Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
GMC Forum _ GMC site feedback & suggestions _ Mtp Issues!
Posted by: maharzan Apr 16 2010, 02:37 AM
Hey Guys,
I know the moderators might not like this but I wanted to give a frank opinion about MTP (from my experience). While this has been a great initiative and I have really learnt very much during the 2 MTPs I have taken, I feel like I could have achieved more if it was continuously running. Both my MTP sessions got left out in the middle and I am stuck at what to do next. I would love to complete MTP with one instructor or continue so after 3-4 MTP sessions (that was why I have trying to not miss assignments / REC set by MTP rules), I can complete most of the stuff I want to learn. Obviously, its not possible to complete everything about Guitar in 1 MTP.
I am sure most members who were in my MTP agree with me. Its not that we should scrap it totally (after reading this post) but we need to really find a mechanism that works for everyone, for instructors, for students, for GMC. I really want to push myself to grab every technique / theory possible within some period of time but thats not happening as of now.
Finally, one suggestion we might want to think is having lower member fees and perhaps charge a little more (reasonable, I don't know what that is) separately for MTP sessions, if that works... but make sure MTPs get completed. I am all up for this.
Just my two cents. I really want to learn but am tired of waiting.. That doesn't mean I haven't been doing anything though. Theres always self learning. 
Thanks for reading,
Chandra
PS - Don't ban me from this site if you hate this post. I just want this to be a positive discussion and I am in no way criticizing this program.
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 03:19 AM
Where did I put that cricket.
Posted by: maharzan Apr 16 2010, 03:31 AM
ha jafo! I remember that..
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 03:34 AM
What do you mean by your MTP sessions got left out in the middle?
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 16 2010, 03:57 AM
His MTP instructor had a significant amount of personal and work issues to attend to, over the last 6 months. This has made it hard for him to be able to maintain momentum with the MTP group. Hence the phases of MTP have started and then stopped quite a bit before the three month mark. I'm in the same boat, and would have hoped to maintain some momentum. Circumstances did not permit for this to happen, hence the frustration of all in that group. *shrug* I'm all for a separate fee for MTP, frankly. I think the concept of the program is sound, but it's in it's infancy as far as execution.
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 04:30 AM
That's a bummer......life is what happens while making other plans right???......Keep working Chandra.......you are already a very good player.......\m/\m/
Posted by: maharzan Apr 16 2010, 05:40 AM
Thanks lcsdds. I have been trying best of mine.. practicing 4-5 sometimes 8 hours a day. (well approx.. I just grab guitar when I am free.. every few mins) I work from home.. thats the beauty. 
Ye.. I am just looking for extra boost and motivation. I have been a self learner in almost everything even guitar but have virtually not progressed for some 15 years because I didn't have that extra motivation nor mentor. It is true that it helps grab things faster if there was someone behind you and pushing you all the time. When I started out MTP, I got that boost and I appreciate very much on the MTP program for what I am now. I just wanted it to continue.
Posted by: zen Apr 16 2010, 06:36 AM
I like to see such honest posts and these should be taken in the best of spirits, so we can improve this community further.
I believe MTP is still in it's preliminary stages of development. And it may truly need work on both ends.
I know your batch was affected the most (especially considering that most of you are at a VERY good level of playing).
But that's quite unfortunate. And I can't feel what you went though coz i didnt have to experience that. I would've probably failed each of the assignments coz they are way difficult for me. But I DO admire the patience exhibited by the entire batch. But once again, it could happen to anyone, personal problems and issues may crop up in anyone's lives and everything else related to guitar then becomes secondary.
But on the contrary, my experience with MTP was fantastic. I did restructure my entire routine so I can sucessfully complete it. Yes, this did include making some sacrifices on sleep or leisurely activities and even taking taking leaves from work !!! Having a terrific mentor of course made this process so much smoother.
My only concern was the lack of reasoning provided behind the new MTP rules. Everyone deserved to know why the rules changed and what factors influenced those changes coz we are paying customers here. And especially considering the fact that we take pride on the "community" element of GMC.
Another conccern I have is the lack of responses on threads like this, where people read, agree to what's being discussed but never post their opinion on it. This is more damaging to the community. I would very much appreciate if atleast Kris responds to this thread.
Anywayz, I am optimistic that things will change for good if we are to remain the top ranked site.
Maharzan, Your commitment, hard work and discipline is admirable but unfortunately, not everyone takes these things that seriously . ... so always look out for yourself ... never be dependant on other 'events' or things for your own progress and happiness. At the end of the day, it is you and you alone who has to sit and improve your playing by setting goals. But I agree if you are a paying customer primarily for MTP, then you have some pretty solid concerns there...coz it's definetly not easy to see that hard earned money go to waste.. All the best man.
Posted by: audiopaal Apr 16 2010, 08:02 AM
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!??? 
I really appreciate your honesty, and think posts like this should be taken for what they are..
An honest opinion, and that is worth listening too!
It's a shame your MTP got cut off in the middle, and hopefully steps are taken to ensure that MTP gets better in the future
I hope an instructor takes me under his wings sometime, as I could probably bet some proper practicing done then
And yes, you're a great player and hopefully you'll get a new shot at MTP with a better outcome
Posted by: maharzan Apr 16 2010, 08:24 AM
haha audiopaal.. I AM THE BOSS!! I know if someone comes and YELLS at me on MY site, I am definitely PISSED OFF!
anyways, we seriously need to discuss how we can make MTP better and get it as a MAIN ATTRACTION to GMC.
Posted by: audiopaal Apr 16 2010, 08:39 AM
anyways, we seriously need to discuss how we can make MTP better and get it as a MAIN ATTRACTION to GMC.
I agree completely, as the MTP can be a huge selling point for potential new members
Posted by: zen Apr 16 2010, 08:49 AM
If that someone is a paying customer in a customer oriented business, then being pissed off would probably be the worst emotion to exhibit and would make matters much worse
Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 16 2010, 08:49 AM
Thanks for the feedback maharzan - I have read everything in this thread and while I digest your post I will change the name of this thread. "Total failure" doesn't seem to match your description and is not good starting point if you want a constructive discussion about mtp improvements.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 16 2010, 08:53 AM
I don't really think this is a big issue, even that I think the 3-month rule is a little bit stupid. There are plenty of other activities going on, and since the MTP is an open program its easy to follow other students lessons as well. I agree that a fee on the MTP would be fair though - then will only the one's who's really concerned bout their playing apply, and hence put less stress on the instructors. But then shall the regular fee been lowered maybe a little bit, since a lot of young players cannot afford the rate as it is even today. Or maybe have some "ticket"-system for the lessons???
I said this before, the only thing I think is bad bout the MTP, is that it seems that more than 50% are wasting the instructors time by not completing their assignments/not even tries to. The one's who's really interested suffers ofc. of this, and I'm sorry for You buddy! 
On the other hand, 3-months passes quickly, and the next time its your turn!
//Staffay
Posted by: maharzan Apr 16 2010, 10:16 AM
Thanks Kris! I wanted write a harsh msg..
Yep Staffay, absolutely right. The only concern to that is I don't want to join if I will be left again in the middle.. it will just be like touch base something in all MTP and not completing any one of them.
Posted by: Chris Evans Apr 16 2010, 11:35 AM
good post imo, a lot of the activities etc that are on GMC develop from these kind of discussions, provided they are presented in a reasonable way (which I think it has been ) and are not just used to bash then its all healthy as far as I`m concerned.
there was several replies at the start of the last phase which have been noted, and like wise in this one too
the MTP is in its infancy still, unfortunatly life throws us things that although we started with the very best intentions are simply unable to meet, it is of course very unfortunate that your instructor had to break away at this point in your MTP this is definatly an area in which we need to look at in the future phases.
From what I understand most are reasonably happy with the MTP until it stops for one reason or another?
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 03:15 PM
I think the reason is more important than to gloss over. When that reason is "the instructor disappeared" there's a lot more unhappiness going on that isn't being posted.
I watched all the mtp-required REC videos that were submitted in the current rules and I read all the MTP threads; especially the old ones from earlier in 2009. I've seen the skill and playing ability improved significantly on a few members which I will list here and illustrate something.
- Kaznie_NL
- VelvetRoger
- Maharzan
- lcsdds
- NoSkill
The first four of those members improved their playing ONLY under the old mtp system that did not burden the instructor or students with deadlines and assignments. NoSkill is the exception because even when his instructor disappeared for months at a time --all three of his three-month attempts-- NoSkill continued to work through as much of the program as he could. This included finding assignments that were handed to other students and making REC submissions of his own. He also sought some outside advice and tutoring which throws his MTP-based improvement into more question.
