> When I started to learn guitar several decades ago, I would learn guitar solos off of records by slowing them down to 16 rpm (old turntables could do that) and moving the needle back repeatedly to listen to tricky phrases over and over again. It was frustrating, time consuming, and hell on on the records.

This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though.

>I would like to see guitar-oriented rock and roll make a comeback. The heavy metal subculture is thriving without any mainstream radio airplay to speak of, but aside from that, there's just not that much going on.

> If I see a local rock band play in a bar these days, about 80% of the time it will be all middle-aged men who have been playing for decades. Some of them are even retirement age.

Sounds to me like you aren't looking very hard. In my city, I can find current, young rock bands playing at multiple venues weekly. Some of my favorite albums have come out since 2010.

Bar bands are dying because the economics don't make sense anymore for bar owners. Why dedicate a ton of space to 3-5 people with tons of equipment when you can just get one guy with a laptop. The latter is probably cheaper, too. In my area, most people don't go to bars for music anyway outside of places like dedicated jazz or piano bars.

"This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though."

I disagree. Not about the "just looking up a tab" bit, but about the general gist of your argument that "the hard way teaches you better". Easier access to knowledge is always better when you want to learn things, and the internet is absolutely the best access to knowledge that has ever existed.

I've been playing guitar since long before the internet made it easy to find a tab or chord chart for almost any song. I learned the "hard way". I've taught guitar lessons (also before all the modern options for learning came along), took college level music classes (in high school and in college), etc. All that knowledge was hard-earned, and I appreciate the time and effort it took to learn, but if I could go back in time and give my twelve-year-old self Rock Band and the Internet I sure as hell would.

To put it into perspective, in addition to guitar I tinkered with drums even back in high school and college (though I never had my own real drumset until adulthood). When I played in bands, I'd always push for at least one song where we'd switch it up so I could play drums for a little bit. I wasn't good at drums, but it was fun and I could hold down the rhythm for a simple song. As a grown up, I started playing Rock Band. Damned if my drumming didn't go through the roof in terms of quality and confidence. And, it happened fast, too. Within a few months of playing Rock Band maybe three or four hours a week and occasionally watching a video on YouTube about problem areas, I was a completely different drummer.

What I'm trying to say is that educational tools matter and the tools provided by technology today are incredibly better than they were when those of us over, say 30, were learning to play.

Not only that, I can browse YouTube and watch hours of instruction from professionals in any field. I've watched master classes on composition for orchestra by people who do it professionally, for example. I had that kind of access to really knowledge pros for a brief window when I went to a high school for the arts and to a lesser degree during college, but after that and until the Internet, it was something I had to get from books. Learning from professionals who're speaking directly to you in a video is way more valuable than slowing down a record and listening to it a hundred times (though there's value in ear-training, the tools for that are better now than ever) or reading a book about the subject.

Anyway, the point of my rambling is: Don't let nostalgia for how it used to be to cloud your view of how much better it is today. There will likely be younger prodigies in every musical genre than ever before because of the Internet (and Rock Band and apps that let you practice your intervals, etc.) if kids still want to learn how to play instruments. I think about folks like Lorde; she was writing fully formed, mature, and extremely competent, music at a ridiculously young age. I doubt it could have happened without tech.

And, I don't know if it's awful that kids may spend time learning to play other things rather than guitar, drums, bass, and piano; maybe they're learning sequencers and samplers and such instead. It may just be different, not worse. I learned a lot about music making mods in a tracker on my Amiga back when I was a teenager. It allows one to understand the whole song in ways that banging it out by yourself on an acoustic guitar might not.

I try not to let nostalgia cloud my appreciation of art that's happening today. And, there's a lot of great art happening, in music, too, including some real rock and roll played on real instruments. Pop music has never been about the guitar, even though the guitar was ever-present in pop music for a few decades. So, it shouldn't be all that surprising that pop music isn't going to cling to the guitar; all pop really cares about is pretty faces and very catchy repetitive songs.

So, while pop goes wherever the wind blows, there are plenty of guitar rock bands being started even today. Most major cities have a great music scene of real bands playing real instruments. They may never again rule the charts the way album rock did in the 70s, but they aren't extinct.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but for one aspect that's easy to overlook.

Easy access to information is not always better. A number of reasons: information had easily isn't valued; information that requires effort teaches determination and self sufficiency that will always be required when you get to the limit of easily available info; an abundance of info can be daunting (information overload) and demoralising. Finally, there's less sense of achievement when you e.g. read about something rather than figure it out, and a lower probability of innovation from not knowing the current "best practices".

I still think easy access is better, but mostly because I'm grown up with hard won learning skills. I'm less certain that easy access develops the right kinds of skills. Primarily because not everyone is a genius with exceptional talent; some of us need skills too.

