Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Good idea?

  1. Feb 19, 2008 #1
    What do you think about creating a commercial free channel which plays nothing but pro musicians and teachers giving video lessons. You could have a channel for each instrument if you wanted. Maybe have one program that covers like 4 or 5 instruments: drums, bass, guitar, piano, voice. Then have that program run on 3 different channels about 1 or two hour apart in time so that the lesson you want to watch is always on at your desired time. You could hire pros to do weekly lessons just for the show. You could have 3 different levels:beginner, intermediate, and pro. You could also have a channel dedicated to giving classical lessons, and other types of music. You could have a channel that deals with recording, producing, setting up live sound systems, mastering etc, playing as a band etc. One show on the channel could feature home videos of amateur bands/performers who send in videos.

    I was just thinking how cool that would be cause I remember learning to play drums as a kid by watching video lessons. It would be great for the kids, very educational. You could have certain scientific shows on the program every once in a while which teach the physics of sound and music. I don't expect to make money off the idea or anything, but maybe someone with some power could get the idea and do it. I would buy the channel. Advertising for it would be easy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2008 #2

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why couldn't you do it online? Record the lessons, have them available on-demand...? You could pay for it with advertising.
     
  4. Feb 19, 2008 #3
    Thats a great idea.
     
  5. Feb 19, 2008 #4
    Those already exist to a degree. The problem is a lot of them are kind of shoddy quality, so if you wanted to make something top notch, you'd have something above your competitors.

    The added benefit of having it on the internet is that people can watch something whenever they want to, instead of being bound to a programming schedule. Moreover, you wouldn't have to have separate programs for each that keep repeating the same thing, so that would no doubt save some cash.
     
  6. Feb 19, 2008 #5

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As far as ideas, though, I like it. I'm sure there are many families who would like to give lessons to their kids, but can't afford it.

    We pay a lot of money each month for our daughter's music lessons, that's for sure!
     
  7. Feb 19, 2008 #6
    I pay like $16.50/week for lessons, although I go every other week during the school year. Then again, it would depend on what instrument, and how advanced everybody is, so it's hard to compare money straight up. I feel I get a good value out of it, especially since the teacher can answer questions in 10 minutes that would take me months to figure out on my own, even with videos.
     
  8. Feb 19, 2008 #7
    Having it on the net on demand would be cool, but I picture it being on TV. It would be like buying the nfl ticket, or hbo. Having it on tv would be easier for kids too. It would be nice to have an alternative to the other junk thats on tv.
     
  9. Feb 19, 2008 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are already dozens or maybe even hundreds of music education DVDs on the market. They don't make anyone rich, so why would a TV channel, which has way more overhead? I don't think you understand the economics involved in producing broadcast-quality video.

    - Warren
     
  10. Feb 19, 2008 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Watching someone else play isn't very helpful compared to someone watching you play and correct your technique. This is probably why lessons on videos aren't wildly popular. If someone is going to pay for lessons, it seems more sensible to pay for sessions with an actual instructor, even if it's in a more affordable group lesson, where you do the playing and the instructor helps you learn to play, than to pay for online lessons where you're just watching someone else play. This is probably why the videos already available aren't of that good of quality; it would cost more to produce than you could ever earn back in profit.
     
  11. Feb 19, 2008 #10
    The thing is that most of those dvds out aren't very good. Take for example a cooking channel, or the do it yourself channel, or the travel channel, etc. No one is going to make any money making a cooking dvd. No one is going to make money making a travel dvd, or a construction dvd. However, when it is a dedicated channel, then many people watch. How many people do you know who are interested in music compared to the amount of people interested in woodworking or something. With the large audiences you would have, you would be able to afford to make an excellent channel. You could produce much better material than is out in the DVD collections. I think it would be a huge hit and it's just what this country needs.
     
  12. Feb 19, 2008 #11
    People who are paying for instructors would still be very interested in watching the material on tv. The instructor would probably assign you to watch it. Also, like I said, I learned how to play by watching a video. Now i am very good. The pros of lessons on video is that you can watch it over and over. The majority of what you learn taking lessons could easily be taught on video. Another pro is that you would be getting video lessons from the best of the best.

    I took lessons for a while while in college, and I know it was helpful, but mostly a rip off. The instructor didn't teach me anything, he just kept saying learn this exersize better, or play this better. The majority of learning drums at least is done with hours of simple excersises, and just watching programs that teach them would be a great plus.

    Another huge advantage to the network would be that for the price of maybe 12 dollars a month, you could have many many hour of material. Seeing a profession one on one cost about $100 an hour. Seeing the best would cost much more. You would probably do 1 lesson a week at half hour a lesson. That would be about $200 a month, and you only get 2 hours of time. Meanwhile you could have at your dispence guitar lessons, drum lessons, recording lessons, piana etc 24 hours a day for 30 days at your dispence.

    It may not initially be a huge get rich scheme, but it would be great to have even if it was non profit payed for by donations. If you spent megabucks on advertising, and did well organizing and planning, I think you could make as much money as MTV does.
     
  13. Feb 19, 2008 #12
    The goal would be that it becomes something that every household is convinced is a must for their children at least. Learning to play an instrument at a young age even makes you smarter in general. I think that with the right advertising and connections, it could be as popular, or more popular than hbo, and with less overhead.
     
  14. Feb 19, 2008 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That sounds like a pretty ambitious goal. :rofl: Get an education in business administration before investing your own money. Fools rush in.

    - Warren
     
  15. Feb 19, 2008 #14
    The only thing I see in the way is getting space on direct tv. Does anyone know how that kind of thing works? What kind of connections or money do you need just for the space?
     
  16. Feb 19, 2008 #15
    Maybe you should get a degree in business administration before saying it won't work.:biggrin:
     
  17. Feb 19, 2008 #16

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I very nearly have my MBA from Stanford. Thanks for the advice.

    - Warren
     
  18. Feb 19, 2008 #17

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why? You haven't provided a compelling reason to do so. If you're capable of learning to play an instrument just by watching a video, you could probably also learn just by picking up a lesson book.

    Unless you're going to talk Julliard instructors into providing lessons (and how much are you going to pay them for these lessons?), how will you convince anyone this is the case? Since you earlier compared this to the Food Network, you should read our thread about what crappy shows are on that channel and how bad they are for learning how to cook.

    And how would you know to work on a particular exercise more if you were just watching a video? The video can't evaluate if you're doing it right. A beginner can't tell what they need to improve yet. You still need to do the hours of exercises/practice, and watching a video isn't going to eliminate that need.

    Where do you take lessons? You can get lessons a lot less expensive than that! And, how do you intend to keep production costs so low that you can run an entire TV station for $12/month from each viewer? You're not going to have many viewers. Do you realize how much your production costs would be? And how much you'd have to pay those "top" instructors to do a video that they know you will sell? If they can get $100/hour in private lessons, why would they work for you for free?

    The point of taking lessons from the top instructors is to learn to play an instrument at a level where most people could not discern a difference...you can't get that from a video...that's where the instructor is really spending time honing YOUR skill, not just showing you the basics. Again, you can't learn that by watching, but by doing and having someone critique you.

    I don't think so. I think people would rather just watch MTV.

    But, if you've already convinced yourself and don't want to listen to criticism, I don't know why you're bothering to ask our opinion at all. Go ahead and waste your money on it. If you make a fortune on it, you can come back later and laugh.
     
  19. Feb 19, 2008 #18
    I take it you don't play anything?
     
  20. Feb 19, 2008 #19
    I respect your opinions, I just disagree. You seem pessimistic, and you seem to not even know anything about learning to play. Maybe you wouldn't buy the channel, but there are plenty of musicians and want to be musicians who would absolutely love it. It is as if you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and not for the sake of practicality.
     
  21. Feb 19, 2008 #20

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Guitar, and many years in a choir. But, the fact that you assume those of us criticizing you know nothing about playing an instrument just illustrates that you're unwilling to accept there are flaws in your plan. Again, why bother asking if you don't want to hear about the flaws? If you just want everyone to nod and say, "Good idea ol' chap!" don't bother asking if it's a good idea. Those of us who don't think it's a good idea are going to tell you so. You might have noticed that we don't really sugar coat things here; it doesn't help much.
     
