I have taught music lessons since 1998, primarily guitar, with students aged 3-75, from beginners to advanced.
I tailor lessons to each student's interests and learning styles. I have a classical guitar degree but enjoy and teach a range of styles.
In recent years, my focus has shifted from traditional teaching (technique, jargon, notation, theory, common stylistic patterns, specific pieces) toward holistic music coaching, emphasizing a conscious-music approach informed by mindfulness, psychology, science, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence. More on that further down… I also have been part of the community developing the innovative Kite Guitar which uses a new fretting and tuning to achieve expanded pitch possibilities and more blended chords.
Main lesson details, rates, contact info:
I teach in person in Oregon City and online via video-chat (using Jitsi Meet because I support Free/Libre/Open technology)
I always do a free intro session, no obligation. I'm happy to meet with anyone, share as much as I can in an hour, and give students a chance to see if my approach seems a good fit.
To inquire about lessons, e-mail email@example.com or call or text (734) 707-8828.
RatesI charge $80/hour and do sessions from 15 to 120 minutes, but 15 or 30 minute sessions are available only to students also doing at least one 45-minute or longer session each month.
I also offer some discount options:
Habla español bien? Quiero mas practico con el idioma, así que enseño lecciones de guitarra en español por una tasa rebajada!
Bartering for lessons is also possible, including (but not limited to):
- Help me bring about a better world by assisting in some way with my non-profit startup that focuses on funding public goods: Snowdrift.coop
- Help me in an administrative, creative, apprenticeship, or other ways with my music and teaching goals
Choosing lesson lengths:
Historically, I've done mostly weekly or every-other-week regular schedules. Especially with the flexibility possible via video-chat, I'm adding more flexible options. Longer sessions enable more time for active coaching and teaching and deeper dive into various topics. Shorter sessions are good for accountability, check-ins, quick feedback and so on. A mix seems to work quite well. I'm exploring options like adding 15-minute check-ins between longer sessions.
- 15-minute online check-ins: good for reviewing existing material and getting coaching on good habits and good practice strategies
- 30-minute sessions: enough to do some new material, review of multiple or longer pieces, feedback on creative work in progress
- 45-minute lessons can cover a more balanced mix of more topics, more depth, and less rushed
- 60-minute lessons allow more time for creative projects, more time to jam, listening to music and discussing it, covering more topics and material, and maybe a more relaxed pace.
- Longer sessions over an hour allow for deeper in-depth coaching; deep dives; more time to work on songwriting, recording, or composing; and/or time to really do full supervised practice sessions, mindfulness, music philosophy, discuss music business or other broader contexts.
My greatest expertise is in guitar, but I also teach a few other areas.
Voice: I teach vocal technique basics, creative vocal styles, expression/interpretation, and my particular expertise: vocal harmony and tuning theory.
I also teach ukulele, bass guitar, Chapman Stick, slide/steel guitar, and some other related instruments.
I also offer lessons and coaching for musicians of all sorts interested in theory, perception/cognition, creativity (improvisation, composition, songwriting, general exploration), and some music technology.
I'm honored to have worked with so many diverse students over the years. In a few cases, I worked with students all the way from elementary school through their graduation from high school. Some have even gone on to become teachers themselves. I've also worked with experienced musicians looking to understand the deeper science of music or to break out of the boxes they find themselves stuck in. Some students really embrace creative exploration while others have focused on mastering classical techniques.
Check out the reviews from some of my students (Google link). Some excerpts:
"Aaron Wolf remains the most brilliant music teacher I've ever taken lessons from…"
"Aaron is an incredibly talented musician, and more importantly a gifted teacher. He works hard to determine a student's needs and goals and create a lesson framework specific to those needs. He has taken what little I already knew and helped me build upon it very rapidly. I have made more progress than I thought possible…"
"…one of the best teachers I have ever had--if you take lessons with him and are reasonably motivated, he will absolutely help you succeed in your musical goals."
Some musicians teach as a day job while working on their music careers and would really rather focus on performing. For me, teaching is my highest priority. I care more about sharing ideas with others and with getting everyone to participate in music than about showing off my music skills to a passive audience.
My own music studies
My most formal studies have been in classical guitar, starting at age 8 and continuing through my degree in music performance from Eastern Michigan University, 2004. I have explored a number of other styles including flamenco, blues, American folksongs, pop, funk, rock, country/bluegrass, jazz, and others.
Other music pursuits
I have vocal experience in classical choirs, folk music, rock bands, and barbershop harmony. I have been involved in music technology and recording, including publishing three CDs of original compositions (mostly electronic music). I have studied and performed on the Chapman Stick since 1998, including two dedicated years as stickist in a full-time jam/rock/exploratory/everything band that was also an award-winning barbershop quartet.
