The only method worse than Duolingo for language learning is possibly the traditional classroom, in my humble opinion.
My background is that I've studied Korean for ~8 years now, as a native English speaker. Like most US citizens I took Spanish classes in middle & high school. I did the traditional classroom method with 3 semesters of German in college. And I forgot most of Spanish and German aside from some words and grammatical rules, because neither got me to a level of conversations with native speakers or being able to engage with media.
Duolingo and most classrooms (I know there are exceptional curriculums and exceptional students) don't prepare you to actually speak to people. They prepare you to engage within their systems, aka answering tests or whatever. This is not speaking a language but moreso learning about it academically.
There is a lot to discuss but I've never been able to recommend Duolingo, even before they reduced their staff and replaced them with AI. Why? Because it's inefficient with regards to your time, and the content is too insubstantial. It's possible to spend a year of your time on Duolingo and barely be able to speak the language at all with someone... which is kinda the whole point of studying a language?
I love the hobby of studying languages and things like Duolingo and the classroom method put people off when they can't speak very much even after a long time investment, which is damn shame.
My point is neither should really be looked towards for substantial language learning methods.
> and most classrooms (I know there are exceptional curriculums and exceptional students) don't prepare you to actually speak to people
Is this really how language lessons are taught in US high schools? I've learned English and French in high school, and we were forced to speak all the time.
* Read a story together (who's reading aloud is frequently switched), then the teacher asks questions about the story and picks students to answer. The student answers, if there's errors the teacher fixes them, and the student repeats the corrected answer.
* When you learn new grammar, the teacher starts a sentence, and a student has to finish it using the new grammatical structure (or similar exercises). This was followed by homework, where all those exercises happened again, in writing.
By year 3, we also did lots of essay-style writing, which is where you really drill down into learning the language. Essays were graded and discussed.
In my opinion, this is the best (and also most expensive) way to thoroughly learn a language, it can only really be improved by cutting down the size of the class to ideally 2-3 students - which, of course, makes it even more expensive.
We did do those kinds of things. For example, speaking with a partner or having to give a 5 minute talk to the teacher on something.
The problem is that it's grossly inefficient time-wise, and the content of "conversations" was always very, very simple. "Hi my name is _, I like the color _, My hometown is in _, how are you today?" Is not a real conversation. It's boring and most students learn the vocab for the upcoming chapter's test, then forget it after.
I'll concede that with 3 semesters of German, were I to pick it up again, I would probably do so pretty quickly given that the teachers paid a lot of attention to our essays.
It's probable that small classes would help because the teacher could then be more of a private tutor. But with 20-30 size classes, only really motivated students who already study/watch media outside of school will excel. So it's kind of redundant in my opinion.
Diligent self-study with attending a language exchange or another environment to speak/practice the language will yield much greater results much faster. You can study the same textbooks at your own pace, you can find additional material and study groups, and you can hire a tutor at times to fill in gaps.
I think if you're a college student it's fine since you have to pick a class anyway (I had to take 3 semesters of any language), but as an adult where time is significantly more precious, I can't recommend it. In a sibling comment I went over what I do use.
> "Hi my name is _, I like the color _, My hometown is in _, how are you today?" Is not a real conversation.
That's... "first two weeks"-level of language lessons, right? No reason not to progress to children's stories and newspaper articles in time.
We basically never did speaking with a partner, I think our teachers realized that most students will learn little from that. It was always student teacher interactions, but in a way that required everybody to pay attention/participate. The teacher would ask a question, waited a few seconds so everybody could begin forming a response, and then pick a student to answer.
Not listening and mentally preparing an answer risked getting picked, failing, and getting admonished/ridiculed - and the teachers were (naturally) pretty good at calling on students who had drifted off. If you were paying attention, you also constantly compared your prepared response with what other students were answering, which made you think about correct grammar, ect.
I think if you have the resources to do 5 hours of language lessons a week, this is the best way. If you're learning independently, your way is probably more effective in terms of time and money. I've saved your other comment, I really should get back into Spanish...