  22. Feb 19, 2008 #21
    Who said I didn't want to hear it?

    You point out what you interpret as flaws, I disagree and tell you why, you tell me I don't want to hear it. Give me more substance if you want to keep posting, or just say your it won't work line and leave.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2008
  23. Feb 19, 2008 #22

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I played trumpet for 8 years and currently play guitar. I used to be good enough to teach lessons, but that was back in college. I'm not as good as I once was. My sister is a jazz musician and teaches school. Real music education happens in classrooms and with tutors, because that's what actually works.

    - Warren
     
  24. Feb 19, 2008 #23

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, you're the one who's not providing a convincing argument. I've told you why it won't work, repeatedly. To learn an instrument well, you need someone IN PERSON who can watch and listen to what YOU are doing to correct your mistakes and help you refine your technique.

    Chroot and I have also pointed out that there are large expenses to producing what you are suggesting, and you have provided nothing to support that you have worked out any realistic plan to cover those expenses in your business plan, or that you have any marketing strategy at all. You're not doing a good job selling it, and that's step one. If you can't convince people there's a reason to spend their $12 on even one month's subscription (and I'm not at all convinced you could offer it that cheaply anyway), just to have a channel that keeps repeating the same lessons over and over, they're never going to even look if the content is worthwhile. If someone is going to invest in the purchase of an instrument, they're going to also want to invest in lessons that will help them learn to play it the quickest.

    At best, having a single show on a channel like PBS might convince some kid to get an instrument and take private lessons, but it's hardly going to pay for itself, and people aren't going to actually learn that way. Do you think people really learned to paint from that guy who used to have the "happy painting with the happy little trees and a little happy flower over here, and maybe a happy cloud up here" (I don't remember his name)? People would watch a bit of that now and then, but I don't think anyone would have actually paid to watch it, no less watch an entire network of shows like that. You're not going to learn to play an instrument anymore than you're going to learn to paint by watching TV. Better to save the subscription fee and pay for lessons in person.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2008
  25. Feb 19, 2008 #24
    I agree with the criticism that this idea would not work in its present form. But I disagree that in order to learn well, you need a teacher. There are some brilliant people out there that have learned well without a teacher (some are savants). Also, some of the most creative musicians are self-taught too (jazz legends).
     
  26. Mar 9, 2008 #25
    You make good points, but I think your ideology is based on a miss understanding of the details of my idea.

    I never argued that watching video lessons would be a better way to learn than private lessons. My thoughts were that a musician would appreciate to watch new techniques and such things demonstrated by top pros, and in turn may learn new things. Non musicians would have a starting point from which they can begin to play. They may later choose to go and get private lessons, or they may teach themselves. The idea is that parents would have the chance to give their children the chance to become a musician just by buying a subscription.

    You are attacking my idea based on the assumption that anything on television is practically worthless for educational purposes, people will see that and opt not to buy the channel. I see your point here and it is a valid argument. Can people be convinced to use their television as a learning device rather than a strictly entertainment device.

    The answer I have to this is that the profits would not be dependent on ratings, and will not be made through advertisement. I believe that many people would buy it based on it's educational value. I could also however see people being to lazy to watch it and switching to their reality tv show or whatever. Dedicated musicians I would think would strongly appreciate the channel and watch it frequently.

    If you really think about it, I think that their is an extremely wide range of demographics that would buy the product. The one thing that we all have in common is music. Look at the money made by Estevan. His success has shown that their is a large market base of people looking to learn to play music.

    I would think that the price would be around $5-$10 a month. Get say 12 million subscriptions and you have about 60-120 million coming in every month. You could probably get the material produced for about 1 million a month at high quality. X amount goes to the broadcasting company, which I imagine is a lot, and the rest is profit. Like I said before, the problem is in getting the space on DTV and comcast, that is where the picture becomes fuzzy to me.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook