Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by S-Money, Jun 21, 2007.
Yup, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What would this look like on a biographical sketch? This is obviously different than a resume. Would the following be acceptable to you or would you put numbers and years in there, too?
Janell has studied trumpet with Laurie Frink, Paul Everett, and Keith Whitford. She had lessons with John McNeil, Larry McWilliams, Bruce Whisler, Susan Slaughter, and Steve Weger.
I will leave this open for others to reply but want Dave's opinion on this too. My day job resume and biographical sketch seems more cut and dry than my one for music. So, any help would be appreciated.
By the way, without revealing my age, is it appropriate to place my high school trumpet teacher, Keith Whitford, on my music resume and biographical sketch, if I studied with him for three consecutive years?
I was simply asking the original question, not asking if I COULD list Stamm as a primary mentor. I was using that as an example to accompany my question, which was intended to be a general question that applies to everyone, not just myself.
However, I also slightly have to disagree with you Robert. While teachers may be generous with their time, as I do know from personal experiences, I got more out of 3 lessons with Marvin Stamm than i did in a year of lessons, once a week with a particular teacher who I will not mention. While I know its safe to say "took lessons with Marvin" vs. "studdied with Marvin," It's ludacris to say that time is the biggest deciding factor on the impact of a player such as myself.
S-Money, with all due respect, the listing of the credential has to do with the teachers involvement with you as much as yours with the teacher. There's no need to be on the defensive, as I was using your own example for illustrative purposes. I'm not speaking for Marvin Stamm, but if someone has three lessons with me I would feel uncomfortable with them listing me as a primary teacher. "Supplemental study", sure. But "studied with" implies sustained direct involvement of which both parties take ownership.
I don't claim final authority in these things, but as a professional I do see lots of "resume padding" out there. Probably the best solution is to ask the teacher if you can list him/her - then everything is above board.
In a bio, this is perfectly fine. The only real difference in a resume is that dates are usually included.
You might say "additional study" or "additional lessons" or something like that before John McNeil, et.al. since you also "had lessons" with your primary teachers.
Robert, I'm sorry I came off as defensive, as that was not my intention.
As for the resume listings and such, I completely agree with you. You should specify between those who you've studied with, taken lessons with, participated in masterclasses with, etc. The original intent of my question was to question those who list page after page of names they've studied with, and to see if that was a valid point, which i didnt really think it was, but i figured Id ask because i didnt know.
As for the rest of my comment, I was only saying that off the resume, time is not a limiting factor as to how much you can learn by one person or another. That leads to why I was wondering if i could list him as an important person who ive studeid with, or taken lessons with, or what have you. I DO think that impact on someone has just as much importance as time with someone.
I think the way you separated the two catagories out is fine for a biographical sketch. I might add the word 'individual' before 'lessons', but perhaps I'm being too picky,
Basically, I wouldn't want to misrepresent myself as being a full-time student of someone when that wasn't the case.
Not trying to detract from the topic, but I guess I feel led to ask why anyone would need a lengthy list of instructors. Perhaps on a CV or some other academically oriented type of resume, or merely for personal records? Let me qualify my question: In preparing my resume for auditions, the advice I got was to lead with my playing experience and not my education. My bio reads similarly. The vast majority of playing jobs specify a 1-pg resume, so space is at a premium. Plus, I know people who studied with big-name teachers/players for YEARS, but they themselves just aren't very competent on the horn.
actually, your original post was more involved than just who should we list.
You said that you saw this stuff on websites!
Welcome to the 21st Century where the internet lets everybody be whoever they want to! We have players that can really play not getting jobs, we have people that cannot play well at all criticizing professional players, we have spectacular web sites with very little true musical content.
It is common knowledge that if you too are not spectacular, you will not be seen. Couple that with the nintendo generation looking for the fast cheat to get to the next level (that category would include many of the threads here too - check out how much heat is generated when you tell somebody to quit looking for the cheat and start honestly practicing) - political correctness has replaced common sense in too many cases!!!!!
In days gone by, intensive study with one or two major player(s) gave you the skills to get a job (if one was available). That is still true today. The problem with that is, the major teachers require that you perform - no quick download of a cheat possible! What do you do if too much effort is required? Run to the next teacher, and keep running until you get lucky or find an alternative.
To keep this politically correct: not all players that have had and broadcast many professional study opportunities play nintendo. Many players are less spectacular than the website would indicate...........