In my four years of US high school Spanish in South Florida, I don't recall a single time we read complete stories or newspaper articles. It was entirely grammar and vocabulary in isolation. When there was speaking exercises the teachers did not make an effort to have the native speakers speak with the non-native speakers.
The only thing close to what I'd now call "Compelling Comprehensive Input" that I recall is a single week where we watched a Friends-style miniseries about an English speaker moving to Spain.
> That's... "first two weeks"-level of language lessons, right? No reason not to progress to children's stories and newspaper articles in time.
After trying for years to learn my wife’s native language, I haven’t really gotten past the “my name is _” and a few other key phrases. I’ve got maybe 10 phrases memorized and I think that’s all my brain can hold at this point. Language learning is not for everyone.
That's certainly true, but there's probably another effect at play here: language learning is extremely time intensive, and you don't progress if you're not practicing a minimum amount of hours per month - you even lose progress again.
You probably could break through to hundreds of phrases with spaced repetition software and "only" a concentrated effort of a few dozen hours. But, yes, this requires almost daily practice. And then later, many hours of maintenance effort.
Every human learns a language from birth; there's no inherent reason why learning a second one "can't be for everyone".
The thing is that it requires a lot of time and studying. At least 30 mins per day is the bare minimum, but 1-3 is much better for results.
I don't personally feel like language learning is easier for me than other people. I just focused on putting the time and studying in diligently over many years.
> It's probable that small classes would help because the teacher could then be more of a private tutor. But with 20-30 size classes, only really motivated students who already study/watch media outside of school will excel. So it's kind of redundant in my opinion.
Yup. Motivated students learn the language in the classroom (+ self-study) just fine. Unmotivated students don't, but they are not motivated anyway.
That's interesting to me. From my perspective, I didn't find Duolingo great, but it did give me some vocab and basic sentences, and left me feeling more competent than I actually ended up being once I was living where they speak the language I was learning.
Since then I did classes on-again, off-again and I can really feel my ability ramping up when I'm doing them, to the point where I was having short conversations in that second language. When I'm not doing classes, I'm still reinforcing things through my surroundings but I definitely feel that I plateau and don't really get much better.
However, the classes did get me to a point where now I can do things like play D&D in my second language. I still don't feel fluent (I have to active-listen the whole time which is tiring, and sometimes mentally translate still, though that's improving) but I am pretty conversational, and the classes definitely made a big difference for me.
Perhaps it's that there are classes and then there are classes, and you've had bad luck with the quality or nature of yours?
internet_points posted good advice a comment or two above. Duolingo _is_ ok as a starting point, but (as was said before), move on as soon as possible. As a poster above did, I also spent way way too long on Duolingo, chasing the 'streak'. And got nowhere. I already had a foundation when I started, but I got no farther in a year or more of daily Duo. All progress stopped. When I finally switched to graded input instead, and deleted everything Duo from my devices, things finally picked up again. I could have used the time I wasted on Duo to get input instead, it's something which actually works (when the input is compelling and something which can be mostly understood).
I can only tell you what worked for me: it's input. Read. Start using any brute-force method to learn the basics, like the 100 most common words. Then start reading stories aimed at toddlers (or especially written for language learners, there are apps), and keep going to more complex input as you progress.
Do not worry about grammar; you will learn it intuitively as you move from simple sentences to more complex blocks of text. Do not worry about learning word lists after you have the basics; learn words in the context of the text you're reading.
(I have no qualifications besides being a self-taught English and Chinese speaker, so take my input for what it's worth.)
There is no one magic solution. Every person I know who has learned a language to an advanced degree has used a variety of methods, diligently, over a long period of time, depending on their current needs. I can give a brief overview of some tools that I find to be efficient in terms of time and payoff, in no particular order.
1. SRS - Spaced Repetition Software, for flashcards. Anki is the gold standard. It's open source and free on every pc/android/etc except iphone where it's $20 I think. I recommend finding a good starting deck with about 3k to 6k words to help build your core vocabulary. In my case it was "Evita's 5k Korean". For about 6-8 months I grinded 20 new words per day, which means about 30-50 minutes of Anki depending on if you missed a day or not and thus had a backlog. If you have less time I recommend 5 or 10 new words per day.
2. Find trusted resources for grammar and structured learning. You might have to hunt around but for Korean, I found some excellent websites, Youtubers, and textbooks like Korean Grammar in Use I-III. These materials really are the core of your studying. Vocab doesn't help much if you don't know grammar and you certainly can't say anything without vocab. These are how you get to output, i.e. writing and speaking correctly.
3. Find graded readers if possible. Roughly, these are texts designed around 90% comprehension which is a sweetspot for learning new words naturally through context. Unfortunately at the time I couldnt find any for Korean, but I've watched friends use them for e.g. Mandarin Chinese and learn quite a lot of vocabulary in a short time.
4. Find someone who can correct your writing in some form. Whether that's a private tutor or a friend who's native language is your target language and their target language is your native language. In the past I found some dedicated learners through HelloTalk who would trade journal entries with me. I would correct their English and they would correct my Korean. It goes without saying that you need to practice output in your target language when possible, both in writing and in speech.
5. Find a good language exchange and/or friends who speak your target language. By good, I mean a structured language exchange that enforces pairings and language usage. In Seoul I find that most "language exchanges" are excuses to drink and and chat, mostly in English. There was one language exchange that 1:1 Korean language-only pairings for 1 hour, then I repaid that with 2-3 30minute pairings of 2-3 people in English. This is where you put your textbook/solo studies to practice by actually speaking (and hopefully getting corrections). Eventually I hit a plateau and got tired of having similar conversations, plus paying $10 per event. I also found a few lifelong friends who are studying English and thus we can ping each other for random questions.
6. Find some spaces or groups that are -only- in your target language. With the internet it's easier than ever now with Discord. For example, my friend learned a lot of French by hanging out in French speaking gaming servers on discord. There are also apps like Hilokal and HelloTalk, but I haven't used them in a while so I can't speak to their quality anymore. Lastly there are offline options depending on your area. In the US I used Meetup to find language groups and in Korea I use, well, a korean equivalent to find groups in niches I enjoy.
7. Lastly, and this isn't a tool, but "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus. In learning a language, you will make mistakes and you will say things that sound stupid. It's okay. It's unavoidable and you make good progress by learning from these mistakes, so long as you reflect on them and understand why the mistake occurred. The people who focus on being perfect and making zero mistakes in learning a language, in my experience, do not go very far.
These are some great tips. Having consistent daily exposure to your target language I think is important. Compelling graded readers can make spending that time every day enjoyable and not feel like a chore. A stress-free positive learning environment helps quite a bit with the subconscious process of language acquisition; it's what Krashen calls the "Affective Filter Hypothesis".
Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis.
"Most common chord" is mildly interesting, but not really that useful. The most common key, and the most commonly used chords relative to that key (i.e. with roman numeral analysis) would be much more useful and interesting. This would help paint a clearer distinction between e.g. country and jazz, not that "jazz uses Bb major more". Also, anyone with general instrument knowledge would surmise that since Bb and Eb instruments are much more prevalent.
"If you’re sitting down to write a song, throw a 7th chord in. The ghost of a jazz great will smile on you."
7ths don't belong to jazz only, and the average songwriter isn't making data-driven decisions on how to settle on the chord structure for their song.
Agreed on chord numbers and progression being the analysis that should have been done. For example, blues is mostly defined by a 1-4-5 progression and the ol 2-5-1 is pretty ubiquitous across time and genre.
Also, I think disappearance of 7th chords - major, minor, or dominant - is vastly overstated. Keep in mind that these are from guitar tabs so likely ignoring chord inversion / voicing / substitution taking placw to simplify notation. For example a B minor triad can be substituted for a Gmaj7.
Bm triad = B,D,F#
Gmaj7 = G,B,D,F#
Or if you want to be fancy a Bb/Gm can work as either Bbmaj7 or C7 depending on where you put it in a progression.
As you have suggested, it has also become common to use patterns like Bm/G to create a Gm7 that is less spicy than if the bass G were mixed into the treble octaves. 9 and 11 chords are also done this way.
C7/D is a C9 chord, and C/D is a bit more "open" of a sound but still a 9 chord.
Agree completely. I assume OP means major or minor 7th chord - they can't possibly mean dominant 7th, because...does there even exist a single blues song which doesn't have that chord?
And let's say you take maj7 chords - "you and me song", "you are so beautiful", "sing sang sung", "1975" - just off the top of my head. Pretty much any pop song which is melancholic sounding.
For min7, choose virtually any Santana song.
Even if you said maj9 or min9 it still wouldn't be remotely true. Otoh 13th chords....I think you'd have to reach to find a non-jazz occurrence of that chord. And it happens in jazz all the time.
I am pretty sure the analysis is: however the chord is notated in Ultimate Guitar, that's how it's analyzed. So if the chord sheet says C Am F G, that's exactly how it's being analyzed, even if that G is almost certainly acting as a dominant 7th, especially once you factor in what all the other voices are doing.
I think most musicians know that I-IV-V-I is the zero thought default for in key chord progression, it's so overused you don't need fancy analysis to figure it out.
For me, I'm more interested in the intervals and voicing pairs, because those tell you something deeper about the music that you don't get from the chord progression.
I have an almost irrational love for I-IV-VII-V. It's got a sort of happy, laid-back nostalgic vibe - sort of the best way I know to smuggle an extra major chord into a key. It can be approached in some fun different ways - can be thought of a "mixolydian" progression off the tonic, but it's also two I-IVs stuck together - almost a little mini-modulation if you wanna think of that way.
Sunrain[1] by Lotus is probably my favorite example (listen for the chords that come in under the main riff). But it's a staple in tons of rock music, and once you get it into your ears you'll hear it all over.
Jeeze this song is hard to listen to.. it almost feels like intentional syncopation on the guitar part but I can’t imagine they would have left it in intentionally after hearing how grating it is against the drum groove
Oh I love the melody and harmony, it’s the guitar rhythm that kills me. It’s to the point that it feels random and as a fellow musician I cringe to even say that about someone’s playing because I know how intentional music is, especially the kind meant to sound like it’s not
There's bandleaders who have geared their entire performance so if you can pick this kind of thing up by ear, follow their timing, and put effort into making them sound better, you're more valuable than some alternatives having truly advanced formal musical training.
Especially with equal or better chops, lots of players like this can go into a studio and make recordable music, in one take, without actually rehearsing together in advance.
And play in any key, since it's just Roman numerals.
To further this, my trio is down a half step because we’re older now and it’s easier to sing at a lower register. This is pretty common for a lot of over 40 artists as well.
Also, as you know, blues has dominant 7ths all over.
> average songwriter isn't making data-driven decisions on how to settle on the chord structure for their song
Depends on what do you call data-driven. A songwriter most likely knows that a lot of fifth chords to gives power-metal vibes, and diminished and out-of-key songs do give these ghosts of jazz.
The parallels between your critique of music analysis, and linguists' critique of LLMs, bear remarkable similarities. "Language/thought is more than sequences of tokens" will still be true no matter how much data we throw at the problem to smooth the rough edges.
The parallelism doesn't really work, I'm going to try to stretch it to make a point though.
Imagine that we were at a stage in which LLMs didn't really make sentences, only output like "Potato rainbow screen sunny throat", then we studied which words are used. There's really not much value to the words at all, we could maybe see which words are bundled together, we could try to ascertain what kind of words are used more, but in wanting to study the coherence of it all, it just holds very, very little value.
Chords by themselves hold very little meaning. The sensations evoked come from chords in a context and the progression provides very valuable context. Talking about a chord in a song is like talking about a word in a book, it's never really about that piece of the puzzle appearing, it's about how that piece is used in the puzzle.
It does work, particularly the emphasis on causal sequences being wholly inefficient to represent multidimensional and abstract concepts such as those that exist in both language and music.
The fact that you never refer to "syntax" even in this attempt at high level reasoning gives me pause and I cannot help but to conclude that you are making arguments in bad faith.
