Yeah, I think a true master could technically teach anyone, though that isn't always true. Also, if a master teacher teaches to a novice it would be widely different than to a professional, so, like you, I too have the question who is this targeted to? I personally haven't taken a masterclass so I wouldn't know. (Not that I wouldn't like to though.) I would believe it's the novice though they could have different classes for different levels, but you couldn't really prepare someone from novice to master in the manner of a few classes. I think you can be somewhat proficient, if not highly proficient in a new skill quickly say like 80th to 90th percentile of the whole world, but to get any further and really excel and be one of the best (keywords here are being a master) at something takes a lot of skill, knowledge, and determination. I'd say a master is generally quite well above 90th percentile of people in their field (notice I didn't say the world there).
>I too have the question who is this targeted to? I personally haven't taken a masterclass so I wouldn't know. (Not that I wouldn't like to though.) I would believe it's the novice though they could have different classes for different levels, but you couldn't really prepare someone from novice to master in the manner of a few classes.
I've had a subscription for about eight months now.
Most of the classes are at the same level that "prosumer" hardware is marketed at: advanced amateur or beginning professional.
For example: Daniel Negranu (a poker pro) has a very good class on poker. At no point does he explain how to play the game or what terms like "on the button" mean - that's all assumed knowledge. The target user is a player who can play a solid game already and hold their own in tournaments, perhaps without actually winning the final table.
Thomas Keller's (a famous chef) masterclass is similar: at no point does he explain what a shallot is or how to hold a chef's knife (obscure, seldom-used hooked knives ARE explained if they come up), but he does go into a lot of precise detail about how to cook certain dishes and exactly how to identify the freshest produce or tell when the lamb shank you are braising is done.
>I'd say a master is generally quite well above 90th percentile of people in their field.
The quality of instructors is truly amazing - easily the top 0.1% - most are world-famous masters of their art. Things like acting lessons from AAA celebrities, dancing lessons from the lead ballerina at one of the top companies in the world, music lessons from multi-platinum artists etc.
This sounds like a giant ad for masterclass. I just happen to really like their content and am definitely not paid by them in any way :)
I liked Thomas Keller's lectures the best out of all the MasterClass content I've seen. Great balance of practical knowledge, context and insight. Explaining that what he's doing is about refinement for its own sake puts the steps he takes into context in terms of what you can leave out vs incorporate. He's low-key. The lack of ads and zaney edgy music make it FAR more enjoyable than any cooking show you'll see on TV, IMHO.
Those are good examples. Annie Liebovitz is a counterexample. A lot of the Class is video of her in a circle with students talking about her experiences, or giving feedback. Critique is important, but it's similarly not integral to the process. She even boasts about not knowing what equipment "she" uses. I say it that way because you watch her on a "photoshoot" ("Accompany Annie on an actual photoshoot!"): She is standing back, talking to the subject. Someone else is operating the camera and pushing the shutter. Then they're in a studio and someone else is editing the photo as she oversees. That's creative direction, not photography.
> The quality of instructors is truly amazing - easily the top 0.1% - most are world-famous masters of their art. Things like acting lessons from AAA celebrities, dancing lessons from the lead ballerina at one of the top companies in the world, music lessons from multi-platinum artists etc.
FWIW, the best talent usually do not make the best teachers. This is a fact widely remarked upon in the world of sports. Knowing how to get your body to do something well is a very different skill from being able to get another person's body to do something well.
Also, understanding the various ways in which people learn a specific subject is an underappreciated ability possessed by a good teacher. Knowing how various people get hung up on conceptually on different elements of a subject is something that comes from experience and outside review of your teaching that a "master" probably never gets.
The corollary is that good teachers are rarely great in their field.
A true master can teach anyone but not necessarily at the same time. This is the same problem that plagues even school teaching. Pairing someone who groks the content at a rapid pace and comes up with derivative insights with someone who struggles to understand the basics is a waste of both people's times.