From where I'm standing the older system worked and the new one doesn't work yet. The instructors and students are being held to a system that is no longer encouraging "mentorship" and has just enough added hassle that it's far too easy for both to suddenly "not have time" to participate. When a student doesn't participate, they walk out of the program, that's fine. When the instructor stops participating consistently after week three of a twelve week program, three times in a row, that is when things turn bad for his five-to-seven students.
I hope this isn't worded with too much rancor, but we all say the program is in its infancy yet it's been alive for a year. The last half of that year it has spent on a gurney in the hospital emergency room, bleeding to death and waiting for an examination.
Posted by: intemperateControl Apr 16 2010, 03:45 PM
Interesting thread. I too believe that at times circumstances beyond our control
prevents even the best among us from following through with the best of intentions.
Might I suggest having a few backup volunteers among participating instructors in
order to see there is no lapse in the program whenever circumstances like this may
arise. Secondly, creating some structured programs based on the clients preferences
might also help save some time, not to sacrifice that personal touch I think the MTP
is meant to provide, but some things really are cut and dried and some things not.
Anyway, just my two cents (na, let's call it a nickel's worth). Hang loose guys.
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 04:50 PM
I'm gonna agree with Jafo on this one. I was a participant in the original program with Muris as my mentor. My one and ONLY goal for that was to get my AP skills going. Are my AP skills as good as I want them to be.....NO. But......I have a good AP practice routine now and my AP and overall playing have improved as a result. I think the problem with the new system is it is too rigid......this is a result of the required assignments IMO.
Students should be able to practice and learn whatever they want and the instructors should be a resource for that student in the MTP. We all have only a finite amount of time to practice and if a good chunk of that is spent learning a GMC lesson that is not particularly appealing to us then that is kind of a waste of time IMO. I know for me that I would love to sign up for MTP with Pedja and try and leech all of his theory knowledge but I don't particularly want to spend some of my precious practice time working on a GMC lesson that I don't really want to. I guess bottom line is that IMO MTP should be a little less rigid and conform more to what the student wants to work on. Just my two cents......
Posted by: Staffy Apr 16 2010, 05:33 PM
Students should be able to practice and learn whatever they want and the instructors should be a resource for that student in the MTP. We all have only a finite amount of time to practice and if a good chunk of that is spent learning a GMC lesson that is not particularly appealing to us then that is kind of a waste of time IMO. I know for me that I would love to sign up for MTP with Pedja and try and leech all of his theory knowledge but I don't particularly want to spend some of my precious practice time working on a GMC lesson that I don't really want to. I guess bottom line is that IMO MTP should be a little less rigid and conform more to what the student wants to work on. Just my two cents......
Hmmm, I'm with You and Jafo partly here, but I don't see why You can't speak to the instructor about the assignments. I'm doing a MTP with Pedja right now, and we have a dialogue about the assignments and the lessons for the REC as well. I think this can be solved with just a little communication between the student and the teacher. However I think its good for the students to have assignments because it motivates them to perform some practicing - if it would be a "looser" concept lazy students (like me
), will just done the work in half.....One thing that would be very good though, is to have some sort of quee-list - since there are some students dropping off altready in the first month, these spots can be used for them who have participated before and showed some good motivation.
//Staffay
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 05:46 PM
), will just done the work in half.....One thing that would be very good though, is to have some sort of quee-list - since there are some students dropping off altready in the first month, these spots can be used for them who have participated before and showed some good motivation.
//Staffay
I agree with you Staffy. I don't think there shouldn't be assignments.....I just don't think that being required to do a REC posting every month is necessary. It takes time learn a lesson properly and then record it and post it. If I want to just spend time learning theory for instance then it could just be dialogue between Pedja and myself for instance.....no need to learn a GMC lesson in this case. I know that the required REC posting has been a turnoff for some students.
However.....some MTP students are total beginners and want the Instructor to guide them. In this case I think that the instructor assigning GMC lessons and requiring a REC posting is a good thing. I guess my point is that the MTP needs to be able to be adapted to a players SPECIFIC needs and wants and not just be a "one size fits all" type of program........\m/\m/
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 05:55 PM
), will just done the work in half.....I think that assignment for the sake of promoting the REC program is not the same kind of animal as an assignment that the instructors might choose which might target a specific need that the student has. That sort of targeted assignment was used in both current and old MTP programs, but a much higher percentage in the older program when assignments were not required but rather used when the tool was appropriate.
Here's the real thing where the results speak for themselves. In the original MTP program, which was unstructured, the students that chose to do the looser assignments improved far more than anyone in the current MTP program has improved. It's not a question of "if it would be "looser" concept" in the future but rather looking at the past. It was done the "looser" way and it succeeded far more when we look at tangible accomplishments by the students that participated.
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 06:02 PM
Here's the real thing where the results speak for themselves. In the original MTP program, which was unstructured, the students that chose to do the looser assignments improved far more than anyone in the current MTP program has improved. It's not a question of "if it would be "looser" concept" in the future but rather looking at the past. It was done the "looser" way and it succeeded far more when we look at tangible accomplishments by the students that participated.
I agree here as well. I just think the student should be in charge of what they learn IF THEY WANT TO. In my case I wanted to focus just on AP and it helped my playing TREMENDOUSLY. Now.....I've been playing a long time so I was probably more advanced than a lot of the current MTP'ers. If you have a very new player than it is porbably a good idea to let the instructor have a little more say in the structure of the program. We just need to realize that MTP can greatly benefit advanced players as well as beginners and have the program adapt to the needs of the situation. I think MTP is a great idea......I think the new program is not as good as the old program for sure. We all go through phases of what we want to work on in our development and ultimately MTP should be there to help the player accomplish their IMMEDIATE goals if that is desire of the player. Bottom line to me is this.........less rigidity.
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 16 2010, 06:20 PM
Staffy, some instructors are more approachable than others. As hard as it is to generalize the entire program because of the bad experiences of a few, it's equally as difficult to generalize because of the good experiences of a different few. Pedja, as we all know, is in a class of his own, from an instructor standpoint. I don't really see anyone that has had a chance to study with him, that could find fault in the program based on his dedication to it. His is a more isolated situation and can't really be used to describe the program, or answer to maharzan's concerns.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 16 2010, 06:33 PM
This I agree to fully, for more experienced players that has an idea of what they want to do, a looser model is far more adequate. Still I think the REC-video is a good thing, maybe it dont have to be posted for REC, but for showing the instructor how it really looks when You play.
//Staffay
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 06:41 PM
//Staffay
Ah, yes. Requiring that video of playing be posted is totally reasonable. I don't see how that's the same thing as "posting REC submission" however since there are additional rules if the video is to be submitted for actual REC grading.
For example: did you know what happened to the vocal MTP? They were required to sing and play guitar at the same time in order to satisfy REC rules and still required to submit REC to satisfy MTP rules. This rule was added (or clarified?) after the vocal MTP program started. I know you can sing and play at the same time and I know that I have done this also in the past, but a beginner vocalist is going to struggle with that.
One guy even found out that he had to learn two lessons --one vocal, one instrumental-- when that rule was added a week (or less?) before his first REC assignment was due. If the REC requirement drops, that vocal MTP succeeds; the guy was learning and improving.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 16 2010, 06:42 PM
Ofc. it is, some instructors are better than others in the terms of guiding the students. I had an MTP with Ivan in the old system before as well, but I can't complain about that either - it was just great! One thing we must bear in mind is that most teachers here are not "educated", eg. they have no eduction in how to teach things in a pedagogic way, even that they master their instruments superbly. But as an old teacher of mine stated long time ago: "We have something to learn from every musician we meet". I still think most of the problems can be solved with a little conversation, but I also wish that the system was a little less rigid.
//Staffay
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 16 2010, 06:54 PM
//Staffay
Sure, but getting back to maharzan's stated concerns, it isn't the lack of attempts at conversation in this instance, it's the lack of replies to them. I agree that conversation can solve many problems. It just requires more than one participant.
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 07:03 PM
Were you using a different username at that time? You and I both joined GMC after that program was locked.
We're also getting away from the fact that instructors are participating in only 3 of 12 weeks paid program for some of these guys. I know at least three members that kept their subscriptions going at the new higher price ONLY because of MTP hopes.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 16 2010, 07:20 PM
We're also getting away from the fact that instructors are participating in only 3 of 12 weeks paid program for some of these guys. I know at least three members that kept their subscriptions going at the new higher price ONLY because of MTP hopes.
Hmm, maybe You talk of an even older MTP-system, but when I joined with Ivan there was only some assignments, no REC, no grading, but I can recall that before last Christmas some major changes was made.
Yeah, You've right bout loosing focus here. Obviously, I dont think that the instructors getting paid for 12 weeks, when doin just three - and hence, if the reason for the students membership is the MTP, they shall have their money back, if requested. Otherwise it's like cheating the members imo. However, this is just another reason for lowering the general fee and have a separate fee for the MTP-program, like I wrote before. If You don't get the MTP from the instructors You were signed for - then You don't have to pay for it either.