I have extensively studied music theory, ethnomusicology, composition, songwriting, and the science of music perception and cognition. I'm also interested in the economic, cultural, and political issues surrounding music (such as institutional biases and the problems with copyright restrictions on culture, among other topics). I have taught community classes in music technology, music theory, and music perception.
Reviewing music books and resources
Among other pursuits over the years, I played through or otherwise thoroughly read and reviewed over 800 books covering all sorts of guitar styles, teaching approaches, student repertoire collections, manuals for parents of music students, and so on. Maybe some day, I will publish more reviews and summaries of my notes (I've done a handful, see the "reviews" tag on the sidebar here). Overall, most publications I reviewed were mediocre. Even the best all had differing pros and cons. So, I often use a mix of such resources in lessons, supplementing and correcting them as necessary.
I found the most meaningful insights from the literature on the psychology of music (how we perceive sound, the connections between music and language, etc). At its core, music doesn't come from instruments or sound waves. Music is made in the minds of the people experiencing it.
With so many resources available now, part of my job is to guide my students through the overwhelming and confusing bulk of jargon and different ideas. I also happily refer students to other teachers and resources when I think they will work best for their needs.
I encourage all students to explore multiple styles. I utilize resources from hundreds of different books, repertoire collections, software, and other media. Additionally, my students learn to improvise, to discover patterns in musical structures, and to approach music with curiosity and creativity. Rather than teach only strict techniques, I work with students to understand music generally and to master the learning process so they can becp,e independent and pursue whatever directions most inspire them.
For some sense of my teaching style (though a bit older and dated, 2014), see these videos (and associated articles) of my introductions to guitar:
I help students understand how music fits into our lives and our relationships. I guide my students in finding ways to freely play with music — to really explore, be creative and expressive, and use music to get in touch with basic conscious experience.Although I appreciate the value of traditions and working within an idiom, I'm drawn to seeking out musical universals and cross-cultural perspectives.
I like to start with understanding the nature of musical instruments, of sound itself, and of music generally. I help students recognize that the standard approaches are not the only options.
Some music teachers have spent all their time working on technique and learning music terminology and stylistic patterns. Of course, tose teachers know that music is expressive, emotional, and culturally meaningful; but they usually can't explain why. The problem is: the structural patterns taught in most music lessons are mere observations and not explanations. Most music students learn patterns in scales, chords, progressions, rhythms, and more without understanding how or why they work or which elements are fundamental to music universally and which are just peculiar cultural developments.
Strict teachers with a limited perspective risk falling into terrible attitudes like these:
“35 chords... some you will use, others you may never use. Either way you must learn them all...” - Jon Buck, from the book Play Guitar in 10 Easy Lessons, 2007Here is a much healthier philosophy:
“Cradling the neck between the thumb and first finger is fatal to the development of correct technique: its sole redeeming feature is to provide instant recognition of a player's incompetence.” - Vladimir Bobri, from The Segovia Technique, 1977
"Any musical instrument can be as hard to play as you want to make it. And if you wanted to be a person like Andrés Segovia or Merle Travis, why it would take a lifetime of training. But for most of us, playing the guitar can be about as simple as walking. Of course, remember, it took us all a couple of years to learn how to walk."Note: Merle Travis (a legendary country-jazz guitarist) did precisely the sort of cradling that Vladimir Bobri dismissed as "fatal." Nonetheless, Travis fully deserves the honor of being mentioned alongside Andrés Segovia. They used very different techniques, yet both were superb virtuosos.
-Pete Seeger, from the Folksinger's Guitar Guide, 1955
Pete's message is worth reiterating: Any musical instrument can be as hard to play as you want to make it. Moreover, there is no correlation between music quality and difficulty. Anyone can easily write an extremely challenging piece of music that sounds meaningless and uninspiring. It is harder to write a piece that is easy to play yet magnificently beautiful and expressive. Of course, there are also pieces that are both wonderful and difficult.
True mastery allows a musician to play whatever they like. But mastery demands incredible time and effort. While some students are deeply dedicated to music, most students have many competing interests — as well they should! I believe in keeping music in perspective (considering all the other valuable pursuits in life!). There's no need to achieve mastery in order to be musical in a meaningful way, although the life-long pursuit of improvement is an important part of the whole process.
