David, well said, You have hit several topics so I'll do the same "snip and answer" that you did (my aging brain can't keep it all together).
> Well, whatever they were doing, they were doing what we ourselves can > do: they were looking at the lute players of their own day. If you > want to see what lute playing looks like, it's very simple: go look > at a lute player! If you can't find one, then play in front of a > mirror. You got it. Being in the wilds of central New Jersey, known for Bruce Springsteen and not lutes, I haven't found a player yet (but I haven't given up). And just this evening I checked myself in front of a large mirror. I have added a strap to the "lute" and gradually shortened it to a position I found comfortable for both thumb under and range of my left wrist. It turned out to be practically up to my neck (or at least the clavicle), and I wanted to compare it to the paintings I'd seen. The mirror confirmed that my position wasn't ridiculous, although probably a bit extreme. I await my copy of Damiani's Method in order to see how I need to modify it to my particular body. > Watch the golf pro's on TV., or even better, in the flesh. Each one of > those highly-skilled players operates with incredible poise and > discipline, and always does the same thing in the same way. Compare > one with another, however, and you see each one doing it slightly > differently. Inasmuch as musicians are "small-muscle atheletes," > that's a lesson we can learn about music too. Take Jim Furyk with his loop, and Mark Calcavechia who sets up with the ball at the heel of the club (where most set up to the toe). Look at Arnold Palmer's swing (in his prime) and Lee Trevino's. The moderns are more uniform, but even among them there are the diffences in approach. The point is to make the club head go straight and at its fastest at the time the ball is struck. And the point on an instrument is to do the same, make the right contact. > What a pompous thing to say to a woman! Unless of course he was a > cross-dresser himself. Another answer to the question would be that if > you don't ski a certain way as a beginner you'll keep falling over, and > never learn anything. Another lesson we can learn about music. Not pompous at the time, in 1960. The great equality of gender (a poor word but it is normally used - it really applies to language rather than sex - la plume et le table) hadn't come about yet. And the comment was immediately understood by the young lady without any "baggage" attached. But times, and language, change. Your description is more valid for today. And may I add that I was the worst skier among our instructors, but in demand because I didn't teach strict rules according to the book - I tried to find the words that would help the particular individual to do it right (what golfers would call a "swing thought"). And, although I haven't taught music, I have to agree that the beginner must follow the rules. But add that the teacher needs to find the "swing thought" that will help the individual to do that. I'm finding independently the ways to make my hands stroke the lute for the best sound, but I would like to find an expert to correct me. > I think you're right, and I think that's as it should be. It seems to > me that a teacher is not necessarily concerned with teaching the exact > way that he plays. He's there to provide a foundation for the student > personally to build on. A good teacher leads a student to the > threshold of the student's own understanding. After that, just like > the teacher, once he takes the stage he's on his own. And I totally concur. I realize that I already said that, in a way, above. But I wanted to have it in my own words, then agree with yours. Best, Jon