//Staffay
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 07:42 PM
Aye, the one before you and I joined really worked. See if you can find some of those guys playing in a "before and after" style and you'll see. The threads may be gone, I'm not sure, but the way it worked was a little complicated looking. Instructor mentored some intermediate guys, the intermediate guys mentored the beginners. So what looked best was Muris mentoring Lcsdds & Roger, then Lcsdds & Roger mentoring Kaznie and some other folks. If you can see Roger & Kaznie's playing before and after that program, the difference is amazing and far more clear than any improvement (or lack of) that's come from the current system.
Regarding the subscription, I don't think anyone here wants to punish GMC. I think folks just want it fixed for the future. The idea that the MTP costs more and base subscription could cost a little less than current --and still more than the original price from years past-- sounds reasonable but I don't really know anything about Kris' costs for bandwidth and payroll.
Anyway, that first MTP model produced far more visible results in far less time than the current model. That should speak loudly enough.
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 08:14 PM
You would have to talk to Kaz about this for sure but I know that in my MTP group I was really pushing hard that the students learn to count and use the metronome. If you follow those old threads you will see that Kaz was dead set against it......that is why we started calling the metronome the "Kaz box"...... I also "made" those that didn't know scales and triads learn those.....those are basic to being a good player IMO so I pushed it. I spoke to Kaz via youtube recently and he told me that he has really learned his scales well now and can use them in his playing and that he uses the Kaz box on a daily basis. So for Kaz just those few months of focusing on those things have opened up doors to him. For me personally I posted one vid of me doing some AP excercises and Muris right away told me to change my right hand technique. I struggled through and in the end it paid big dividends for my playing. I still don't have shredtastic AP skills but its getting there and my CONTROL with the pick now is %1000 better than it has ever been which has improved my phrasing and dynamics.
I've been thinking about it a little more and I think Jafo if correct......results of first MTP have been better than the results of the current MTP.
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 16 2010, 08:22 PM
I remember the KAZ BOX from that thread quite well, actually, when I was writing about how well that program worked. And the results you, roger, and kaz all showed was really incredible when I went browsing backwards through your youtube accounts.
The competition aspect to become part of that MTP program seemed a little exclusive to me but the rest of its structure and lack of rules-for-rules-sake appears to work very very well.
Posted by: Caelumamittendum Apr 16 2010, 09:10 PM
I'm not a paying member anymore, but I'd like to chip in anyway.
The first MTP, which I didn't join or was in, seemed to work very well. The guys that have already been mentioned in this thread improved massively.
I did join the second version (???) of the MTP with Pedja, and it was great to begin with, before the rules kicked in. We communicated a lot (128 posts back and forth in like 7-8 days) and from that I learned the most. The whole rule-set with REC etc. and very strict deadlines was a BIG turn off for me.
I think to step above the rest of internet sites with lessons, GMC needs to accomodate the individuals in the programs more so than what has happened. It shouldn't just be: "for friday learn this". It should be more like a real teacher/student "relationship".
However, I have stopped being a paying member and most likely will not return as a paying member, but I hope you do take in my opinions too. For me the MTP suddenly became about making it easier for the instructor, and of course it shouldn't be that big a hassle, but I think the student should be in focus and choose what to work on etc.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 16 2010, 09:57 PM
Well, I didn't know that. It makes sense to me - the intermediate guy's get training from the instructors and then pay back by teaching the beginners. The only problem here would be to judge who shall get training from the instructors???
//Staffay
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 16 2010, 10:15 PM
//Staffay
Hence the competition.......
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 16 2010, 10:28 PM
I think Staff has to go back and read some threads so he's up on the infancy of this program as well as where it is now. 
Posted by: JVM Apr 16 2010, 10:47 PM
Like Caelumamittendum, I'm no longer a paying subscriber, but I would say the original plan with instructor->mentor->beginner layout seemed to work best as well. I had a three month period with Pedja over the holiday season last year, which was great, but I think things were too standardized, which may work well for the instructors, especially I know Pedja had quite a full plate, but I think another model that allows for more individualized practice plans would work better.
Posted by: zen Apr 17 2010, 12:34 AM
Oh, That unfortunate @#$%#% was me
That rule suddenly got introduced at the start of the 3rd month into the program of vocal mtp.
It was going very well till then. The first 2 months were awesome and I learnt a lot.
Although, i would love to learn to sing while playing, i thought that would be the next step, after I improve my vocal technique a bit.
If we run a keyboard MTP under Maestro, we're not gonna ask people to play guitar at the same time, are we?
Voice IS another instrument, rarely anyone treats it as such.
Posted by: maharzan Apr 17 2010, 03:45 AM
Wow.. quite some discussion going here now. Really nice overview and suggestions.
While the deadlines / new rules didn't bother me much as it helped me finish the assignment and 'move on' to next even if I didn't perfect it (pass level). I had new things to learn and it helped quite a bit than sticking to one lesson in my leisure time and practicing it for 3 weeks, you know. But most of us don't really like having deadlines in anything.
I would like to know why the old MTP was scrapped and changed? I wasn't here when the old MTP ran. I only joined after it was completed I think and I so wanted to join that program. It WAS THE MAIN ATTRACTION for me. I could learn lessons from any other site you know. There are tabs every where. But there was nothing as MTP at $90 for 3 months (back then). I paid yearly if you were wondering.
I did get a chance to join one later and those first 2 months improved my playing quite a bit, speed, AP. I improved my scales theory (modes) in the 2nd. While a lot of external factors go in here, it would have been perfect if I could have completed both these assignments. At one point, I was waiting for my instructor and asking him when he will be free whenever I meet him, PM, Chat. But I gave up later as I didn't see any chances.
So, set aside other factors, the only concern for me is how to complete one full session of MTP. If 3 months is too long, we can just do 1 month MTP, 4 assignments, FULL STOP. That way, instructors have less time to dedicate, students have more chance to explore and less time to take off from work or schools.
If money is the factor, I agree with Staffay. I am up for lowering the general fee (Its really too high now.. a whooping 150% increase or something) but then for serious learners, separate MTP fee. But it has to make sure the instructors are there for the students when they need it. It has to be from self. Contracts wont' help I think.
If the old MTP works, I am up for teaching absolute beginners. If that helps the overall GMC community, and a marketing pitch.
If the new rules are intact, I am definitely up for continuation of MTP if the student is completing all his assignments and eager to learn more.
GMC should really be marketing some advanced players here and keep track of them. I have seen many good players who were once in GMC are no longer with us and I do not see them coming back. If nothing, it would be great to have some interviews or playing on a backing track and tell the new members / potential members about what GMC has achieved and be a motivation to them.
What do you think might help?
Thanks,
maharzan
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 17 2010, 05:50 AM
If that helps the overall GMC community, and a marketing pitch.+1 !!!
I'd be up for this as well.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 17 2010, 07:45 AM
If the old MTP works, I am up for teaching absolute beginners.
If that helps the overall GMC community, and a marketing pitch.GMC should really be marketing some advanced players here and keep track of them. I have seen many good players who were once in GMC are no longer with us and I do not see them coming back. If nothing, it would be great to have some interviews or playing on a backing track and tell the new members / potential members about what GMC has achieved and be a motivation to them.
Thanks,
maharzan
This I agree too fully. There are plenty of sites/vids/tutorials etc. that can teach You play for free. The MTP is one of the things that make this site unique. I would'nt mind either to have some students to mentor, since I've done a lot of teaching during the years. The only problem herein is however the same as with the current MTP - what happens if an instructor quits/don't have time for his/her students??
The marketing issue is very interesting, I think that GMC shall "brand" the good players on the site, as well as have some sort of "hall of fame", if You can see what I mean here. Those players maybe can have a lifetime membership or something like that. That wouln't be necessary on skill basis, it can be for important contributions to the site or things like that. Also a good thing would be that members that have succeedly completed 3 MTP's (for instance) can have their membership fee reduced. That will make a good motivation for completing the program, and will for sure generate some excellent vids to brand the site with.
Another thing would be to have "users vid of the month" in some sort of competetion way, eg. if You win You can have some month for free.
This is a very interesting discussion, and most of what You guy's say makes sense to me, I only miss some teachers point of view here to make it complete.
//Staffay
Posted by: zen Apr 17 2010, 09:05 AM
//Staffay
+1 . Yep. Beats the purpose of making MTP a success, if this becomes a one way discussion. Definitely need opinions/ thoughts of various instructors in here.
Posted by: purple hayes Apr 18 2010, 12:25 AM
I like this idea too.
I got a lot out of the two MTPs I went through. I'd love to see more people get involved.
