ways, one of
    which is getting the kid a new/another instrument.
    
    It's also acceptable to offer the reward as incentive but it should
    be done to MOTIVATE the musical interest.  There are two elements
    to this:
    
    	o It should not be offered as "I'm not gonna spend $n unless
          I know your serious."   Instead it should be "If you keep
          getting better, we're gonna have to get you a better instrument".
    
        o I think it would be a mistake to offer a non-musical reward:
    	  "If you practice every day, we'll get you a puppy."   That's makes it
    	  a chore.   My experience is that actually tends to suppress
          their interest in music (if they think it's a chore).
    
    	db
    

    	For anyone to learn, regardless of age, and to beable to progress 
    at all, the  instrument HAS to be of at least DECENT quality.  It's
    true, you're better off to wait or take the chance right off the bat.  
    My first real axe was a telecaster.  I think I was the only 10 year 
    old in the world with a real axe.  Shucked alot of newspapers to get 
    it too.  While I was wasting my brains in high school, I started
    teaching after school.  Any kid under age 10 was a struggle.  Not
    too many of them lasted for long, but alot ended up comming back
    in two years.  So the foundation they got at under age ten must
    have made somekind of impression.  
  
	small guitars for little guys :
    
    	Kent makes 3/4 scale nylon string guitars.  Not bad, also, Hondo,
    and I've even seen Arias.  The Kents are about 35 dollars.

I got my first guitar at the age of 5.  It was red, plastic, and said "Roy 
Rogers" on it.  It came with toy cap guns and holsters - i loved it!  played 
it all the time.  Had high-tech plastic tuning machines with an automatic 
unwind feature, that to this day cannot be duplicated in the fancy metal ones 
on the most expensive guitars.  I don't know what happened to it, my mom 
still has a picture of me on the day i got it, for christmas, all decked out 
in cowboy boots, hat, six-guns and guitar - i was the envy of the block.

i've noticed a lot of good advice and pointers in these notes.  First - don't 
waste money, a toy plastic guitar for a 4-6 year old who has no musical 
training in anything is a good way to see if they'll warm to it.  It's very 
difficult to get kids that old to study an instrument seriously - usually 
it's the parent who's serious and the kid gets yelled into line (no 
reflection on anyone intended).

If you seriously want your kid to get into the instrument - DON'T WASTE MONEY 
ON CHEAP STUFF!  he's going to have a hard enough time with it w/o having to 
deal with guitars that would be hard to play by an accomplished guitarist.  I 
would recommend a high status, low end model - my first "real" guitar was an 
S&H green stamp acoustic which i got on my own - it was worthless as a guitar 
but it convinced my dad that i was serious and he bought me a double 
cutaway, single pickup, wine red gibson melody maker for $100 from a friend 
of his.  I was 14 at the time and the guitar was just right for me size-wise.
It was a perfect guitar to learn on, had great action, good intonation and it 
had a really thin neck, it was light - a perfect guitar to learn on because 
there were no "barriers to learning" built into the instrument.

For smaller kids with real small hands, i'd recommend skipping the guitar 
until their bigger and getting a reasonable quality mandolin instead.  The
skills required to play are similar, and the size of the instrument is perfect
for small hands and body - also, you get to play slick sounding duets and learn
a new instrument for yourself. 

-max-

    
    I"ve taught several thousand guitar lessons to people of all ages.
     I loved to teach little children.  I even have a MA in music.
    
    FLAME ON:
    
       There ain't nothing wrong with the guitar for teaching musical
    theory.  It's a great musical instrument, a key board offers no
    advantage in teaching musicianship over a guitar.  
    
       A case can be made for an instrument such as the fiddle, as it
    develops the ear.
    
    Flame off:
    
       Get a small, well made classical, nylon string guitar.  A steel
    string guitar has several hundred pounds of pressure, and can actually
    be quite dangerous.  A nylon string guitar only has about 40 lbs
    of pressure, total.  It is easier to make a good one, is far easier
    to finger.
    
       There is a fair amount of behavioristic research in this area.
    Kids do great-if lessons and parental involvement is 100% positive.
    Find a musical teacher that balances out ear training, reading,
    fun favorite songs, and hopefully is clever enough to make up games.
    
        A lot of the old time jazz guitarists in the New York area had
    Tatay make hand made classical guitars for their kids.  They're
    not very expensive, have excellent intonation, get better over time,
    and are easy to play.  They're pretty too.
    