I dont think he meant "better because you did it the hardway" but "better because you spent time on the finer details of the phrasing"

That said, it seems you had a lot on your chest and it feels good to get it off

What I meant is that learning songs by ear makes you a better musician because you are effectively doing ear training at the same time. Ear training is an important part of growing musically that many people over look because it is tedious, but it's what allows experts to play what they hear in their head when improvising. If you just play what's written out on a page, you won't benefit as much in this regard.

I agree that ear-training is important. I just don't believe struggling through songs while listening to slowed down records is the most effective way to do it.

We don't tell beginning programmers, "Go read the Linux kernel, it's the best way to learn." And, we shouldn't tell beginning musicians, "Go listen to an incredibly complex work recorded on 24+ tracks, with dozens of overdubs, and pitch-correction, and compression, performed by professional musicians with years of experience, and copy them."

I struggled when learning stuff as a kid, for years. I did it, but it wasn't productive practice. If I'd had competent ear-training, interval training, and sight-singing instruction at the beginning of my musical life, I would have found learning from records by ear much easier and much more productive within a year.

Kids today have access to those resources, even if they aren't lucky enough to go to a school for music. Will they do it? I dunno. I did tedious stuff even when more fun stuff was available; I had video games, friends in the neighborhood, a bike and skateboard to ride, etc., but I banged away at my guitar, making slow progress.

Making it less tedious, by making it more productive, seems like it's more likely to work out for more aspiring musicians. Learning by ear, when you don't have a framework of musical knowledge to hang it on, is among the most tedious things I can remember from learning to play guitar...and, it wasn't nearly as productive as it could have been, in terms of learning.

So, I tied an onion to my belt, which was the fashion at the time.

I was under the impression that they meant it was good for you because training your ear like that is really good for a musician

I partly disagree. Access to endless information is great, on balance, but other things are equally important: hands-on tuition, peer feedback, competition.

I think about folks like Lorde; she was writing fully formed, mature, and extremely competent, music at a ridiculously young age. I doubt it could have happened without tech.

Kate Bush was 19 when she released Wuthering Heights (and had been writing for years before that).

Stevie Wonder signed to Motown aged 11. Not sure when he started writing his own stuff in earnest.

[Edit to add, from Wikipedia:

In 1961, when aged 11, Wonder sang his own composition, "Lonely Boy", to Ronnie White of the Miracles; White then took Wonder and his mother to an audition at Motown

First self-penned number 1 hit aged 13. Wow!]

"Kate Bush was 19 when she released Wuthering Heights (and had been writing for years before that)."

I've been comparing Lorde to Kate Bush for ages now, so I agree with you on that comparison (and I'm a huge Stevie Wonder fan, including his childhood songs..."Up Tight", recorded when he was 15, is among my favorites to holler along with while cooking dinner). But...there's gonna be a lot more of those kids. I'd bet there already are and I just don't follow pop music.

I can name maybe a half dozen super-talented kids that have come along in the pre-internet age; they were exceptional. But, I think they'll be less the exception as time goes on...partly due to tech.

YouTube recommended Grace Vanderwaal to me just last night. Her music isn't really my thing, but it's hard to argue she's not stunningly skilled for her age.

I agree that these kids are all amazing (including Lorde, I hope she has a long and successful career like Bush and Wonder). I just don't buy that modern tech makes that much of a difference. It's just... different! If you see what I mean. :)

My argument has always been about access. Some kids are lucky enough to be brought up in a household with music all around; the internet makes it possible to any kid can surround themselves with brilliant music and musical knowledge. That's all. There still has to be a will to make music (or art, or tech, or whatever). It's just an enabler, a lever that wasn't accessible to most kids in the past, is all I'm saying.

Yeah, I'll buy that.

Not so much tech per se (although I also like your point about apps for music practice and other things) but the social changes and prosperity that are partly driven by tech.

Check out Jacob Collier too. Incredibly talented mult-instrumentalist and singer.

Jacob Collier will surely go down as this generation's Miles Davis. What a phenomenal talent.

Maybe the instant gratification and easier learning curve just doesn't give them the same amount of gratification that we got from tabs an figuring stuff out our self. I've learnt songs from tabs on the internet but the resources people have currently are amazing and make the process big learning easier.

You can also hire someone from anywhere in the world to transcribe songs for you and learn your heart out. As a yuppie with a heavy interest in indie music living in a city still filling to the brim with music this is literally the best time to be a musician.

> It's ironic that young people are losing interest in the guitar at a time when there is an amazingly enormous amount of resources freely available for learning it.

That could be part of it. Demystifying something erodes some of the appeal.