There is a lot of mathematics that can be used to analyse language. Phonetics is basically acoustics, phonology has things like optimality theory, for morphology you can use finite state machines, syntax uses formal grammars, statistics obviously plays a big role in certain areas, etc.
Both in the case of music and linguistics, there are people who argue (probably not wholly without merit) that looking at the mathematics too much is missing the point.
A refusal to acknowledge such integral parts of these systems as semantics renders that line of argument wholly irrelevant. No good faith discussion cannot be conducted without participants who already understand the meaning behind symbols.
It doesn't matter at all what "mathematics" you use to "analyze" music because the purpose of these modes of communication goes beyond the arbitrary sounds chosen -- what does matter is what is being represented by those sounds.
Statistics is for the analysis of systems in equilibrium. Language by definition is a non-equilibrium system.
If you had more to say on the topic at hand, you would have said it by now. I'm not interested in trying to educate someone so comfortable in promulgating assertions informed by nothing but amateur-level vibes.
We could list the logical fallacies you're displaying in the spirit of "debate and reasoning" but I have no faith this would go anywhere productive.
Report me instead of complaining about guidelines if retaliation for being exposed for your ignorance is so important to you.
But it would be terribly wasteful to further entertain someone on the subject of music and artificial intelligence, when it is so evident they must first overcome their oblivious impertinence and emotional incompetence in order for such debate to be even moderately enjoyable to anyone else less arrogant and unhappy.
You assume my choice to not continue the conversation is because I have nothing to say, when in fact I do so because I have nothing to say to you specifically.
Oh good, you know big words. Next on the list is to learn the relevant big words for the things for which you claim competence. I'll wait.
PS: it's funny that your best comeback is just to imitate the critique I levied against you. You could demonstrate your "debate and reasoning" ability by crafting an actual argument, but you don't. I'm convinced that was not a cognizant choice but an act of desperation to save what's left of your ego. I've dealt with your type enough to know what you are, and after all this you will be forced to acknowledge the same... unless your ego really is strong enough to overcome your capacity for "reasoning".
> and the average songwriter isn't making data-driven decisions on how to settle on the chord structure for their song
aren't decisions like that implicit to the source of learning/inspiration? it's not data-driven on the surface of the writers awareness, and maybe not data-driven in the statistical sense, but "intuitively", "that which sounds good successively", is based on what one heard so far within the context of the song ... so it's one hundred percent data-driven, just not data that one has consciously quantified.
IMO:
average songwriters and musicians and producers are the top exactly because they hit exactly that big fat belly of the bell curve/ G distribution ... I'd say you have it backwards... there's much more experimentation and less data-stuff going on left and right of the average
It's likely the path of least resistance. Many people have whatsapp and it's far preferable to sms. Significantly fewer people have heard of signal, let alone have it installed. And privacy literacy, for a neighbor group chat?
> But they have bought into the whole C/C++ are by default insecure and therefore garbage. In their mind, no mortal could ever write so much as a single safe function in those languages.
No one thinks this except some strawman that you've devised. No point in reading anything else in this comment when this is so blatantly absurd and detached from reality.
All you have to do is read comments from members of the Rust community online, in every public forum where Rust is discussed in any way.
Understand, I am not trying to villainize an entire community of software developers; but for you to say something that's blatantly false is to just stick your head in the sand.
You should try and read the words people write. Opinions are not formed in a vacuum.
Edit: to be clear- I have no problems with Rust the language beyond some ergonomic concerns. I am not a Rust hater, nor am I a zealot. I do advocate for C# a lot for application code though. But I do not deride others' language preferences. You should not dismiss my observations because I used hyperbole. Obviously not every Rust dev thinks you can't write a secure C/C++ function; don't pick out the one hyperbolic statement to discredit my entire post. Bad form.
The language one speaks has nothing to do with literature class*, as the point is to teach reading comprehension, critical thinking, writing, and whatnot. The exposure of great works before college helps build a firm foundation on which to read and dissect more complex works.
* Obviously the works need to be readable in a language one knows. But it's not like the essence of literature classes change whether one speaks English or German or whatever. That's not the point.
reply