Posted by: zen Apr 18 2010, 02:05 AM
Quick Question:
In the old mtp system, were the advance students who mentored beginners rewarded in any manner?
I read suggestions around separate fee/package for only the MTP program.... that might have some downsides: anyone (be it a beginner) who pays for it would probably want to be mentored by an instructor, not by an advanced student.
Posted by: UncleSkillet Apr 18 2010, 04:31 AM
In the old mtp system, were the advance students who mentored beginners rewarded in any manner?
I read suggestions around separate fee/package for only the MTP program.... that might have some downsides: anyone (be it a beginner) who pays for it would probably want to be mentored by an instructor, not by an advanced student.
In the 1st MTP launch we weren't compensated in any way except to be mentored by the great Muris, which in itself was enough for me. I also just enjoyed helping the other members and trying to make a difference to this site and its members.
This new MTP I do have some problems with. Most of what you guys have been saying I agree with. I don't like the REC requirement the most I think. It just seemed like that was thrown in to promote that program more. The teaching needs to be more personal and tailored to the individual student. I'd rather see 2 assignments a month instead of 4. Seems more realistic. We all have time issues (students and instructors) and the way things are now you would have to make this a full time job to teach and or get the required assignments done.
As Monte said, things are just to rigid! We need to bring the fun back into learning and make this less of a military boot camp type template.
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 18 2010, 04:32 AM
In the old mtp system, were the advance students who mentored beginners rewarded in any manner?
I read suggestions around separate fee/package for only the MTP program.... that might have some downsides: anyone (be it a beginner) who pays for it would probably want to be mentored by an instructor, not by an advanced student.
They were rewarded by being mentored by an instructor......in my case it was Muris.......\m/\m/
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 18 2010, 04:50 AM
I'd agree with a lot of the concerns about rigidity but I think we're also quoting our personal opinions on the matter and that they all differ. What this says to me is that it should be left to the discretion of the instructor. We trust them to teach, so let's trust them to understand how much of a strict schedule a student will want / need / respond to.
I think we could find some other ways to promote and encourage users to participate in the REC program. Even a simple (and more public) ladder and scoreboard would make that program more tempting. The existing scoreboard is fine but it's not on the front page, y'know? There could also be a few categories. Greatest improvements, most passed submissions, highest current score, etc. A few top-10 lists even.
One thing I learned from world of warcraft is that if you give young people a ladder, there will always be a fairly high percentage of guys just itching to see if they can climb it. Fix REC by fixing rec. Fix MTP by fixing MTP. This particular marriage of the two isn't healthy as it is described right now.
Posted by: zen Apr 18 2010, 05:00 AM
Yea, this sounds great. Im not against the deadlines as much as everyone else is .. Sometimes, I do need deadlines etc as they give me a sense of direction and a goal to work for... so I don't waste my time noodling random things, not progressing much. Plus everyone has different schedules, students may have a different allocated guitar playing hours as compared to a working individual who can probably only shell out an hour in a day. Doesn't mean that person has to miss out on having a mentor.
What an amazing idea !! "this month's top 10 students list" will be cool as it might not have the same people every month.
Posted by: maharzan Apr 18 2010, 05:21 AM
RE: zen, I think the student MTP should be free, thats where the low fee for MTP with instructor might be justified. You are also contributing to GMC.
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 18 2010, 05:25 AM
Well, I think that the first thing that needs to be hammered out, is a way to choose instructors and students who both have the time to actually participate for three months. All the great suggestions aside, instructors don't want to be chasing students for their assignments, and students don't want to hear crickets in the instructors MTP board. All of the other details may be some things that would expand on the program as it evolves, but it will never evolve if there isn't consistent commitment from instructor and student alike.
I hoped that the MTP program would be a springboard to further learning. In a way, it has. I have been able to learn things that I didn't know before. The problem is one of momentum. What do I do with this knowledge now? How do I incorporate this stuff into my playing? Circumstances that were beyond my and my instructors control, didn't allow us to ever create momentum that took things from the theoretical to the practical. For that, I had to go outside of the MTP program, and outside of GMC. Essentially, to have things explained and connected, that I had learned in my MTP. Not ideal, but no blame layed. It just comes down to my first point. There really should be a selection process that involves making a commitment. I think that a fee is the only way to get it from the students. For motivating instructors? I have no idea.
If you sign up for one, and don't make your assignments, you don't get another one unless you pay a fee. If you take students and then are unable to complete the program? I guess we get to start threads of complaint where these issues are tossed back and forth between parties that have no say in the matter and are "closely," monitored by people that do.
I remain optimistic that this might turn into something great.
Cheers!
Posted by: maharzan Apr 18 2010, 05:39 AM
Agreed NoSkill.. My primary concern is the same. I don't want to be choosing 'good' instructors every 3 months (if that happens) and then only to be abandoned in the mid of the session.. so you are basically trying the same little knowledge from every instructor and not completely knowing how and where to apply the things you have learnt. At first, I was so optimistic that I could continue my MTP with just 1 instructor for a year which I thought would have been sufficient to know all the scales / modes and all the techinques and how where to apply them.
I have been trying my best to apply what I have learnt (in collabs) and have been quite successful as well but it would have been more easier to grasp if this was coming from the instructor end as well. People might argue, its all upto you but seriously, its the coach who trains his student to become the great student. You can see that in every field.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 09:11 AM
I think this is a great idea too. But the REC-program is also too rigid imo. Whats the point in learning someone others solo note-by-note? For players that have been around for some time, this might be a self-explaining issue (since if You got some routine, You can analyze a solo properly and play it accurate, otherwise not), but I think most of us wants to just study some ideas and then have a go on the backing track and jam along. Why can't that be graded? We are improvisers - not machines. (drawing a parallell too the wiz-kid Youtube discussion here)
The most important thing for a guitar-player is style, not technique, so I'm definitely up for making the REC-system more dynamic. Why dont people post their playing (with whatever background) and grade them according to the 10-degree scale??? Simple, isn't it?
//Staffay
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 09:37 AM
I think that a fee is the only way to get it from the students. For motivating instructors? I have no idea.
Cheers!
Right. +1 on this. Motivating the instructors should'nt be that hard though, since they already got paid for doin lessons. It's just to write in their "contracts" that they will have X numbers of students along with the lessons - otherwise there will be no payment. It will ofc. take some resources to supervise this, but however I think it will be fairly easy. The teachers that receives complains for not making any commitment to their students, are not teachers in my eye's anyway, and they can be left out on a site as this, where we strive for a good level of learning & teaching.
Without naming any names its fairly easy to point out who's "real" teachers and who's not. We have a vast amount of lessons, but also a vast amout that doesn't encourage the student at all. The problem here is that most of the lessons are "constructed" solo's and makes no sense in reality at all. I could probably write a level 11 lesson myself (I will not be able to play it though...
), and here is really where You can differ the teachers from each other. A major problem seems to be the fact that a lot of the lessons doesn't explain WHY it sounds good. Its just a couple of licks thrown in on a background with any further explanation. Something that would have been a lot more interesting is to hear the instructors really improvise over a background and then make a transcription. (like our competitor does with Mr.Govan fronting the site)Anyway, I still think the MTP is a good thing, and what makes this site unique. With some small adjustments according to this discussion it will be even better and a main attraction to the site!
//Staffay
Posted by: maharzan Apr 18 2010, 09:45 AM
TO add to that, Staffay, I think the Collaborations are a good way to go (as a start).. so Just post a video of you while playing the collaboration licks then post it in the REC.. which of course can be graded by instructors or even students if that helps.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 09:53 AM
+1 Good idea!
Posted by: Marek Rojewski Apr 18 2010, 10:36 AM
I also agree that the old MTP system worked better. In the "new" one, I ended my MTP in the middle of the cycle, because both of my instructors had some time issues. Both of those short cycles gave something to me, so it is not that I earned nothing from them, yet it is far far from being ideal.
Before that I was in the Instructor-Intermediate-beginner MTP, mentored by Lcsdds, and it helped me the most. We had many interesting topics running on our board, and what was most important for my playing was that Monte encouraged me to try some collabs/compositions. Before that I was sure that I am unable to create anything, and thanks to those words of encouragement I started to participate in those activities, which gave me much inspiration and motivation and in result lead to much progress (at least in my own eyes ).
To sum up the MTP thing of mine - thanks Monte!
And as a side note --> while MTP can be a main attraction of GMC if it is changed back to the Instructor-intermediate-beginner system, it wont be possible in the new system. The amount of time to really mentor a student is high, the amount of instructors ready to do it not so high, so we really can't advertise GMC with a thing that would be closed after first 200 new members at best.
Posted by: zen Apr 18 2010, 10:38 AM
We obviously all care about this program and are VERY passionate about the site's success
Still not sure why none of the instructors have posted in this thread yet ..with their suggestions/ opinions.. 