Rote learning versus creative and conceptual learning
There is also value in completely undirected exploration. Some of the most groundbreaking and remarkable art has come from artists who found their own direction without any traditional training. Among the most original artists are also those with traditional training who later worked to break the rules, to combine styles in novel ways, or to identify new directions for exploration.
I use a mix of rote instruction, stylistic instruction, free exploration, and directed challenges for testing rules and find new forms. And I also use another approach: conceptual scientific understanding.
There are universal guiding factors to music (and to visual art) that are based in physical reality and human psychology. There are physical facts about instruments (or about paint) that limit our possibilities. Listeners mentally group musical sounds in particular ways; we are susceptible to certain illusions; we are especially sensitive to certain types of sounds or images (notably the human voice and human face); we can only process a limited amount of information at once; we develop schematic expectations based on experience, and so on.
By understanding these psychological and physical factors, students can understand the world behind their rote experiences and follow intentional creative directions. Instead of just following traditional rules or experimenting randomly, students with scientific understanding can more fully know how to make music be surprising, exciting, calming, etc. Scientific inquiry into our musical experiences can provide insights into the nature of our existence and our relationship to the world — a worthwhile end in itself.
How does this affect my teaching?
Compared with many other teachers I know, I somewhat less interested in the greatest-hits canon, whether classical or popular. Even when I teach classic techniques, I encourage creative interpretation from the very beginning. Though I appreciate many music styles and teach respect for tradition, I'm uncomfortable limiting instruction to fit within stylistic boxes. In the end, I want students to have broad perspectives and to appreciate music for what it means to each of them. I appreciate the writings of music teacher and author W.A. Mathieu who, in The Listening Book, goes so far as to suggest that only around a quarter of one's time should be spent on "other people's music."
While I am sympathetic to the ideals of originality and creativity, I do not enforce such emphasis (see Nina Paley's marvelous article on the Cult of Originality for perspective). Many of my students find deep meaning in learning traditional techniques and playing music written by others. Not everyone is motivated by composition, improvisation, or other creative directions. As students progress and have fun in whatever directions they prefer, I encourage tehm to have broad perspective and think critically.
This gets a bit more abstract and tangential…
For most of human history, music learning happened within the context of segregated (yet dynamically fluctuating) cultures and classes. Musicians picked up on whatever they heard and have always fused and morphed different musical traditions. But the scope of music that any one person could hear was limited. In the 21st century, however, this situation has changed dramatically. The past century brought dramatic globalization and cross-cultural interaction as well as the development of recording technology. Now, the internet has blurred all boundaries and provided open access for anyone to be exposed to anything.
Even within only guitar music, navigating the extreme diversity is completely overwhelming. When asked what music one likes, the most common answer today (in my experience) is "everything." I'm not even sure how much today's kids listen to the same music as their immediate friends (tell me if you know of research on this). Everyone can choose whatever they like on their personal devices, so diversity is the new norm, both within one person's listening and from person to person.
Some teachers of popular music now often emphasize the hits of American pop/rock canon since the 1960's, assuming that this is what students want to learn. I suspect this is partly self-fulfilling: it is because the teachers choose these songs that the students know them, more than the other way around. In my observations, most younger students become familiar with Stairway to Heaven and Smoke on the Water mostly through guitar lessons, either their own or through their friends who are guitar students.
Indeed, teachers don't just explain known music to students, they largely are responsible for introducing students to music and culture. Some teachers are so enthusiastic about their particular musical tastes that they are happy to indoctrinate their students. But I'm not one of those teachers. For better or worse, I don't embrace any particular tradition. I celebrate and appreciate our 21st century diverse global culture.
Yet there is something lacking about simply living with diversity. There's something special about living in a defined culture where I feel a part of a deep heritage. People today often struggle to find their cultural place, given the dizzying array of options. Below is a simplistic and imperfect historical background of how people have reacted to the developments of globalism and technology:
Modernism was a movement started in the late 19th century which actively broke with traditional culture to promote new progress in music, art, architecture, and life in general. In part a rejection of tribalism and nationalism, Modernism took an optimistic focus on achieving universal truth and happiness through democracy, science, and globalism. Modernists used novel structures based on mathematical and scientific principles, promoted experimentation, and rejected traditional cultural expectations and forms. Modernists claimed their creations to be objectively superior replacements for old traditions. They proposed to replace a divided, superstitious, prejudiced, fractured world with a utopia providing well-being to all through modern science.
