Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Duane Shinn 52 Week Crash Course

Well, good … I am glad you found it to be a "fit" for you.



I am not.

It is not a good fit for me.



Yes I am. I have the entire course and have experienced a good portion of it.

Do you find something wrong about that ?

I have stated elsewhere in this thread that I feel the Duane Shinn crash course is the closest thing to a "live" teacher of any course that I have personal experience with. Like many self-teaching folks here have shared over the years, I have several of these courses. Each has its merits and its "lacks", but the Duane Shinn course seems to me to be very complete for providing a solid foundation for a lifetime of enjoying playing the piano without having to go through the rigors of a purely classical piano study. It is by no means a shortcut, but instead is intent on laying a decent foundation for those wishing to pursue playing piano outside of a full blown classical course of study.

That said, over the years here, folks have discussed some of Duane Shinn's other, shorter courses, often expressing the feeling that these are too short and don't do a good job of covering the intended material. Being personally familiar with a number of his courses that I personally own and use, I can safely say that the crash course is the centerpiece of Duane's products, and that the other course I own all assume the student has a level of competence equivalent to one having completed the crash course. Skipping that experience, whether obtained from the crash course or elsewhere, will only lead to the kinds of complaints some folks have expressed about the other courses in his product line.

I bought the entire crash course, along with the other large courses such as the one on improvisation, the pro secrets, and the music theory course a number of years ago, with the intention of pursuing these in retirement. I felt that I may be difficult to afford on a fixed income, so I decided to purchase these while I had a pile of disposable income. I now feel that was a wise choice, though I am financially doing just fine in retirement. Other people might move to a location on or near a golf course, the beach, or where ever best suits their desired activities in retirement. I planned on teaching myself to play the piano, and on staying right where I am. Now I am in retirement, and have been for a few years. I bought a Roland V-Grand digital piano new about 6 years ago, and have been enjoying pursuing, as a hobby/avocation, the piano.

At the center of this pursuit has been the courses I purchased from Duane Shinn those years ago. Along with these, I also take time to explore other courses I own, some of which were recommended by Don (dmd). But the center of my piano playing has been, and remains, Duane Shinn.

Duane Shinn's crash course actually takes YEARS to complete, and the process is to be savored, not rushed. That is exactly what I am doing. However, I have found that, for me (not necessarily for others!!!), posting often in forums and talking about what I am doing, seems to dissipate my interest in actually playing, and becomes instead an ongoing conversation ABOUT playing the piano. I tend to work better alone.

What I am sensitive to is not directly Don or any of his posts, which are often quite helpful. Instead, it is the language that people use at times that can be demotivating for those engaged in self-teaching. This isn't usually in Don's posts, and I probably just happened on one that used some of that terminology. However, I have seen, over the years, folks taking lessons from "live" teachers, taking a rather dim view of those of us who have chosen the self-teaching route rather than going with a "live" teacher. It is in those posts, rather than Don's, where we usually see claims that we self-teachers don't stick with anything and therefore make no progress, along with the idea that we therefore are simply seeking a shortcut rather than being willing to do the work.

Though clearly Don wasn't saying any of that, he did use some of that terminology to explain his reasoning regarding the crash course. I just wanted to make sure folks didn't feel like failures if they didn't stick with the crash course, even if that is not what Don intended to imply.

My only reason for addressing SOME of Don's post was to address the idea of the "easy" path or way out. It is especially true in this thread about what is probably one of the longest and must rigorous self-teaching courses, that motivation and support are very important. I get that Don was simply saying that the course isn't for everybody, and I agree with that. However, for those who choose a different path, I applaud you and fully support you in whatever alternative path to your own musical enjoyment you eventually decide upon. That, in short, is my entire point.

I truly don't want to spend a lot of time posting here and going around in circles about this thing. If folks take exception to what I am saying, that is fine. If you agree, that is fine too. If you simply don't care one way or another, even better, because it is best to stay focused on your own path regardless of what others do or don't think about that path.

Hopefully, this post explains my position, addresses the fact that I am actively engaged in the Duane Shinn crash course, and puts an end to this exchange before it gets out of hand.

Thanks,

Tony

No. Just curious since you asked me after suggesting that maybe I am not working with the course and have some sensitivities as a result. Why not just stop this back and forth now? I really am not interested in spending my time verbally jousting on an internet forum. It is a poor substitute for actually playing piano. I feel that I have explained my position enough now and will leave you to accept or reject that as you wish.

However, I intend to drop in here for time to time, since I am actively involved with the course, and will be for a long time to come, and the fact that I did start this thread. Rather than engaging in this back and forth with you, I will avoid that in the future and engage with the folks here who are involved with the course or are considering doing so, since that was the intention of the thread in the first place.

Tony

I am really impressed by those that stick with the 52 week crash course. It's awesome what they've accomplished. I've seen some of the videos - people making their own arrangements based on what D.S. apparently teaches in his course. I haven't purchased his course and as an outsider, I have two small nits about it. One just came up and I am not sure that it's a nit about the course or D.S. per se, perhaps it's just a nit with your point of view about this course.


The first nit is the name. It embodies everything that I think is wrong with late night TV-style marketing. This name of the course is dated and hype-y. Makes me feel like something from the 60's. The webpage is modern, but modern Internet marketing which is a take off from late night product shows. It screams "5-day diet," "12 weeks to a Charles Atlas physique," etc. That something isn't worth starting unless one can accomplish it fast. Why should piano be any different? How many would buy a "D.S. 208 week crash course?" The worst thing for me is how misleading the title really is. There have been a few that have finished this course, however I have not seen anyone that has finished it in 52 weeks. I've asked this almost rhetorical question already on this thread before: Could D.S. himself finish his own course in 52 weeks if he didn't already play the piano?


My second nit, as I said, is not so much with the course perhaps as it is with what you said about it. But what you said about it also reflects the D.S. literature I've seen. Yes, I looked at the course myself when I was just starting and was turned off by nit#1 above. But the other thing I was almost taken in by was that the D.S. course is a general course of piano study, only done in a self-study format.

Well that, not really it, is it? D.S. teaches a certain style/school of piano playing and it is no more a general piano course than a course in pop/rock/jazz/gospel vocals is a course in general singing, is it? So I think your line here presents a false dichotomy: the D.S. approach vs. "full blown" classical course of study with rigors.

By using the phrase "full blown," it makes it seem as if the D.S. course is an alternative to traditional piano teachers teaching classical piano, when actually, the D.S. course is an alternative to classical piano altogether, whether "full blown" or not. Because a classical piano course in a self-study format such as PCA is also an alternative to a "full blown" classical course of study, and yet one would still be learning classical piano in that case, in a non-fullblown way.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting something different from classical piano, but it really is not the case that D.S. is on one side of the two-pan balance and piano teachers are on the other side. One can learn classical piano self-study, as mentioned above. One could also learn the non-classical piano D.S. teaches with teachers. There are a lot of alternatives to "full blown" and other alternatives to "classical course of study."

Tying in with my first point, the idea that one is not engaging in a "full blown" course of study is also misleading because the course is not typically completed in 52 weeks. I think the few that complete it (because it's very clear to me that of those that buy the course, something much less than 25% actually complete it, and the real number might be much much much less than 25%), they appear to take closer to 3 years. But how is that different from a classical course of study? How is there no "rigors?" PCA also takes 3 years to complete, only PCA doesn't try to bill itself as a 52-week course.

There is no shortcut here even if D.S. himself tries to make it seem like his 52-week course is a short-cut. If D.S. renamed his course to the 208 week course, it would more accurately express that "there is no free lunch." Learning piano, whether classical, jazz, blues, gospel, pop, rock, etc. as a fine motor-control activity just takes time. There is no "rigorous" vs. "non-rigorous" if you want to learn to play well. There is only the need to do and practice over a period of time.

Again, I want to say that I'm in awe of those, like David B, who have made it so far in this course. Your results prove the method works! Keep it up! Keep posting your videos David B! But it seems obvious to me that those who have gone far in the course have mentally moved pass the "52 week" slogan, and treat piano as something which takes effort to do well and are taking what time it takes to learn it and not something one can blow though in a 52-week flash and end up with Ray Charles skillz. So big to you few and proud!

That was a long post with a lot of points. Due to the length of that post, I didn't want to quote it here. However, I don't intend to address and engage in all of that. I don't really take issue with any of Tyron's points, since anyone considering a course such as this will have his or her own perspective for considering it.