       But... make sure your children pick out their choice of instruments.
    My 9 year old plays the flute, and he's the only one I currently
    play with.  

    
    A great point is made in .15-his "guitar" was fun.

    re: .16

>    FLAME ON:
>    
>       There ain't nothing wrong with the guitar for teaching musical
>    theory.  It's a great musical instrument, a key board offers no
>    advantage in teaching musicianship over a guitar.

    Well, I really disagree.  All I can think to do is point out is
    that almost all music schools teach theory and harmony on keyboards.

    Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense to me.  Linear concepts seem
    to be intrinsic to all music theory (intervals, etc.).  The keyboard
    is the most uniformly linear instrument that is commonly used.
    It allows the linear concepts of theory to be 'visualized' better
    than perhaps any other instrument.

    Also, much of the basic concepts of theory and notation are rooted
    in the keyboard.  I can think of no better demonstration of this (and
    my general argument for teaching theory on keyboards) than a
    question I was once asked by a young guitar player I was teaching
    basic theory and notation to:  "Why do they have sharps and flats?
    Why not just have the notes go from A to L?"
 
	db

	Right on DB! You took the words right away from my fingers! Well
most of them.
	If using guitar for teaching music theory is no more different
than on piano or offers no advantage then why do so many Music Colleges 
require or recommend that you take piano labs? Did someone just say this?
                 

    But I never meant to say that the guitar is no good for teaching
    theory and ear training, just that the keyboard is better.
    
    And I still maintain that, for kids under 8 or 9 years old,
    instructional time is better spent learning basic musical concepts
    on the keyboard.
    
    Bob
    

    
    Well, people like Segovia or Almedia or Pat Metheny would disagree
    with that concept.     
    
    The reason that colleges use keyboards to teach chords is that is
    is very easy to play.   As far as ear training, piano is a poor
    choice, as compared with violin, trumpet, or any instrument that
    forces the player to listen to each note.  Suzuki also supports
    my contentions.

    I doubt if Segovia or Almeida or Metheny have taught many children
    or beginners of any age.
    
    >The reason that colleges use keyboards to teach chords is that is (sic)
    >is very easy to play.
    
    A good reason.
    
    I almost agree with your point about ear training.  It's a safe
    bet that string players have better pitch sensitivity than keyboard
    players (statistically, of course), but I think it's beneficial to
    start by learning to recognize clean, accurate, equally-tempered
    intervals and chords.  You just can't beat a piano for that.
    
    I'm through quibbling for now.
    
    Bob
    

    As the originator of this note, I have certainly gained a broad
    spectrum of views!
    
    Above all, as has been said several times, its GOT to be fun. This
    is why I am hesitant about how to introduce my kids to music. I
    remember back to school days where those kids learning the piano
    had to stay in during lunch break or after school whereas those
    who really seemed to have fun were those who brought their guitars
    around to the party or barbecue and we all ended up singing Beatles,
    Beachboys or Stones (well trying). Whatsmore, if you could play
    the guitar women somehow found you more attractive! Anyway, they
    are the sort of reasons that prompted me to learn!
    
    I think that you can get more fun from the guitar with just a
    rudimentary knowledge (i.e. C,F,G) than with a keyboard. With keyboards
    you need to be reasonably proficient before it can start to become
    fun in the same way.
    
    I reckon, I'll buy a keyboard instrument and let the kids just get
    used to it being around. When they show interest then I'll guide
    them in that direction, gently. Leave guitar till their teens.
    
    Richard Briggs
    UK SWAS
    
    
    

    RE .21
    	Set Mode = informational
    	Don't know how many children Segovia has taught but he has 
    written a book for teaching guitar to children. If your interested
    I could look up the particulars on title and publisher.
    				Sort of off the main topic again
    					jak
    

    re: .23
    
    I'd love to see what he has to say.  Did he really write it or does
    it just have his name on it?  There was a book several years ago
    called something like 'Segovia's Guitar Technique' which was actually
    written by his friend Vladimir(?) Bobri.  As instructional material,
    it was worthless.
    
    He did teach at least one child - his son, who should be about 17
    or 18 now.
    
    Bob
    
    

    Regarding Metheny.
    
    In 1973 he was my guitar instructor at Berzerklee College of Muzak
    in Boston.   
    
    Yes the piano is an easier instrument for someone that doesn't play
    the guitar to learn theory.  But... if someone plays the guitar,
    the guitar is a great instrument for theory.
    
    Both the piano and the guitar are rotten for ear training.  At least
    a child has to *listen* to the notes to tune a guitar.
    
    BTW, fiddle players do not use "equal temperament"  they play in
    tune.  A piano or a guitar plays equally out of tune in all keys.      
    A fine guitarist can compensate by bending certain notes.  For example,
    when you play a scale, try bending the leading (7th) tone when
    ascending, and see if it doesn't sound more musical.
    
    This is why fixed pitch instruments were not part of a traditional
    orchestra, they play out of tune.

    >Yes the piano is an easier instrument for someone that doesn't play
    >the guitar to learn theory.  But... if someone plays the guitar,
    >the guitar is a great instrument for theory.
    
    Agreed.  I taught theory on the guitar for many years.

    >Both the piano and the guitar are rotten for ear training.  At least
    >a child has to *listen* to the notes to tune a guitar.
    
    You seem to be talking specifically about pitch training, and I think
    anyone would agree that instruments that have to be tuned force you to
    develop pitch discernment.  But basic ear training in a music-theory
    context is more concerned with recognizing intervals and chords than
    tuning a particular note to within five cents, and on the piano, the
    intervals are graphically obvious and more likely to be in tune than
    on the guitar.  If I had had a piano in my studio, I would have used
    it as an adjunct to the guitar for teaching theory and basic ear.

    >BTW, fiddle players do not use "equal temperament"  they play in
    >tune.  A piano or a guitar plays equally out of tune in all keys.      
    
    Yeah, my fiddling is definitely not "well tempered" (I hesitate to say
    that I play in tune), but some (most?) string players do attempt to 
    temper their playing when accompanied by a piano.

    >A fine guitarist can compensate by bending certain notes.  For example,
    >when you play a scale, try bending the leading (7th) tone when
    >ascending, and see if it doesn't sound more musical.
    
    Bending the fifth slightly can help too, but the major third is 
    already sharp.  Maybe all guitars should have a vibrato arm.

    Bob

    re.24
    
    	Bingo. That is exactly the book. "Seovia's Guitar Technique".
    As a rank beginner I'm in no position to judge wether it's any 
    good or not.
    				jak
    

    re: .27
    
    Actually there are some good pictures and tips and pointers, but 
    it's just not what the title implies.  
    
    The best book I know for beginners of any age is Christopher
    Parkening's book.  The title is something like, 'The Christopher
    Parkening Guitar Method, vol. 1'.  As far as I know, volume two
    never happened.  
    
    Bob
    

    Of Course
    
    Cacassi is "The Bible" but I would never start a child on it.
    
    I think the best way to get a child started on the guitar is to
    teach them to play chords to their favorite songs while they sing.
    Then it will be fun.  That's most important.
    
    Lots of Praise.  More Praise.  Tell them how talented they are.
    
    Theory, reading, etc will all follow after the child is hooked.
                                                                   

    Hi. I'm Jon, I'm new, And I have 2 cents I'd like to unload:
    
         I have been playing guitar now for about 15 years.  I think
    I'm pretty good, and so do most people who hear me.  I started in
    3rd grade, with a hand-me-down folk guitar that looked more like
    an archer's bow than a guitar.  Needless to say, it put me in pain
    and reduced my will to learn. I took lessons at the local YMCA for
    awhile, where I learned the very basics about tuning and chord
    structure.  I think this was the best thing that could have happened
    at that point in time, because it allowed me to play many songs
    with very little talent.  If I had become discouraged at that point,
    as I did in sixth grade when I tried lessons again, but became
    frustrated because I had no interest in learning sight-reading,
    I would certainly not have had the drive to continue.
    
         I am now somewhat versed in music theory (through the study
    of several instruments), but am only now beginning to comprehend
    the true nature of the guitar and why it is tuned the way it is,
    and what benefits it provides over a linear instrument such as the
    keyboard.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion,
    the guitar is a terrible (ok not terrible, but not so hot) means
    of teaching theory to a beginner... not because it doesn't make
    sense, but because it does not represent clearly the modern notion
    of the chromatic musical scale nearly as clearly as a keyboard.
    