Postmodernism was a reaction against modernism's presumptions. Postmodernism focuses on acknowledging the many different perspectives of our multicultural world. Modernists imagined that they had pure objectivity, but they were, of course, still products of their own cultural biases. Postmodernism highlighted these problems and worked to revitalize traditional cultural art and values while highlighting political problems of power and prejudice. Yet as postmodernism evolved, it moved toward complete relativism, ironic culture, and denial of all objectivity. Postmodernists today imply (often in extremely convoluted language) that everything is about symbolism, cultural constructions, power struggles, and identity. In doing so, they disregard (or at least downplay) the vast and profound universal features of human nature and common experience.
I used to use the ridiculous term post-postmodernity to refer to the time and intellectual place in which we live today. There is now a long history of artists and philosophers in traditional, modern, and postmodern circles; the world is more confusing and fast-paced than ever; and here we are just trying to make sense of things. I remain agnostic — meaning that I don't think fallible human beings can know much of anything with absolute certainty, but I still accept many things with reasonable certainty.
Through scientific research, we have developed ideas that successfully predict and explain much of the world as we experience it, and these theories have led to such things as modern medicine and technology. The modernist dream of creating a more prosperous, happier world for all is not dead. If everyone can acknowledge our universal humanity, we can better surpass our us-vs-them tribal tendencies.
Yet we must also acknowledge the serious issues of cultural identity, privilege, power, and subjectivity that are important to our experience. In art and music, we can celebrate the insights from all these perspectives. We have scientific evidence of universal human appreciation for beautiful scenes with trees and flowing streams and of universal enjoyment in dancing (or at least tapping your foot) to a musical beat. These things don't come from cultural sources; they are universal aspects of human biology. Of course, there is also much to be said for novelty and cultural diversity. I don't want a world where everything is mixed together and distinctions are erased. I don't know all the answers, but we should understand and appreciate all these influences and influences that make up our world today.
I imagine readers now saying: "Why even deal with all this philosophy‽ I just want to rock out!" or "I just want to make beautiful expressive music" or "I'm just trying to work on how to control my finger position!" Well, let's be practical. Anyone truly confident and happy in their task at hand, great. I spend much of my time in lessons just working on practical things or learning great classics, jamming, or singing songs. But as a teacher with the responsibility of guiding my students, I deal with these philosophical concerns. I am not comfortable being only a traditional classical guitarist or a folk singer or an experimental composer (et cetera). I am interested in exploring it all. All of this and more are within my culture today, including the philosophical ideas.
Like the postmodernists, I am concerned about cultural biases I see in society — especially in education. But I reject postmodern ideas of absolute relativism and everything as fundamentally symbolic. Though we live our experiences in cultural context, the bulk of our experience is biological. Differences are easy to see because they stick out (because of the nature of our human cognition). But common universals are just as important to understand. We could not even empathize with others at all were it not for shared, common experiences.
Here are some ways that my philosophy plays out in my teaching:
I'm not one of those teachers you'll hear claiming that my instrument is somehow the best. Every instrument has different qualities, and I just happen to know the details of guitar more than other instruments. I try to keep that in perspective. But while no instrument is the best, they aren't all equal. A trumpet built with one valve upside-down and hard to reach would be an objectively worse trumpet. I happen to feel that the Chapman Stick is superior in many ways to the electric guitar, although they each have pros and cons. Furthermore, I might argue similarly for Kite-fretting (and I even have a kite-fretted stick-like tapper!). Practically speaking, I must admit that, for better or worse, the novelty of these things might be as significant part of the overall experience as any acoustic or physical factor.
My approach as a teacher is as a knowledgeable and thoughtful guide through this complex world of styles, techniques, cultures, and musical potentials. I challenge students to achieve based on their individual goals, interests, and abilities. I let them be in charge of their creative directions; but I direct students and make decisions when needed. I express my opinions while trying not to impose them.
Pop/folk teachers typically teach just enough theory to be functional, and they assume that the goal is to play or explore within the attitude and idiom of their particular cultural background. They may or may not use notation, and learning is often approached through lots of listening and mimicking of recordings. In contrast, classical teachers often teach a regimen of progressive learning through music notation, famous composers, and very careful, technical practice.
I understand the pros and cons of these various approaches. I don't restrict students' potential by insisting they play traditional music or with traditional techniques. On the other hand, there are known techniques that work while other approaches risk injury. I provide clear direction and strong goals when appropriate, but I encourage experimentation when healthy. If I know of resources or a teacher where a student could learn their particular goals more effectively, I will refer students to them.
The goal is to understand music and use this understanding to enrich your life. Music can communicate in powerful ways, can regulate mood and emotion, can be just a fun challenge, and can be social. Music study can provide focus, expression, physical coordination, and emotional and intellectual inspiration.
If you actually read all this philosophizing, you might like to read some of my other articles: