Re: Standardizing Skill Levels

["Lawrence Pratt" <LPratt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I love a good thread.  This started with a simple question from Will
Vogtman.  I tried an answer it and then suggested some objective
criteria for setting competency levels.  From there the thread took off,
with comments from the "we don't need no stinking levels" contingent,
through the "let the audience decide" group, and more recently many well
considered comments on the usefulness of understanding music theory.  

Lets examine the original question.  

"For other instruments, say clarinet, a student is labelled as
beginning, intermediate, or advanced by a set of standards (usually Mel
Bay, but any instructional series will do).  Does any such rating system
exist for harmonica?

Clearly the answer is no.  At least no system that is widely accepted. 
Various teachers have their own definitions of competency levels.  Then
the discussion turned to whether we should have a rating system and what
should be in it.

My attempt to suggest physical, musical and technique criteria was
intended to get the juices flowing.  I believe that OBJECTIVE criteria
could be established and accepted throughout the harmonica community
just as it is within other instrument communities.  A standard level
does not imply whether you are good or bad or better than someone else. 
It only groups specific competencies (physical, musical and technique)
to guide players along their path.  

I love the "we don't need no stinking levels" guys.  They are all great
players and they don't need levels.  But the entering beginners are
faced with a worldful of harmonica techniques, styles, and decisions. 
It can be bewildering.  A structured approach can help them move through
a jungle of questions.  You gotta crawl before you can walk.....

Best Regards to All,

Larry Boy Pratt