Contents 1 Complete Rewrite, Please. 2 References? 3 This article ought not be a tutor 4 An article in the realm of art, philosophy, learning? 5 This page has no place in an encyclopedia. It should be DELETED 6 current version=

[edit] Complete Rewrite, Please.

This article reads as though it were copied and pasted from a book about classical guitar pedagogy written by a teacher who seems to know a lot about the subject. The article is written in an entirely subjective or presriptive rather than expository tone. There are no citations and indeed can be none for a statement such as "Often preoccupations with tone and control (or speed) lead to performances that fundamentally lack character and come across as emotionally boring and sterile" Well written, but unfortunately this article is essentially just what one person or a few people think rather than verifiable fact.

[edit] References?

I also agree with much of the information here, although most of it seems to either to not be cited, or to be original research. If someone wanted to fix that somehow, I think that it needs attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhelium (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article ought not be a tutor

Although I'm broadly in agreement with much, but not all, of content that has recently been added to this article I am also very alarmed in that some of it is highly subjective. There are many legitimate approaches to teaching musical instruments, and teachers often have strong and understandably passionately held viewpoints on where various emphasis should be put etc. I think content that reads along following lines "teachers should...", "not enough emphasis is placed " etc amounts to opinion and is neither fact nor neutral. Such material, no matter how sincerely held or offered is not an appropriate in Wikipedia (although perfectly appropriate in a published method or tutor book under an author's name). RichardJ Christie (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes true - different teachers have different viewpoints on where emphasis should be put. Hopefully more ideas will be added. Sentences that read "teachers should..." etc. may still be neutral. But perhaps the wording is sloppy and can be changed. For example: "Teachers should ideally analyse both music and instrumental technique" can be changed to "Teaching involves the analysis of both music and instrumental technique". Or the sentence "Teachers often do not emphasise beautiful tone production enough when a person is receiving instruction." - could be changed to "For the classical guitar, a consideration of beautiful tone production is important, when receiving instruction.", etc. TheRationalGuitarist (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some sentences have now been improved slightly. TheRationalGuitarist (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's mostly a matter of how the material is presented rather than its content. Modifications, similar to above, are just the ticket. RichardJ Christie (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article in the realm of art, philosophy, learning?

This whole article (due to the very nature of its title) is in the realm of art and philosophy, or rather: in a metalevel talking about learning of an artform.

As a good addition to this article, or for those who insist on some pointers or something that can justify the writing (its style and a bit of its topics), I can only recommend Álvaro Pierri's beautiful interview about aspects of teaching and learning, etc. - Part 1, Part 2
TheRationalGuitarist (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page has no place in an encyclopedia. It should be DELETED

The short version of the reasons:

• No other encyclopedia has an article called "classical guitar pedagogy". And no other serious encyclopedia will ever have such an article (and the reasons for this are... the following...)
• Do pages on ukulele pedagogy, or sitar pedagogy, or konghou pedagogy, or violin pedagogy, or trumpet pedagogy, or electric guitar pedagogy, etc. MAKE SENSE? NO! So why should there be a page "classical guitar pedagogy"?
• "Classical guitar pedagogy" will always be in the realm of art, creativity and philosophy (thus unsuitable of encyclopedic writing)
• Keeping this page, is the same as having a page called "how to teach someone to have live a good life and have success"
• the field of classical guitar pedagogy, does not yet exist as something that is final and conclusive; and as something that is thus appropriate for an encyclopedia (and it never will be final and conclusive)
• There will always be different approaches to pedagogy (and they will in part contradict one another)

The slightly longer version:

This article, as it stands in the version from "16:07, 14 December 2008" was written in its entirety by me.

The article has always had problems with neutrality and citations etc.

And the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion, that the article does not belong into wikipedia. And it's not only the subjective wording (as is mentioned by someone above), that has problems...

In truth (and this was also mentioned above), numerous other approaches to pedagogy exist. And many of them go directly against what is written here. And even if I strongly disagree with other approaches to pedagogy (such as the use of metronomes - which I absolutely reject), that does not take away from the fact that another approach is still "an approach to pedagogy" which could be used. (Don't misunderstand me here: I find many of the methods of music pedagogy that are used today, to be completely useless and bad, and entirely contrary to my conception, of what music is about).

This is an encyclopedia, and while I maintain that I can put forward convincing arguments to support whatever I have written, if I am challenged; the arguments would be more in the realm of creative art and philosophy - That does not mean that the arguments are not convincing - But the arguments are nonetheless not appropriate for an encyclopedia! At the same time, the arguments for other approaches to pedagogy would also be in the realm of creative art and philosophy.

So methods of music pedagogy are just not as easily provable as things in e.g. mathematics articles, or chemistry articles, ...

Also, the field of classical guitar pedagogy, does not really exist yet. There is only one book published on the topic (incidentally with the same title, but I really do not recommend it), but classical guitar pedagogy will never be a fixed thing, that is finished and that one can write about IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. There will always be different approaches.

This article is like having a page on wikipedia called: "how to live a good life and have success". That would be ridiculous. And if effect, that is what this article is: Because another title for "classical guitar pedagogy" is: "how to play the guitar well, how to interpret well, how to express with music" (and not only that, but also: how to teach those things)!!

So as the writer of this article (in its current form of the 14 December 2008), I have removed the text and await deletion. But it is not gone entirely. The text is available on my homepage, which includes the text as it was here, and thus gives readers the same "rights of free access to information".

If the page is kept, it can only be completely general and mundane. In effect useless anyway.

So this entire article should be deleted entirely from wikipedia!

On a more personal note: Of course I am pleased, that people above have mentioned that they are broadly in agreement with what has been written. I hope that even though the text is not suitable for an encyclopedia, it can still be useful and of value. Thus, dear reader, if you found some things to be helpful in some ways, I invite you to visit my page: expressivemusicinterpretation.wordpress.com

Farewell, "Classical guitar pedagogy, posing as an encyclopedia article"! hehe ;) TheRationalGuitarist (talk)

I have restored the text of the article as it stood before you replaced it with a link to your blog. Even though you've been the primary editor on the article for the past year, you aren't the only editor, and the page existed before you edited it. I have no position on whether it should or shouldn't be deleted, but editors who visit the page should be able to decide for themselves based on the contents of the article. - Fordan (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] current version=

As reviewing administrator, I apparently missed the early history of the article and I have restored the whole. I'm removing the prod; it seems there is a decent NPOV non-polemic non-textbook version to revert to, and I have reverted to it. Some of the later material may be usable, and I leave that to the editors interested. In any case, we do not for an article like this give external links to people's blog--see WP:EL DGG (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts DGG. And thanks for not deleting, entirely... true there was earlier history!

But this earlier history, actually has numerous problems. It is ONLY a collection of bibliography and links. And wikipedia is not a directory and it's not a repository...

...hmmmm... I really think those things need to be removed. But then nothing is left. Hahaha! ;)

Furthermore I maintain: If wikipedia is considered to be an encyclopedia, then this article cannot be appropriate and should thus be deleted. I'm putting back the Proposed deletion (prod) - just this one-more-time - but if someone is "in all sincerity and humble truth" against it (or can successfully counter my "reasons for deletion"), I'll accept that decision.

REASONS FOR DELETION (why article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia):

• "Classical guitar pedagogy" will always be in the realm of art, creativity and philosophy (thus unsuitable of encyclopedic writing)
• Classical guitar pedagogy (if it has substance) is about teaching and learning, about human experience, about growing, about maturing, about changing, about feeling, about expressing, etc. (Entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.)
• Keeping this page, is the same as having a page called "how to teach someone to have live a good life and have success". (Try writing about that in an expository style!)
• The field of classical guitar pedagogy, does not yet exist as something that is final and conclusive; moreover classical guitar pedagogy will never be final and conclusive. Again: inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
• Do pages on ukulele pedagogy, or sitar pedagogy, or konghou pedagogy, or violin pedagogy, or trumpet pedagogy, or electric guitar pedagogy, etc. MAKE SENSE? NO! So why should there be a page "classical guitar pedagogy"?
• There will always be different approaches to pedagogy (and they will in part contradict one another). (This does not mean that all approaches are equally good. So NPOV-problems are unavoidable.)

In conclusion: yes, we must be able to talk about classical guitar pedagogy. But the details are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If it is to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, there can only be a brief mentioning (expository-style) of what it is about: "teaching and learning to play, interpret, and shape music - thereby expressing and communicating musically - on the classical guitar". But do we really need an article with a one-liner?

I simply vote: delete this! TheRationalGuitarist (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

you will need to take it to AfD; i removed the tag. What will happen there is uncertain, but, based on the arguments above, I suspect that it will not be deleted. I'm not aware of any subject one could really call "final and completed"--that's not the standard. Articles about the educational methods of various subjects seem to me perfectly appropriate to Wikipedia--and I think the community will judge similarly. Some may even suggest that your desire to remove the article entirely has some connection with the fact that you encountered objections to your use of it to express solely your own instructional methods. DGG (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== I think also that the article classical guitar pedagogy does not belong to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.6 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)