Fascinating thread interesting to see how different methods can be employed.  
 
Personally I am completely self taught, on both guitar and keys, (probably shows), by reading books, listening, watching, playing with others, experimenting and just practising as much as possible.
 
My experience with trying to teach a friend is that some things work for some and some things do not.
 
Again thanks for all those who made valuable contribution it made for an enlightening read and education which I can apply with my friend.

Wookiee
 
Again thanks for all those who made valuable contribution it made for an enlightening read

+1
 
I'm still reflecting on the contributions. Backwoods hit on a biggy I think. Seems like the value of methods within the school systems are always being evaluated.
I don't like to talk bad about how they teach music in the public schools and especially since I only know about how it was taught in my schools-years ago...but it was not good. It was rote to the bone. We could have been little monkeys and made no difference. Of course there were a few of us that had formal instructions but the players that were limited to what the public school offered were "mechanical". I mean they could execute the piece IF they had the music. Loose the music, loose the player. They could read..had to give them that.
I think it was a fine example of results from only the one method being taught...whether or not that was realized. Maybe they wanted a programmed band for the football fields and not educated musicians. I don't know.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

spacey

drewfx1
Actually I think I've learned a lot this way. 

Not buying that.

I think I'm going to borrow a page from Pedro's book and suggest that you may be thinking a bit too mainstream here. When you're outside, alone in the wilderness and looking around to see what's there, experimentation might be the main method of learning.
 
Of course this may be off topic, because it depends on what the goal is. Are we learning/teaching to create or re-create?

drewfx1

spacey

drewfx1
Actually I think I've learned a lot this way. 

Not buying that.

I think I'm going to borrow a page from Pedro's book and suggest that you may be thinking a bit too mainstream here. When you're outside, alone in the wilderness and looking around to see what's there, experimentation might be the main method of learning.
 
Of course this may be off topic, because it depends on what the goal is. Are we learning/teaching to create or re-create?

You think that I'm thinking "mainstream" because I don't think or understand how "trial and error" is a method?
If it is a method and not "mainstream" then what stream is it from and can you define it?
I mean, how can I add it to my list if I don't understand it?
 
To try and answer your question,  "Are we learning/teaching to create or re-create?" ...I don't teach
anymore so to the learning...I don't believe that learning will assure one of creative talents. One may be learning simply for pleasure. 

When I first got some actual cymbals to play around with, I learned you can get a wide variety of sounds by striking them in subtly different ways (I also learned to appreciate drummers more!). 
 
 
Or, if you are left alone in a room with an unfamiliar object and are told it is a "musical instrument", what is your approach?
 
IOW, if you aren't starting with a sufficiently well defined musical goal at the outset, I believe trial and error is a primary method of learning. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned create vs. re-create - if you don't have a goal, you can just play around and perhaps something emerges that can be explored further. Or not. 
 
And you also might find that what you discover though experimentation and find "worthwhile" sounding happens to correspond to something established.

Now I'm getting it Drew.
 
Should we think that it is a method in the sense that one would continue using it? Am I questioning
"mainstream"?
Is "trial and error" like abstract?
 
I think of trial and error as a very temporary condition...not so much a method. Am I wrong?
Could trial and error be taught? Aren't methods teaching tools? Is trial and error a teaching tool or just
a temporary learning stage or process. I guess one could spend a lifetime of trial and error...I guess maybe
I just hate to imagine such a thing. lol.

It's one thing to learn to play.  It's another to learn to listen.  The best musicians I've ever played with have been those who listened well.  When they played, it was perfect for that space in that particular song, even if it was a simple part. 
 
Effective critical listening requires knowledge and experience.  There's a learning process to it and it requires practice to gain skill.  It's different from listening for enjoyment.  In time, some musicians may find it difficult to just listen for pleasure since they automatically deconstruct and analyze the song.  Critical listening allows you to see the whole of the song while zooming in down to a sub-atomic level.  It's where you can go all CSI on a piece of music.  The insights you gain are directly related to the skills and expertise you bring to the examination.  It's also the place where you can not only listen to what was played, but what was not played as well.  Sometimes, there's a lot to be learned from what is left out of a song.
 
Anyway, if you going to add another item, I'd suggest adding critical listening to the list. 

Well, I did say it might be off topic, as I wasn't 100% exactly sure what you're chasing here.
 
And I suppose it might not technically be a "method", and it's not necessarily a direct and efficient way to a particular goal, but it is a way of learning and I use it all the time.
 
Are you a "read the manual first" kind of guy or a "Let's see what this button does!" kind of guy? 

It seems to me that "listening" and "what buttons do" etc., and many other aspects
could be listed under any or all of the 5 methods.
 
If the question was directed at me Drew then I can easily answer, I'm both. I can also
say that I've studied (and still) all the methods I've managed to list. "Mocking" being the
one least enjoyed due to lack of companionship of another guitarist. All the others I've found
I can use without the need for another musician.
 
As the list I've been making and asking what additions there may be I can't see "my list"
containing "critical listening". The reason being is that I too believe it is an acquired ability
that is probably gained while learning and not a "method". I also believe that it may very well be a natural skill that one may have
for reasons unknown to me, not unlike the skills of a prodigy.
 
Excellent input Bubba and Drew. Although I don't consider "trial and error " nor "critical listening" as methods I haven't
stopped considering that they very well may be.  

The art comes in keeping it interesting for me the performer as well as the audience. With Classical you only get to play with time tone and attack. With other forms you have more lee way for variations and substitutions. When music is easy I have time to embellish. At those times I insert ideas I've picked up from other musicians. They are best when I can echo or elaborate on ideas expressed by others during the same song or evening. A knowledge of how music works gives me a framework to hang what I hear on and to project what might fit.