It goes like this- Those who can do, do. Those who can not do teach.
No offense to anyone about that above. I do agree with BillChin at least respect he put his music up, and before you flame make sure people have heard your music.
[Side note] I do not question any one who has posted yet, I lack ornamentation therefore have no room to speak.
Since the cliche you quote isn’t your cliche, I hope you don’t mind if I say that it’s complete crap. The reality is that very few people can make a decent living from music (or scholarship for that matter) without earning some of their living from teaching and those who can are appealing to a ‘pop’ audience. Lot’s of creative writers have to supplement their income working as school or university teachers. In plenty of areas, too, the difference between the teacher and the internationally acclaimed soloist might only be about 5% to 10%. It might have more to do with charisma or just personal drive than technical proficiency. If you don’t make it as a concert pianist, but were once a contender, you would still be a formidably gifted musician and their is no orchestra seat for you to occupy as second best. Orchestra players who are not principles would almost certainly have to teach.
Someone who plays poorly can’t teach by ear in any style. They can show a student where to find the notes and offer encouragement but that is all. How can you teach phrasing ‘by ear’ if you can’t demonstrate it? Showing someone how not to do it leaves open infinitely many possible ways of doing it—what help would that be unless the student already has access to first rate recordings?
But the saying doesn’t conclude saying if that’s a good thing or not, just that ‘they’ teach because they can’t do the other thing.
In this specific situation Bill put up music to be learned by ear. But he has no example, that’s my point and that’s why I said above ’ if you’re not up t oit, don’t teach by ear’.
I teach the pipes, I have young musians come to me wh ohave been tought by a phenomenal whistleplayer. When they come to me the are accomplisdsed and fine whislteplayers at age twelve or thriteen. You would not believe what a difference it makes if the basics were absorbed by ear from a prime example. Honestly, believe me on that one.
I take it your make sure people can hear your music’ was aimed at me. That’s the one thatusually comes up in this situation.
Look at clips and snips, I don’t mind, I put a new one up today in relation to the Humphrey whistle review thread (link posted in that thread) as a sound sample, but there are older ones too, I wouldn’t think of presenting them as a teaching example though.
[fixed a few typos]
[quote="Peter Laban
I once questioned the fact he seemed proud being a ‘pretty lousy player’ and didn’t think it was an admirable quality in a maker of instruments.
[/quote]
At the risk of taking this debate on a parrallel course, (and maybe that is not a bad thing, Bill has taken enough flak), I am not altogether convinced of Peter’s argument here. Just 'coz you don’t play like a professional doesn’t mean you can’t make a decent sounding whistle. I make a prety good whistle (or so I am told) but I certainly don’t play it with great skill. Oh sure, I can get the notes in the right order and syncopate my tunes reasonably well, but I don’t need a $200 whistle to do that. And neither do the whistling greats. Most of them probably used the low end whistles in any case. I believe that it is what you do with your instrument that separates the great from the good from the mediocre and just because you are not up there with the great, doesn’t mean that you don’t know what a good instrument should sound like
I await to be convinced otherwise.
OK briefly,I am convinced you can make a decent instrument when you’re not a great player but you’re not likely make a great instrument when you’re not a great player because you won’t be able to appreciate firsthand the finer points a great player will be looking for. Now back to topic.
Ummmm…NO!!!
Many excellent musicians teach to supplement their income because good gigs are few and far between and touring all the time is a real grind on one’s mental and physical health.
The connection between “making enough money as a performer” and “being an excellent musician” is tenuous.
Nah, sorry, that’s still bollocks. A whistle is a whistle is a whistle. They are all identical in principle, just differ in quality. A great player can make a mediocre whistle sing, a good whistle operatic. It is the player that makes the finer points really, not the whistle, which is why, as I said before, great players like Mary Bergin can make a cheap whistle sound fantastic. A mediocre player can still appreciate the finer points of playing without being able to recreate it, and can therefore make a whistle that can perform well in the right hands. I have made instruments that sound like a car exhaust when I blow it but put inthe hands of a professional and they become another instrument entirely.
I still need to be convinced… 
Fine, that’s your opinion. Typically it is another whistlemaker who doesn’t want to see the point. We’ll leave it there, start another thread if you want to dig through the subject any furhter.
No PLEASE do not take me out of contexts. I said this
First Peter Laban I respect your voice and have took heed of you on the uilleann forum. That Qoute was for future posters to consider to keep this civilized. 
As far as serpent posting his music I respect any one who has the balls to post their music, especially if they do so knowing they are a novice. Yet agree he should not call this a source for learning by ear.
As far as the teaching Quote I simply was stating something my father has told me my whole life. Filling in what billchin was looking for I believe.
Pat Cannady- To you there is no one I respect more than a good teacher. But the qoute in my opinion shows, How those who are not good enough to perform have at times turned to teaching, thus they taint the name of good teachers. My remark was nothing of the sort against being paid to do what a person loves.
Damned straight!
Mary Bergin has played cheap whistles but she doesn’t play bad ones. She actually has a reputation for being able to spot the ‘good’ Generation. See the Paddy Moloney interview on the main board.
Which reminds me; I believe Mary Bergin gives master classes. I know Noel Hill does. Other teachers include John Williams, Larry Nugent, Ravi Shankar, Lennie Tristano and Yehudi Menuhin. Not a bad lineup of people who teach because they ‘can’t’. The cliche is just a particularly bad example the sort of smug anti intellectualism one would expect from a ‘success’ in a throw-away society. There are great players who aren’t even good teachers. But I’ve never met a great teacher who isn’t at least a very good player.
Pat and peter do be sure to read my last post. To give way to some clarification.
I didn’t takeyou out of context as far as I know i was responding to :
assuming you meant those critisizing should make sure their music was heard, which is the one that usually ensues in a thread like this. So I pointed towards a source where a few clips could be heard.
(trying to sort the mess of quotes, unsuccesfully so deleted some bits)
I am also a little surprised by the prevailing assumption that a good player has the required skills to be a good teacher.
Playing is a skill, teaching is also a skill - but they are very. very different skills.
The prevailing assumption is that if you teach by ear being a good player, a good example is a pre-requisite.
Sorry, then but I thought you were talking about this qoute. In which case clarifying some issues was needed. 
Recording a tune for others to copy/emulate is not teaching, it is learning. Consequently yes, if the source of your learning is flawed, so will be your ‘learning outcome’
I happen to believe that a mediocre whistle player is capable of making a great whistle. Bill, however, has not.
You mean the person doing the recording is doing the learning? What are they learning? 