    	My other point is this:  Yes, I mentioned two (group) classes
    I was involved with... but when someone asks me if I have taken
    lessons, I generally say no because most of my knowledge is
    self-taught.  So, depending on the goals of the student (or in this
    case, probably the student's parents), learning from a self-taught
    person the MIND-SET necessary to teach oneself is perhaps a better
    solution than spending money on a professional who will tell a student
    exactly what to do, how to do it, and charge about $50 a pop.  Personal
    motivation is, i feel, the best teacher in any field.
    
    Boy... my first note and already I'm babbling.
    
    Jon (BPOV02::NELSON)
    

    re: .30
    
    It's amazing that we've got this far without talking about "teaching
    oneself".
    
    Since you're new to this notesfile I have to warn you that I am
    an intense Steve Morse fan, so perhaps it is with some bias that
    I say that the single most important tip I ever got about guitar
    playing was from Steve Morse which was, you must learn how to teach
    yourself.  This is regardless of whether or not you have a teacher
    helping you out.  Learning comes from within, guidance is the most
    that a teacher can provide.
    
    I think that what Morse was saying was that you have to find out
    what things YOU need to do to IMPROVE and then do them.

    This has helped me tremendously.  No if only Steve could tell me
    how to achieve the level of discipline that is required...
    
    Of course, I have to say that this particular aspect of learning
    an instrument does not really apply to teaching kids.  It's a rare
    kid that knows how to teach himself - they even have a word for
    it: "prodigy".

    	db

    re: .30,.31
            
    Very important point.  Also very frustrating trying to get the point
    across to students.  Too many people have the perverse notion that
    education is a commodity you can buy by paying your money and showing
    up at the appointed time.  
    
    Bob
    

    The piano teacher my kids have recently said to sign them up for some
    athletic programs to improve their coordination.  What does everyone
    think about this?
    
    I don't have a problem with it since I was an athlete long before I was
    a musician, but does it really improve their coordination for musical
    applications?
    
    curious,
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I read an article a few years back that argued that musicians *are*
    atheletes.  The article looked at issues like stamina, coordination,
    etc. and even suggested that the many cases of long-lived classical
    musicians are due to the *health benefits* of playing music (just don't
    eat any ham sandwiches while staying in Harry Nilsson's apartment).
    
    Wish I could remember where I read it  8^)  8^)
    
    							Brian

    
    
    
       Okay, I'll bite.  (Pun intended.)   Ham and Harry?
    
    
       Rick.
    
    

    I'm guessing Mama Cass was a lunch guest...
    
    Peter

>    I read an article a few years back that argued that musicians *are*
>    atheletes.  The article looked at issues like stamina, coordination,
>    etc. and even suggested that the many cases of long-lived classical
>    musicians are due to the *health benefits* of playing music (just don't
>    eat any ham sandwiches while staying in Harry Nilsson's apartment).
    
    Oh yeah, I'm sure they must have been talking about *classical*
    musicians. I've played with rock and blues musicians all my life, and
    they collectively qualify as about the most *unhealthy* people I've
    ever known. Of course, if you consider staying up til the wee hours of
    the morning, working in smoke-filled dens, trying to sop up your money's
    worth in free drinks, blasting your ears out before you reach puberty,
    psychedilizing your blues away, and so on *athletic* ...
    
    But then again, they *do* heft them amps around like crazy ;-)
    
    - Ram

 >     But then again, they *do* heft them amps around like crazy ;-)

    Nah. It's the roadies that are healthy.

    Several Comments... 
    Brainstorm session alert. No  stucture impending. 
    
    Don't forget the parent/child "NO COMPETITION" clause.  It does not
    matter what the hobby/sport/whatever is involved, a child will usually
    not take on an activity that his parent is actively involved in. Their
    best will usually not meet their parents expectations and a "Your just
    not trying" will surely ensue. The pressure is not worth the benefit.
    By being in this conference, you probably subscibe to the above.
    
    Many parents want to see "stardom" (that they missed) through their
    children's eyes.  I have a friend who wanted to be a baseball player.
    He forces his child to be the best. His kid hates it.......
    
    My son loves baseball and football...I care little about
    either......probably why he likes them....but I
    wanted him to be the Rock and Roll star that I never became...I even
    bought him a great guitar trying to stimulate him...at 7.  Well, I
    learned a very valuable lesson..see non competitive clause above. I
    quit trying to prod him into playing and let it drop.  Now he is 10 and
    several guys on the block want to start a band. It now is Jay's idea to
    play and not mine.  I will be glad to teach him.. but already I want to
    manage the band and set practice dates. I tell myself daily that my own
    desire to see him succeed could be his worst enemy and I try to stay a
    silent partner. It is an emmence thrill to see him "practicing", so to
    speak, on his own. I do not push or shove.
    
    I am also involved in Model Railroading(my wife says I am obsessed)
    and again, my son has not shared this hobby. I applied the above don't
    force rule. He now wants to build his own train.  Fathom that.
    
    The idea about buying a good instrument, to start, is quality info....
    but that alone will not make a good player. 
    
    I relate good instuments to good model trains.  Many parents will buy
    their children cheap train sets for Christmas...	I will not mention
    brands or stores where they are purchased..you know the reasons..
    The tracks usually don't meet, the engines are of poor quality, the
    cars have no weight with poor couplers...The kid gets frustrated with
    the thing continually falling of the track or stalling and 2 weeks 
    after Christmas, the thing is in the closet to rot....and another kid 
    blows off one of the best hobbies available to children. Same with
    guitar...and poor quality(means hard to play).   
    
    One more note... I have begun taking guitar lessons. I agree with all
    previous notes about teaching yourself as I have done.  It is amazing
    how much more I can learn in one week, now, that I am older and ready to
    listen. And it is very good medicine for my son to see me practicing
    daily. And I have learned the Steve Howe piece in 3 weeks.
    
    We now return you to normal structured paragraghs and thought
    processes. 

    Re: .39
    
    Great note.
    
    I've been trying to expose my kids to music as much as possible while
    not passing any judgement on it.  I go out of my way to take them to
    see female musicians since I don't want them to get the idea that as
    girls they can't get and up and play music.  I let them bang around on
    *some* of the instruments in the house (they really like the drum kit).
    I also take them to my gigs when possible (i.e. when it's not a bar at
    night).
    
    The results of this is my 5 year old is bugging me to buy her a guitar
    and my 7 year old out of the blue told my wife that I have to make her
    a bunch of tapes of "girls playing guitars".  She made my wife show her
    a bunch of CDs and picked out which ones she wants to listen to.
    
    The rest of the kids in the neigborhood are into the New Kids and such,
    my kids' favorite tape is Boozoo Chavis (which my 5 year old bugged me
    to make for them).  
    
    Then again, when we were all riding in the car with some reggae
    blasting, my girls wanted to know what "herb" was  8^)  8^)
    
    						Jah Rostafari

    
    re: .39
    
    You have to keep remembering this rule as they get older too! I really
    want my 13 year old daughter to start working expression into her
    alto-sax playing - you know, make it growl!   I keep forgetting it
    won't happen with me pushing it!
    
    I brought a cello home for my 15 year old daughter. She's a terrific
    musician, but i couldn't keep my grimy mits off the damn thing and
    she WILL NOT COMPETE with me, in her own words.  Nothing intentional
    on my part, and she'd blow me away in fairly short order, but that's
    not how she see's it.   This same kid can play the chromatic scale on
    just about every brass/valved horn there is - reaching notes i can only
    dream about, but since i play tuba also, she won't touch it!  She will
    however, gleefully humiliate me on clarinet, and rightfully scorn my
    piano playing due to woefully inappropriate technique (however, i can
    play chords by merely thinking of them, while she needs to read 'em. but
    then again, i seem to be able to read about anything but piano).
    
    My oldest has as much musical ability as any of us, but i'm positive
    nothing will come of it until she's completely on her own(soon i hope).
    
    so my $.02 is you have to really give them a lot of space even if it
    means curtailing some of your own play time.  I've postponed furthering
    my own alto sax development until that kid gets older, and even curtail
    the piano when the other one is around.  I let them play with the
    synth including hacking patches and only put my guitar as off limits.
    When they were younger, they enjoyed overdubbing on the 4-track, but
    boys and being cool are much higher priorities these days.
    
    	

    Resurrecting this note after three years...
    
    I have an eight year old nephew who I can tell has a real knack for
    music.  He's very interested in guitar and has had for a few years an
    instrument which is a complete piece of junk.  This kid is very small
    and a regular size guitar is out of the question, so I've been keeping
    an eye out for a scaled down decent instrument.
    
    Have any of you seen anything I ought to look at in the
    Boston/Metrowest area?  I'd appreciate any leads.
    
    							Marc
    
    P.S.  Yes, I know and agree that starting with piano is really a good
    idea (that's the way I started), but it is out of the question right
    now for this kid.
                     

    Marc,
    
    I think you ought give serious consideration to giving him one of those
    "travel" guitars - small guitars designed to fit into a suit-case,
    back pack, etc.  They are scaled down guitars, often with only 12
    frets.
    
    The scale and sound is different from a regular guitar, but I
    think when he grows, he should be able to make the adaption to a real
    guitar very easily.  
    
    The only brand name I'm familiar with is "Chiquita" but recently
    I've seen these smaller guitars in lots of music stores around here,
    Daddy's in Nashua for example.
    
    I think it might be a good way to learn fretboard skills.

    What type of guitar are you looking for?  Classical? Steel string
    acoustic?  Electric?  And what is the budget...  
    
    Elderly Instruments has some downsized guitars in its 
    acoustic instrument catalog.  Most are "beginner" (that is
    relatively low quality) instruments.  On the other end of
    the spectrum, Martin makes a 3/4 size dreadnaught.
    
    I've heard of some kids starting on ukelele-- the tuning is the
    same as the top 4 strings of the guitar (except and octave
    higher, with the 4th string up another octave)-- so chord
    fingerings can be transferred to the guitar.
    
    Jim

I personally think a guitar that sounds good would be better than one of the 
travel guitars.  There used to be lots of smaller-bodied guitars around.
Gibson, for example, made quite a few of them.  I don't know if they're
available at a reasonable price nowadays, though.

    Thanks for the ideas so far.
    
    My first feeling is that I'm looking for either a Classical or Steel
    string for maybe $100 or so.  If I can't get anything decent, the
    budget may go up some.  Maybe a classical would be preferable as it
    might be easier to play.
    
    A Uke is a though... hadn't even considered it.  Hmmmmmmmm.....

    The smallest Gibson would be OO sized guitars. They also made some
    tenor guitars which are smaller but have 4 strings. These would not
    fit into the $100 price range. 
    
    I'm afraid that your facing the same reality that the rest of us
    have had to overcome. A beginner really needs a decent quality
    instrument that will play well, otherwise they get discouraged
    quick. I would set a goal of spending ~$200. In this price range
    there are a lot of high-quality imports that would meet your needs.
    I would suggest you check into Yamaha, Sigma, Madeiras, Epiphone,
    and possably a few others such as Ibanez, Alvarez, etc.
    
    Mark

    If you can afford slightly more than $200 you might be able to
    find a '60's Gibson LG0, or LG1. These are available in the $300
    range. All 60's Gibsons have very skinny necks and would be easy
    for a smaller person to play. I recently picked up a 1966 LG1
    which fits this description. 
    
    Mark

    Don't LG0s have mahogany tops?  In addition, I think some of
    them have adjustable (and even plastic) bridges...
    
    I guess I'd go for a used import with a solid spruce top
    over a guitar with a mahogany top.
    
    My 2 cents,
    Jim

    Jim,  LGO's do have mahogany tops. LG1's have solid spruce tops.
    Mine had a plastic bridge. A luthier friend of mine is replacing
    the plastic bridge with Rosewood for me. It should make a big
    improvement. 
    
    I agree that on a low budget, your' probably better off with an
    import. I have a Yamaha acoustic that plays great. It's an older
    dreadnought model. 
    
    Mark

    I learn to play guitar on a late 60s Gibson SG/Les Paul guitar.
    REAL small neck and a great low action (and tone!).  Plus the
    fixed tailpiece aided in quickly developing my tuning ear.
    
    I would NEVER recommend an electric guitar with one of those
    'floating' whammy bar setups for a beginner, as I don't think
    they would ever get their guitar in tune!!
    

    You probably don't want me to tell you that there's no such thing as a
    "late '60's SG/Les Paul". but that won't stop me.
    
    Danny W.

Marc,

I have a classical guiter for sale for $100, case and all.  if you want
it.  (See the for-sale thread #2.275.)  The size would be no problem
for an 8-year old, and the nylon strings mean that you don't need a lot
of hand strength to make it go.