I will say that I really wasn't concerned at all with the "52 week" aspect of the course, but instead with what it covers. I do think that being concerned with how long it will take is much less productive than accepting that the process takes consistent time and effort, and then just enjoying the journey. I am speaking for myself here, so others may view it differently, have still more "nits" with what I am saying.

I will leave it to others to address more fully the post from Tyrone Slothrop. He has clearly thought through all his points and therefore deserves much more response than I want to spend time on at this time. I am just not into posting all that much anymore, but felt I should say at least something in response since one of my current posts was being quoted.

Tony

Be my guest.




Could have fooled me.




Thumbs up on that.

Good Luck To You

Bravo David. Your playing sounds wonderful to me. Your whole setup is fantastic. Good equipment, good mix of tech, high quality video. You set the bar high for me.

I’m still on lesson 36, but here is a song not from the course. I wanted to share it because it illustrates how the course has benefited me. It shows exactly why I bought the course and why playing many of the less than inspiring (boring) songs in the course is worth it for me.

Someone at church gave me this piece of sheet music after we had sung it in worship. It’s in a key we haven’t covered in the course yet (D Major), but I could tell right away based on the simplicity of it that it was within my wheelhouse. I applied what I have learned from Duane.

First, I analyzed the score and determined the primary chords used in the song.

Second, I learned it as written. It didn’t take me long thanks to all reading and songs I’ve been going through in the course.

Third, I arranged the song with a few basic techniques learned from Duane. Chording and arpeggios in the left hand and fuller chord notes combined with the melody in the right hand. These are fundamental techniques taught by Duane and seem to be the bread and butter of the course so far. Although, more advanced techniques have been covered in the course, e.g., chord substitutions, runs, counter melodies, walkup/downs, varied styles of playing, etc.

A few observations:

Thanks to Duane, I can take this piece of music, which is simple and pretty on it’s own, and I can do more with it making it even better (IMO).

All the undesirable songs (that I’ll never play again) that I’ve been going over in the course has enabled me to learn and arrange this song in a just a few days. I could do none of this before I started the 52 Week Course. It’s very gratifying. It motivates me to keep moving forward in the Duane Shinn course even though I don’t feel connected to most of the music covered.

Here is A Clean Heart played as written and then with a simple arrangement. The piano sound is the internal N1X CFX Binaural Sample.



Now back to lesson 36 and On Top of Old Smoky. lol

God Bless,
David

Great job! Love your arrangement!

To TonyB:
you bought also the improvisation course, and I wanted to ask you a few questions:
1. Does it comes with videos for each book/month or just book/audio ? from the website is not clear, beside mentioning the “bonus dvd Using Chords To Improvise". Basically what are the media doming with the course ?
2. In your opinion, or for what you could experience so far, how much it overlaps with the 52 week crash course ?
3. Any overall opinion, comment, recommendation , advice , for anyone wanted to start this course

I’m starting lesson 19 of the crash course, but I took an hiatus of almost a year after lesson 18, to explore other pieces (I was admittedly a little bored about the pieces in the crash course).
I’m now ready to get back to a more structured course like the crash course, but blues and improv is something that I like a lot and wondering if the improv course follow the same style of the crash course, especially the videos that for me are super important.

Thanks in advance !

//stoppa

Stopparde,

The improv course is touted as a 7 month course (assuming we are talking about the same thing). It has 8 CDs and 8 books. There is an 8th month review/checkup. The DVD must be a new addition to the package, because mine only came with a single sheet on using chords to improvise. In my personal opinion, The 52 week course is the foundation, and all these other courses build on it.

One set I purchased from Duane Shinn was a set of 14 DVDs, each covering one aspect of playing piano, rather than being a cohesive course. One is on using the pedal, another is on proper scale practice, etc. To me, these fill in areas in the 52 week course that I feel I would be asking a "live" teacher for more guidance on.

I have not started the improv course yet, but have listened to some of the CDs and looked through the books, just because I have it and was curious. Any of these big courses takes a long time to work through, and I am no hurry. I want to complete the 52 week course (more like 104 weeks ++) first. If there is any overlap among these courses, that can only help to enhance our knowledge and abilities in playing piano, so I wouldn't worry about that.

One thing I would say is that, at the time I purchased all this material, there really wasn't that much stuff available for learning to play piano. These days there is a lot of material available, covering a variety of teaching styles and focuses. Willie Myette is another guy with a bunch of courses, and his equivalent of the 52 week course (but not nearly as long or as wide in coverage) is his Home School Piano course, followed by all manner of shorter courses on playing various styles of piano. Then, there are courses that focus specifically on learning how to arrange/play tunes from a fakebook, how to jam on the blues, etc.

Compared to these, the Duane Shinn materials are expensive. While I do think the Duane Shinn courses still have their place, I agree with what Don (dmd) said in an earlier post - you really have to be committed if you intend to pay that kind of money for such a long term commitment.

If you like the teaching style of the crash course, then you would be a good candidate for Duane Shinn's other courses. But you might want to look around at other courses as possible lower cost alternatives. As an example, Quaver Box is an improvisation course that might be worth a look: http://quaverbox.com/. Maybe somebody here has that and can comment. Though that would be switching teachers and teaching styles, so if you work well with Duane Shinn, maybe staying with him despite the cost, might be worth considering, as you already are. I personally like the way Duane Shinn eases you into the course. He seems to do that with the improv course too.

Edit: what you said about taking a break after lesson 18 is pretty much what I have done. It seems that I work with the course for a while, take a break to explore other materials, and then come back for more. Doing that, it takes even longer to get through the course, but it is better than stopping altogether and not completing it at all (unless you find that the course isn't right for you, in which case doing something else is far better than quitting piano). I always come back with renewed interest and motivation, and new perspectives that I learned elsewhere.

Tony

Thanks Tony! I appreciate the comprehensive and clear response !!

Sure thing! Best of luck with your next steps.

Tony

I finished lesson 36. There were only two songs covered. Here is On Top Of Old Smoky. This is a simplified version of Duane's arrangement. The only new technique was the use of a tremolo. Duane has mentioned it before, but this is the first time I have ever used it in an arrangement. I think I need to slow the tremolo down a little bit and it would sound better.The piano sound is the N1X CFX binaural sample. I'll play the song as written and then arranged.



Lesson 37 is going to be really hard. There is a song with new techniques in it (2-1 breakups) and lots of runs. I can tell it's going to take me some time before I feel comfortable moving on. So it might be a month or more before I'm finished with it.

God Bless,
David

Lesson 37 is in the books. Only two songs covered and one was fairly easy, but this one (God and Silver Waltz) was a bit of a challenge. I can't do the runs as fast and smooth as Duane does at speed. In the middle of the song when the melody switches to the left hand, Duane does ascending and descending multiple octave runs in the right hand. I can do it at a much slower speed, but not at the tempo where the rest of the song sounds good. Therefore, to make it musical and up to speed, I only do slow ascending runs in the middle of the song to make it easier.

I can't spend a year working on smoothness and speed in runs before I more on. When Duane was alive he told me that if I practice smooth and slowly, speed will come with time. Individual techniques can be honed in throughout the course and when its done. As long as I can do it slow and relaxed, I'm comfortable moving on even though I can't do it at speed right now. Here is God and Silver Waltz (never to be played again ) as written and then arranged. The piano is the N1X CFX binaural sample.



God Bless,
David

I finished lesson 38. There were only two songs and one of them was not arranged because Duane felt that the score itself was enough work since it was a bit more complicated compared to what is normally presented in the books. The other song was a hymn (Holy, Holy, Holy), which I had a lot of fun with. Duane emphasized "walking through the chords with the left hand" in quarter notes, but when I arranged the song, I added some of the old staples of chording and arpeggios in the left hand to mix it up a bit. Duane also added some chord substitutions, passing tones (2nd to 1st) and a suspended 4th.

I played this song in church the other day and got an "Amen" from a few people who happened to be paying attention. It was very gratifying. If I had known people were listening, I probably would have messed up more.

I'll play the song as written and then arranged. The piano sound is the N1X CFX binaural sample.



God Bless,
David

Good job David! You've either been progressing faster or these lessons have been getting shorter

This was a short lesson since the other song was not arranged. This song was fun and the other song was work. Although, an important part of this course is learning how to read music also. That just happens to be really hard for me.

God Bless,
David

I should clarify that Holy, Holy, Holy was a lot of work also, but it was fun work, whereas reading music is not so fun.

God Bless,
David

I love this song, your version is beautiful David. Thanks so much for sharing.