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 11:17 AM
Still not sure why no instructor has posted in this thread yet with their suggestions/ opinions..
I think its because this is a CIA-issue - secret players never comments on their lessons....
//Staffay
Posted by: stratman79 Apr 18 2010, 12:46 PM
This is a really interesting thread, I'm on my first MTP program now and I'm enjoying the fact I'm set assignments as it 'makes' me practise something I othwise wouldn't do. I have learnt some cool stuff in the first month and really look forward continuing with it. That been said I've done 1 Rec and this month have 2 simelar assignments and a REC, what I do find is that as I have only a few days (partly because I was away on holiday) to work on a piece that I just end up learning the notes, I should really take the time to learn it in different positions and different keys (the same with all lessons learn what you are playing over otherwise its pointless).
I liked Staffy's idea that if you complete 3 MTPs you get a reduced rate. I also agree that another good idea be to lower the price and get people to pay a seperate MTP fee, that IMO would motivate the teachers more, I think they should get paid for the MTP and it shouldn't be written in to there contract as some teachers will be under more demand. maybe if the pupils paid the teacher directly??
Regarding the REC I don't think people like to post up there playing as they don't want to fail. with a 7.5 pass average you have to get mostly 8's. I think from what I read they want to make a GMC qualification which is why you have to learn the lesson exactly, I liked Staffys idea of playing over a backing track but how would they rate the difficulty as well as how accurate you are? on the other hand I learnt one of Ivans blues lessons but changed the last 3 bars and a few bits of phrasing but I couldn't post it up as a REC even though I learnt the lesson... finally I think the last problem is that people don't want to post up pieces that are too easy as will bring there 'rating' down.
Posted by: kaznie_NL Apr 18 2010, 12:52 PM
I had the same experience I was in MTP with Ivan for one or two months, and then the month was over and I was kinda dropped I had to wait three months at a new mtp round, because I was to late with subscribing to a new round, because of the fact I thought I was still in with Ivan!
Now I'm with Ivan again, luckily
Posted by: tonymiro Apr 18 2010, 01:14 PM
//Staffay
Just my opinion for what it's worth...
Yes and no Staffy. Pedagogically there are as many learning styles as there are teaching methods. No one way is 'best' in a simple sense; what is required is matching the teaching and learning style. (In a more complicated sense there isa 'better' here and that involves moving a student's learning style from one approach to a different one - I'm sure you can guess which I favour
.) A reflexive student will learn more and more deeply by being provided with an example rather than being told a solution. The reflexive student will consider how and why their approach differs and what they may do to alter anything to match the example and if indeed they need to. A non-reflexive student will require a teaching method that (more) fully explicates the example. So as many people have already said in this thread what is required is flexibility on the part of both student and mentor; that requires both an understanding of styles on the part of the mentor and an ability to apply and adjust to them, and so pedagogic experience . Nonetheless, as you mentioned a page or so back few are pedagogically trained (oddly enough I am) and so there is a learning curve here for both the students and the mentors. (One thing though - I do know that Kris spends quite a lot of time considering not just how good a guitar player a prospective Instructor is but also on their ability to communicate their understanding.) As Chris says the program is in its early stage - although it may have been running for a year it has only really been through a limited number of full iterations. At the UK Universities I work for it takes several years to bed in, properly assess and learn from how well a new module/program/course etc has worked and so be able to adjust it in an informed manner rather than reacting to issues as they arise.
I am also, like you, rather reticent about 'naming and shaming'. UK universities have had this sort of student feedback for many years alongside the 'number count' of how popular a course is based on the number of students who do it. In the first instance 'naming and shaming' is too open to abuse by students who like or dislike, for whatever reason, a particular Instructor and vice versa by mentors who seek to curry favour with their students, and so gain positive feedback: neither lead to a good learning environment or experience in the longer term. In the latter case, 'popularity', students don't always chose what is educationally better but often opt for what is easier to achieve: there is both an impetus to acquire short term rewards rather than longer term learning, and a desire to avoid what is seen as 'difficult'. In the UK too many Higher Educational Institutions have dropped Science and Maths courses because students don't take them as they are 'difficult'. This has lead to some Institutions now being unbalanced in their curricula. Just because more students chose to study course 'x' does not mean it, or its instructor, is better, valuable or more meaningful than course 'y'.
What I think is great about this thread is the feedback that Kris and Chris will no doubt reflect on in order to see how the program may learn and improve.
Just my 2 cents though
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 04:00 PM
That wouldn't be so hard.... Kris and the other guy's already rates the Instructors lessons based on those criterias, so why could not the students be judged on the same basis? The idea here is to rate the level of the student in total, not a particular lick or phrase.
//Staffay
Posted by: Marek Rojewski Apr 18 2010, 04:08 PM
Staffy, but what about sloppy playing? Now when I got some bad grades on a REC take, it means I play something in wrong timing/sloppy. A lvl 10 lick played sloppy isn't a lvl 5 lick played well...
So instructors would have to grade both the technique and the musicality, now they only have to grade the technique, and I am not a fan of grading musicality...
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 04:37 PM
.) A reflexive student will learn more and more deeply by being provided with an example rather than being told a solution.I agree 100% to this Tony, I maybe talked too much "in general" here, I was speaking bout the actual lessons on the site, not the MTP. In my point of view there is no point in mastering an advanced solo with a lot of key-changes for instance, if You dont know the theory behind. Its like learning Pythagoras theorem without knowing that the sum of the angles is always 180 degrees. What I was pointing out was that a lot of lessons tells what notes to play and which scales to use - but not how it was constructed and the thinking behind. Its like giving half of the solution, and it makes no sense to me.
In the case of MTP-training, the actual problem is that it requires different way's of teaching according to the students level - eg. a beginner will for sure benefits from a more defined, goal-intense education whilst a intermediate player will benefit more from a reflexive way of learning. The problem for the teacher here, is to actual place himself on the same level as the student and take it from there. I did some learning at the University for a teacher that I have overpassed technically years before, but he adopted my kind of playing at that time, and I learned a lot from him by just guidance. Since I had some pedagogical education as well, its fairly easy for me to see what lessons or which instructors who are pedagogical. But thats not an easy task for someone without experience on a beginner level, even that it is easy to see which teachers making the most commitments to the students.
//Staffay
So instructors would have to grade both the technique and the musicality, now they only have to grade the technique, and I am not a fan of grading musicality...
Sloppy playing will ofc. hold back the level of grading. On the other side of the coin - some of the lessons here on the site contains both "sloppiness" and lack of musicality by my means. The system I'm talking bout here, must not be taken so serious, since we actually can't judge in music at all imo. Neither do I think the grading of the lessons is 100% accurate, or the judges points in the current REC-program. Its all a subjective matter, what I'm talking bout is to encourage more people to take part in the REC-program by loosing it up a little.
//Staffay
Posted by: tonymiro Apr 18 2010, 04:54 PM
In the case of MTP-training, the actual problem is that it requires different way's of teaching according to the students level - eg. a beginner will for sure benefits from a more defined, goal-intense education whilst a intermediate player will benefit more from a reflexive way of learning. The problem for the teacher here, is to actual place himself on the same level as the student and take it from there. I did some learning at the University for a teacher that I have overpassed technically years before, but he adopted my kind of playing at that time, and I learned a lot from him by just guidance. Since I had some pedagogical education as well, its fairly easy for me to see what lessons or which instructors who are pedagogical. But thats not an easy task for someone without experience on a beginner level, even that it is easy to see which teachers making the most commitments to the students.
//Staffay
...
Very true Staffay though pedagogically there is a deeper sense of learning below the theorum concerned with reflexivity and the paradigm that one inhabits. In a general sense it's the understanding not just of a theory and method but of the methodological presumptions that grounds the theory and why that theory and method are used in the first place. At a deep reflexive level we are able to partially surface and critique our own paradigm and from that question and challenge our own belief structure on how the world operates. If we can achieve that then we have - to use the Hegelian term - achieved aufhebung (or in French 'la releve') and so both learnt what we are and are able to move beyond it taking what is good with us
.In guitar terms there is the difference between rote learning the notes of the minor pentatonic - which is superficial learning. There is a deeper understanding, which requires an understanding of how that scale is constructed and how it may be used. At a deeper level there is also a consideration of how it fits in to [a] particular conception[s] of how and what is music and musical and why, and from that how it may be used against itself...
On your second point - again very true - and it is why Nietzsche argued via the Idiot that we may learn from anyone and any experience - the key being that we are open enough to learn
.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 18 2010, 07:00 PM
.Now we're talking buddy! We shall have Kris to read some Nietzsche before the next change in the MTP!!!!