HOWEVER

The neck is about �" wider than a "regular" guitar, and is flat instead
of curved, so it may be difficut for small hands to deal with.  (It
would be tough for an 8-year old to bar anything on a classical guitar.)

I think you might be better off stringing a folk guitar with nylon
strings.  You would get the advantage of not needing a lot of hand
strength right off, and still have the "regular" size neck.

The Fender F200 (also for sale) is smaller than a "dreadnought" by about
an inch in each dimension.  However, because of the electronics in it,
it's a little out of your price range, but is has the advantage that has
he gains hand strength, you could put steel string back on it, and have
a useful guitar for years to come.  It's been for sale for a while, I
could come down on the price.

My mother has an absolutey SUPURB "Mederia" that is even smaller than my
Fender, unfortunately not for sale, but it stays in tune for years at a
time with almost no adjustment.  I could ask her to look up the model
number.  It would be perfect.

If you are interested in either instrument, note that Thursday is my
last day at Digital, so if you try to reply after about Wednesday noon,
you would best use the ultranet address in my personal name.

    >You probably don't want me to tell you that there's no such thing as a
    >"late '60's SG/Les Paul". but that won't stop me.
    
    Well, why don't you tell me what it was, then?
    
    From memory, it was a 69 model Gibson SG -- but I was under the
    impression from local guitar stores in the 70s that it was an
    SG/Les Paul model?!  It had three humbucking pickups, MOP block
    inlays on the fingerboard (can't remember if the board was rosewood
    or ebony?!  All I remember was it was very dark and smooth), LP
    style MOP inlay on the headstock, binding around the neck/headstock.
    
    so, what was it?

    The introduction of the SG style solidbody by Gibson in 1961 coincided
    with the discontinuation of the traditional single cutaway Les Paul
    models.  Gibson considered the SG the continuation of the Les Paul
    line and called these "SG Les Pauls".  That name appeared in script
    on the headstock.  Supposedly Les asked that his name not be associated
    with these new models and the "SG Les Paul" designation was dropped
    sometime in 1963; hereafter these guitars were known simply as SGs.
    
    The use of the term SG Les Paul for later model SGs is not uncommon
    and a relatively minor nit, but notable to collector types because
    there is a significant increase in value in the vintage market for the
    earlier model over later non-Pauls.  There are also some subtle differences
    in construction.  Actually, the neck-heel joint of the SG Les Pauls and
    SGs went through a constant metamorphysis for most of the 60's.
    
    Buck, sounds like your '69 was an SG Custom.  Was it white finish?  
    
    /rick
    

    Buck:
    
    See Rick's reply.
    
    Danny W.

    Thanks Rick (and Danny, I guess) for helping to dispell some of the
    myths of that guitar.  FWIW, yes, it was a classic white jobbie with
    gold hardware.  Nice axe, I wish I still had it (and the old 50wt
    Marshall 2x12 combo I played with it).

    An SG variant with a short scale neck and single p90 pickup was the
    Melody-maker. This is the ideal electric guitar for a young beginner,
    at least at one time it was. These used to be cheap at one time.
    Of course for that matter, pre-CBS Strats used to be cheap, too.
    
    A short-scale Fender model that also makes a good beginner electric
    is the Mustang, or Bronco models. 
    
    Of course, the kid would also need an amp. 
    
    Mark

    >>   A short-scale Fender model that also makes a good beginner electric
    >>   is the Mustang, or Bronco models.
    
    >>   Of course, the kid would also need an amp.
      
    Preferrably a Fender Champ ;^)
    
    

    Must be something in the ozone.  No sooner do we finish discussing
    Buck's old SG Custom than the following shows up on the front page
    of yesterday's Mass WantAds:
    
    	Gibson SG Custom, late 60's, white, 3 pickups,
    	gold hardware, orig case  $1000  203-956-9176
    
    And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic...
    

    
    Buck
    
     do it...do it...do it!@
    
    
    then when you do,give me a call and let me play with it for a while! 8)
    
    
    
    							ian

    Hi
    On the topic of "Teach Your Children"..
    anyone has tried the new computer software that is used around.. since
    kids (I got 2 kids) hang around computers a lot, maybe these programs
    could interest them into the theory of music through the computer kb..
    and the notes come on the screen... that way they could also learn
    music..??
    anyone tried this?.. give us the s/w used... understand that "Cakewalk"
    s/w does something like this, or Cubase??
    ron