//Staffay
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 19 2010, 01:25 AM
I'm flying across the pond, and punching the next person to say, "pedagogically." I will, of course, wear my oven mitts.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 19 2010, 06:25 AM
Aaahhh, touche' ! I can spot a happy marriage between Your oven mitts and my hat coming up!!!!
//Staffay
Posted by: wrk Apr 19 2010, 07:01 AM
Just want to add something to the discussion .. don't know if everybody remember all different steps of the MTP development (?)
The MTP was first tested by Kris and Chris in Oct. 2008. The first real MTP (Instructor-SudentMentor / StudentMentor-Student) started in Dec. 2008. This phase was mentioned above a few times as the most successful phase and i agree to a certain point with that... BUT imo the main reason this phase became successful because it was something new !!
The attempt to start a 2nd phase with the same structure was canceled during the selection process, simply because there were not enough Student-Mentor applications for this program.
The following MTP was completely open. Everybody could apply and choose the topic he/she wants to work on. Instructors came up with great assignment ideas which were a nice addition to the GMC's video lesson library.
In the middle of this phase, things got a bit mess up by rules. I think a simple structure would be the easiest and most flexible to make every member happy:
1. members can enter the MTP whenever they want/have time.
2. members can participate as long they want. Some members need a long term structure/practice plan. Others just need guidance/feedback from time to time.
3. members and instructors can freely discuss/define the topic they want to work on.
4. REC assignments could be used as a tool if it fits to the topic.
5. if budget is a problem for GMC, define a separated subscription option, easy to activate/deactivate when members need it/have time. That would release members, not interested in this program, to pay for it and motivat others to work even harder as they pay every month for there participation.
6. If an instructor falls out, the students are dispatched to someone else. Maybe via a selection list during the subscription process.
One last word: Tony is maybe right that it needs years to develop the "perfect" program and i fully respect that !! I just wish at this point GMC would open a bit more it's way of communication with members !! There have been other topics on this matter before and GMC staff has been surprisingly absent. I guess the MTP is more complex to structure and organize in the background as we think. Of course members don't need to be involved in every decision GMC is taking, but responses are nearly limited to " ... we will look into it" .. followed by announcing new rules which they call them self as "unpopular". In GMC's own good, why they want to do that ? Frustration and education does not go well together !!!
Andy
Posted by: tonymiro Apr 19 2010, 11:27 AM
One last word: Tony is maybe right that it needs years to develop the "perfect" program and i fully respect that !! I just wish at this point GMC would open a bit more it's way of communication with members !! There have been other topics on this matter before and GMC staff has been surprisingly absent. I guess the MTP is more complex to structure and organize in the background as we think. Of course members don't need to be involved in every decision GMC is taking, but responses are nearly limited to " ... we will look into it" .. followed by announcing new rules which they call them self as "unpopular". In GMC's own good, why they want to do that ? Frustration and education does not go well together !!!
Andy
Just from my experience in Higher Education - at the UK Universities that I've worked for we include Student Representatives in some of the stages for Module and Program design and in all the stages for Module and Program Review (albeit that at some points they're politely asked to leave the room
.) We don't always follow their recommendations but we do ask for them and we do feedback to them as to what and why we do certain things. So I take your point about communication Andy .Staffay - Kris reading Nietzsche - we'll have to work on it
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 19 2010, 03:29 PM
I forgot that there wasn't enough interest in round 2 of MTP and that is how the current MTP format came about. I guess we only have ourselves as students to blame for the current format then...........
Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Apr 20 2010, 01:49 PM
Despite all the problems, MTP is free, and anybody who is member can join in. I think some time is needed for developing it, and these topics are exactly what is necessary. In such a cool community, I'm sure we can all come to some agreements on how the MTP is suppose to look like. Don't forget there are a lot of people who would like to test MTP as well in these first stages, so why don't we wait for more people to check it out and then we can see how it can be changed to be in everyone's interest
Posted by: Caelumamittendum Apr 20 2010, 02:32 PM
Only for members with an active subscription.
Which means that I for one cannot join (again), which is fair.
I'll take the blame too for that one. I would've signed up as a mentor, had it not been for a few personal problems back then.
Posted by: zen Apr 20 2010, 02:34 PM
Which means that I for one cannot join (again), which is fair.
Did you stop being a member coz of the new mtp rules ?? Or did they contribute to your decision ?
Posted by: Caelumamittendum Apr 20 2010, 02:37 PM
The new MTP rules didn't suit me, no. As I stated earlier, me and Pedja had a cool thread going, which grew to like 128 posts in 8 days, as we were both commited to the cause. New rules turned me off, and I decided to quit the MTP.
They did however not contribute to my decision to stop being a member, as this was long before those thoughts even occured to me
Posted by: maharzan Apr 20 2010, 02:40 PM
I agree with Ivan but its been a year or more? And I don't want to be waiting more years to learn you know. I know what you can argue with here but I think we have really learnt enough by now to implement a 'working' MTP from next phase.
Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Apr 26 2010, 03:07 PM
Thanks again for the opinions here.
A returning question is "why did the mtp rules change"? The simple answer is to prevent GMC from going bankruptcy.
We have misjudged who will want to do mtp, how long they will want to do it, along with a whole bunch of other things on the back end side. I am not that sad about it, because I know that the best (and only, sometimes) way to learn is to try.
The ride so far has been a valuable experience, and I am proud over the success I had with the http://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=4& student ever, Praetorian. Some of you probably know that as a complete beginner he has been doing huge progress. And after all from a student perspective the mtp program we have now is better than no mtp program at all (the mtp program has little impact on the gmc subscription price).
Regarding Mahazran's interrupted mtp - this is definitely not ok and something we should address in future mtps.
The battle is not over yet though - and we are actively thinking about ways to improve the program, in other words dealing with many of the common problems mentioned in this thread.
It sounds like you have misunderstood this Jafo, the rules say that vocal mtp:ers are required to submit a REC take just like guitar mtp. The only way I see this could happen was if the student chose a lesson containing both singing and playing, I believe we have one by Ivan Mihaljevic.
Of course there wasn't any added rule one week before an assignment was due.
I understand you are frustrated but stating things you have heard as facts doesn't really add to the discussion. Sure there have been lots of misunderstandings back and forth but that's hard to avoid when humans interact.
Posted by: maharzan Apr 26 2010, 03:16 PM
Thanks for you input Kris. It was long awaited.
Posted by: jafomatic Apr 26 2010, 03:35 PM
I disagree with this. If what the students told me was not what you told the instructors, then the students somehow walked away with bad information that was presumably getting mangled in one or more of three translations/repetitions.
That seems entirely germane to the discussion; it results in the unintended loss of a student who, as far as he knows, was victim of some rules that he didn't understand as necessary.
Thanks for taking the time to weigh in.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 26 2010, 07:23 PM
A returning question is "why did the mtp rules change"? The simple answer is to prevent GMC from going bankruptcy.
We have misjudged who will want to do mtp, how long they will want to do it, along with a whole bunch of other things on the back end side. I am not that sad about it, because I know that the best (and only, sometimes) way to learn is to try.
Now I don't understand this at all??? With the new 3 months MTP / 3 months not, people are dropping their membership. How can this rule be succesful in an economical perspective??? If this is the issue here, MTP should be organized in a way so that every member can participate 12 months a year. The same goes for the rules of REC etc. - why do You have to pass each month to continue? If everyone continues and stays as members, there will be most money in the pocket. Or am I wrong here?
I do understand that all this this is pretty much "watch and learn", but I can't see any problem in that every instructor will have 4 students for instance, and then I think everone who wants to participate can. (however, I dont know if the teachers gets paid per student for the MTP, but as I see it, in order to be a teacher here - You SHALL do MTP's)
Thats just my 2 cents for the moment. Ideas for alternative way's to do this has already been written by a lot of us, so I wont discuss it anymore here.
//Staffay
Posted by: zen Apr 26 2010, 11:32 PM
Of course there wasn't any added rule one week before an assignment was due.
I understand you are frustrated but stating things you have heard as facts doesn't really add to the discussion. Sure there have been lots of misunderstandings back and forth but that's hard to avoid when humans interact.
Hey Kris, thanks for posting and making this a 2 way communication. Much appreciated.
As mentioned above, that student was me. I can reasonably comprehend what is taught and communicated to me, and I try to leave no room for misunderstandings. Vocal mtp was merely quoted as an example here (but what was quoted was a fact) but let me clarify that the REC to be a take involving both vocals & guitars was introduced in the 3rd month of MTP (Read http://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=33671). Sure the rule of REC was always in place but noone knew WHAT would make a REC for vocal mtp (since all vocal lessons are purely improvisations). There was a brief confusion of doing covers as REC which was quickly cleared due to backing track copyright issues etc. SO even if we were to believe for a second that the lesson by Ivan Mihaljevic (where he plays and sings) was the perfect one for REC, what happens after that? There are no more lessons like that. Vocal instructors do not play guitar while singing. The instructor was doing a great job in the first 2 months. I even submitted 8 assignments within those months (no other student did that in the batch). But after this rule, even the instructor seemed a bit tensed, confused and I was clearly upset and this caused it all to break down. FYI There was NO mis-communication between the instructor and myself. We were doing very well..... It was just not planned properly, but it was the first time (with vocal mtp) so we can hop on that for a while. Ah well, lets look at the brighter side, at least my instructors didn't disappear on me 3 times without any announcement. And my guitar mtp was a great great success.
As Andy mentioned above, learning and frustration do not go well and I'm beginning to feel it now. I come here for education and fun and not to get frustrated. I know this has to be taken care of by myself only and no mtp or golden/magical lesson can help me but I was just trying to clarify the facts, so future mtp'ers don't go through the same experiences and this program can be strengthened.
But once again I'm glad that you have decided to take an active part in this discussion. At least now we have some sort of assurance that the time spent here caring about this program and this site is not going to go to waste.
Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 27 2010, 01:17 AM
Hi guys!
I have read his great thread and all your responses. Some very strong ideas and opinions that I support.
Let me just say that from my angle, MTP was better when there were no rules involved. I take Ben's case, when we were communicating back an forth all the time and he had more than 4 assignments for that month ( I think more like 8 assignments). This worked because I could adjust to what Ben needed, his original pace was different then what other students would do and he was never shy to ask extra questions. This is why everything worked, he got what he asked for, knowledge in theory and harmony, arranging and reharmonizing techniques.
With new rules I wasn't too pleased because a lot of students who were active and did GREAT WORK had to stop studying with me. I have to be honest (as I am always) and tell you that this hit me pretty hard. I didn't see (and still don't see) the point of mentoring somebody for 3 months then letting him/her go to wait for another 3 months. If I was mentored like this by my instructors I could never see myself being motivated to practice and play 10+ hours every day. Some of you mentioned momentum in here, I agree with your statement, momentum was lost for me when that happened. I continued to mentor new students but I can't describe you a bad feeling when students don't do their work or when they drop out for some (or none) reason. This hurts me since I like to take personal approach with every student who wants to work for me. Lets face it, financially speaking, MTP is not paying my bills nor it did payed when old rules were in play, but still I found (and find) motivation for it to dedicate myself fully. When I see rules changing, people dropping out, members leaving site, it strikes me hard and I change my approach slightly. Now you can see that because of new rules I have 2 students (Staffay and Kieran) trough no fault of my own. I try to do my best with those two guys but I don't see how MTP program will work if all these rules stay in play. Something has to change!
My opinion is very simple
People who are interested in MTP and really want to work with specific instructor should pay separate fee just for MTP. They should be also given option (just brainstorming here) not to pay regular membership but to rather just pay MTP. There should be only time limit for that price (for example month of tutoring) and the assignments as well as workload should be handled individually from student to student. In other words, 100% personal approach with stress free and laid back work. If student requires specific program with weekly assignments, instructor should provide him/her that but if he/she can process information and work in different way, he/she should have ability to use that.
This is the only way I see things working. People who really are dedicated and want to study with somebody pay the price. If they quit, no money return because they decide to do so. With current way MTP works, MTP is included in regular membership so member can decide to quit whenever he/she wants. I see extra financial boost as big commitment for potential serious students wanting to participate. I also think that there should not be any restrictions regarding how long or short somebody wants to study with particular instructor. If instructor is very busy and doesn't have any spots, student can choose to be on waiting list or decide to switch to his/her's second choice instructor.
This is the way I see things working and everybody benefiting. GMC getting their cut from extra membership, instructors getting extra pay for MTP in particular and students being hard working and motivated for their commitment and moneys worth.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I would really like to hear what everybody thinks about all this.
Thank you for reading,
Pedja
Posted by: lcsdds Apr 27 2010, 02:30 AM
I have read his great thread and all your responses. Some very strong ideas and opinions that I support.
Let me just say that from my angle, MTP was better when there were no rules involved. I take Ben's case, when we were communicating back an forth all the time and he had more than 4 assignments for that month ( I think more like 8 assignments). This worked because I could adjust to what Ben needed, his original pace was different then what other students would do and he was never shy to ask extra questions. This is why everything worked, he got what he asked for, knowledge in theory and harmony, arranging and reharmonizing techniques.
With new rules I wasn't too pleased because a lot of students who were active and did GREAT WORK had to stop studying with me. I have to be honest (as I am always) and tell you that this hit me pretty hard. I didn't see (and still don't see) the point of mentoring somebody for 3 months then letting him/her go to wait for another 3 months. If I was mentored like this by my instructors I could never see myself being motivated to practice and play 10+ hours every day. Some of you mentioned momentum in here, I agree with your statement, momentum was lost for me when that happened. I continued to mentor new students but I can't describe you a bad feeling when students don't do their work or when they drop out for some (or none) reason. This hurts me since I like to take personal approach with every student who wants to work for me. Lets face it, financially speaking, MTP is not paying my bills nor it did payed when old rules were in play, but still I found (and find) motivation for it to dedicate myself fully. When I see rules changing, people dropping out, members leaving site, it strikes me hard and I change my approach slightly. Now you can see that because of new rules I have 2 students (Staffay and Kieran) trough no fault of my own. I try to do my best with those two guys but I don't see how MTP program will work if all these rules stay in play. Something has to change!
My opinion is very simple
People who are interested in MTP and really want to work with specific instructor should pay separate fee just for MTP. They should be also given option (just brainstorming here) not to pay regular membership but to rather just pay MTP. There should be only time limit for that price (for example month of tutoring) and the assignments as well as workload should be handled individually from student to student. In other words, 100% personal approach with stress free and laid back work. If student requires specific program with weekly assignments, instructor should provide him/her that but if he/she can process information and work in different way, he/she should have ability to use that.
This is the only way I see things working. People who really are dedicated and want to study with somebody pay the price. If they quit, no money return because they decide to do so. With current way MTP works, MTP is included in regular membership so member can decide to quit whenever he/she wants. I see extra financial boost as big commitment for potential serious students wanting to participate. I also think that there should not be any restrictions regarding how long or short somebody wants to study with particular instructor. If instructor is very busy and doesn't have any spots, student can choose to be on waiting list or decide to switch to his/her's second choice instructor.
This is the way I see things working and everybody benefiting. GMC getting their cut from extra membership, instructors getting extra pay for MTP in particular and students being hard working and motivated for their commitment and moneys worth.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I would really like to hear what everybody thinks about all this.
Thank you for reading,
Pedja
I agree 100% with you Pedja. You and I spoke about me being in your MTP but with my limited time to playing guitar we just decided that with the rules of the MTP it wouldn't work......meaning I would have to spend too much time working on stuff I didn't want to work on just to satisfy the rules of MTP. I think a separate fee for MTP would be a great way to solve this problem. Great post Pedja.....\m/\m/
Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Apr 27 2010, 02:39 AM
I am monitoring the discussion carefully, and I think all sides have strong points in something, however there are weaknesses in all sides as well. I would like to point out something very obvious, and don't want to jump into any conclusions yet, I was hoping for everybody to think hard before posting anything, specially anything that concerns how GMC is doing business:
Here are the topics for discussion, be honest everybody:
- If MTP is additionally charged, and members can sign in and stay as long as they want, then new members won't have the chance of getting signed up (since slots will be taken constantly?
what do you think?
- If MTP is lasting 3 months, more members can check out MTP, and instructor can test more people, but members (and probably instructors) loose interest in MTP after completion of MTP round.
what do you think?
- If MTP is NOT additionally charged, members don't have enough motivation to stick to rules of MTP. Since the membership covers the MTP expenses, they can drop out, not complete the tasks and do it "for free". If MTP was charged, almost everybody would rush to complete and take things a lot more seriously (Instructors too).
what do you think?
- If members who join MTP are not being able to follow the rules of MTP because of illness, travelling, or other obligations that are not affected by their decision making, how should their MTP programs be handled? Prolonging deadlines seems the only way to go, but for how long?
what do you think?
- Will MTP develop faster and better if members are additionally charged for it? I believe so.
what do you think?
Posted by: maharzan Apr 27 2010, 03:41 AM
I also agree with Pedja completely here.
A separate fee has been a point of discussion and I am sure people will want to subscribe MTP rather than having to pay a grand fee for regular membership (for which you are left on your own to learn from the videos). Forum has been always free. It will be motivation to all instructors / students as well. GMC will definitely benefit from this as well.
If MTP is charged separately for each month (MTP only lasting for about a month), this can be solved. Its whether you want the current member to be paying or new member paying, if the current rules are in take, the old member will definitely not want to pay.. which makes it even. But, not all members continue their MTP. Till now, I think 2 members from each instructor might have completed all.. correct me if I am wrong. So, new members will definitely have a chance. Plus, if instructors can get paid for each MTP, I am sure more instructors will be motivated to take part as well. If we go the old route, advanced students can also mentor beginners (for which there should be a MTP fee discount). Now this looks complicated.
MTP can start anytime (rather than fixed month) So, if anyone drops out, a new member from waiting list can definitely take part. He shouldn't be charged until he starts MTP though.3 months is a short time for taking MTP, but if you are waiting, thats a really long time. You lose motivation easily. After 2 incomplete MTPs and waiting for a long time, I don't feel like taking MTP again. I am sure some people who started with other instructors have forgotten what they learnt and when they start again, they will have to refresh everything.. waste of a week or two. It should be running all year long so anyone can join anytime if instructor is free and old students drop out. That way more students can take part.
Thats great imo. Since we have run FAILED MTPs in the past, is this something GMC can be proud of at this point? If we have success stories, I think GMC can market really well and it will be like one great University (Harvard ?) and people have to WAIT and qualify to take this class. I don't think having good students hamper anything rather than trying to gather all the members who are interested and not having one success story to tell.
This should be like in any college I think.. They can defer their programme by 1 month at the latest and even then they cannot start, they will miss it, no refunds. If you go to college and you don't complete exams, you fail. no refunds. its simple as that. This will get negative feedback so having one option of deferring might help.
I think so too. At least from my prospective, I could have learnt a lot from the last 9 months than just learning on my own. These days I feel there is very less activity in GMC forums even from instructors. We ask for backing track and it takes ages to respond. We post RECs, it takes another ages. At least if we pay for separate MTP, there is guarantee that I can do what I want to do and not having to wait for long (even though I am paying, I am not getting what I have to). GMC is just pitching they are like 'free extra' services.
Regular Membership is TOO high for what we are getting with new fee. The competitive sites offer far less and if we are only to get video lessons, I am not going to be a member again. I can find tabs / lessons for free anywhere in the internet, so why am I spending money to learn one lesson a month on my own.. ? Thats being total honest.
Thanks,
maharzan
Posted by: NoSkill Apr 27 2010, 04:13 AM
I actually have trouble continuing on this line of discussion without getting a little bitter. The concept of a, "mentor," is probably the element that bothers me the most. The program, in all of these suggestions and concepts, should be called, TTP. Temporary Tutorship Program.
The use of the word mentor, in the name of this program, suggests the formation of the mentor-protege relationship. Something that this program, in it's current rule set strictly prevents. It's the very basis of momentum-killing.
I appreciate the opportunity to work with such great players, and have the opportunity to have access to such a knowledge base and skill set as makes up the core of the GMC Instructors. But let's not put lipstick on a pig, and call it something it's not. Maybe then, we can come up with elements that would make a great program.
Cheers from Canada
Posted by: maharzan Apr 27 2010, 05:13 AM
haha NoSkill. I see the frustration in there. If you ever feel like giving up guitar again, I am up for your axefx. JK
Anyway, hopefully these discussions lead somewhere before the start of next MTP. I am feeling frustrated as well but I don't want the motivation I have to die with it because of the failure of execution of (could have been) greater program. I will leave it to THE GUYS now.
Posted by: Staffy Apr 27 2010, 07:03 AM
+1 I can't do anything else than agree 100% here. Its really what I've tried to say the past time here, even that I do think that some "pressure" by doin Vids playing must be used on the students by recording themselves - and then the site also gets some great promotion stuff to get more people involved in the MTP.
//Staffay
Posted by: Staffy Apr 27 2010, 08:59 AM
It depends on how the MTP is organized. I can't really see now problems in having everyone to participate, based on that ALL teachers will have at least a couple of students. Then we mus not confuse MTP with regular lessons. (see below)
That will be no problem if everyone can participate. However, I think a time-limit of a year is far more realistic with the same teacher. I do think that only serious students shall be able to stay in the program (eg. the one's who fulfills their assignments) and hence, the drop-offs will make spots for new students.
Thats definitely true. As far as I can see, a lot of time have been spent on students that don't complete the program, and as far as I see, money will be the only motivation student-wise for completing the program. Eg. if You pay for the MTP - You will most likely fulfill Your obligations. That will left the "un-serious" out. As I said before, I will suggest a lower membership fee and an additional MTP-fee.
I will say a month or maybe two, but thats depending on the case. But however, if a member have to drop the MTP because of outer circumstances, I think he shall be regarded as first in the line when a new spot is free.
Both Yes and No. It depends on what the purpose with the MTP is. (see also below) What I mean here is what really matters: Is the MTP going to produce a few FAR improved players or it is gonna produce MANY players improves just a little??? Or is the purpose to generate traffic an hence money to finance other activities??? Or pay the teachers fee's?
What a succesful MTP is, depends on the point of view, so I cannot really say anything here.MTP or Lessons
As the title says here, I wanna discuss the purpose of the MTP. As I can see in many posts here, the majority looks at the MTP as some sort of private lessons, which might be good, but this is not "Mentorship" to me. The Instructors (or mentors) role here, shall rather be to point the student in the right direction, suggest lessons that already exists and have a conversation of the students playing. This is not a very hard task to accomplish in my point of view, and I will gladly take some beginners/intermediate players in both playing/theory myself. However, I think the program shall be easy for the teachers to manage, and the actual work shall be done by the students. There is no meaning of inventing the wheel again, since all who have played for some years knows what it takes to be a good player. Its rather to be a source of inspiration and support the student in the issues he/she faces. There's a lot of good material on the site that can be used in the MTP-program.
If we are talking about private lessons, these can be made under some other name, and shall ofc. be charged. The point here is really to NOT confuse MTP with the lessons on the site or any private teaching. What do You think bout that guy's???
//Staffay
Posted by: ruben_mcn Apr 27 2010, 09:44 AM
As the title says here, I wanna discuss the purpose of the MTP. As I can see in many posts here, the majority looks at the MTP as some sort of private lessons, which might be good, but this is not "Mentorship" to me. The Instructors (or mentors) role here, shall rather be to point the student in the right direction, suggest lessons that already exists and have a conversation of the students playing. This is not a very hard task to accomplish in my point of view, and I will gladly take some beginners/intermediate players in both playing/theory myself. However, I think the program shall be easy for the teachers to manage, and the actual work shall be done by the students. There is no meaning of inventing the wheel again, since all who have played for some years knows what it takes to be a good player. Its rather to be a source of inspiration and support the student in the issues he/she faces. There's a lot of good material on the site that can be used in the MTP-program.
If we are talking about private lessons, these can be made under some other name, and shall ofc. be charged. The point here is really to NOT confuse MTP with the lessons on the site or any private teaching. What do You think bout that guy's???
//Staffay
I totaly agree .. I never know what lesson to practise if the instructors could help us make kinda like a lesson plan for us to improve on somthing it would really help..
I think there sould not be an adictional fee to MTP
..( Cause I´m still in Studing and i have no incoming so it´s hard for me to pay it already cause i have to get somebody to pay it for me (and this is not an easy thing to do .. and if the prices go even higher it will become even more difficult, and I bealive that many of the gmc students are in the same/similar situation has I´m .. )I just don´t agree w/ the three month waiting period ... :S Cause i don´t know what to do on my own .. all i work here at GMC is in MTP program .. And this break it really kills my Motivation
and my learning rate..(for instance this past months w/out Bieng in the MTP I have barely done anything )
Posted by: Gitarrero Apr 27 2010, 10:07 AM
I also think an automatic lesson planner would be a wise idea to get started or get better. But I already presented this idea in the "improvement" thread. This could work as an addition to the MTP, if the three month waiting period remains.
I also agree with Staffy that the MTP should be like a guiding system, so the instructor should tell the student which lessons to work on. My current MTP with Lian is based on this, and it works great for me.
I understand that some students are upset when they get dropped or the MTP is not moving forward fast enough, but still, it's free and these things can happen. I'm happy with the way things are right now!
Posted by: stratman79 Apr 27 2010, 11:16 PM
I agree with Pedja's earlier point regarding the separate fee (and maybe only paying for MTP and not the main site. I would prob do that).
I don't see a problem with there been too many pupils/waiting lists, a lot would come down to the instructor if they where getting paid per pupil then they would be able to take on as many as their workload allowed.
Also I don't see the stress about deadlines, If the pupil and instructor have an understanding and both are happy an comfortable at the rate of work then that should be fine as long as there is regular communication. e.g if I want to do 1 assignment per month and Staffy wants to do 8 as long Pedja was happy with it and we both where I can't see a problem.
Its interesting but I do sense a lot of bad feeling in this thread and really think that for the good to the site it should be addressed.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)