I was wondering how long it would take you to jump in on this one.
>
> I presume that those in favour of taking lessons are refering to a
> classical technique (of whichever school) and would be advocating the
> raised thumb and a passing thechnique.
(Careful, Mike, you're trying to Salzedo bait again, and it won't work)
No, not necessarily. We've had this subject hashed over before.
Lessons can teach you a lot more than JUST the hand position. Remember,
you've also got body position -- and not based on "classical" technique,
but ergonomic necessesity for each individual person. Lessons are also
valuable to establish a technique for the student - whether it's the
thumb under, over or whatever. The student doesn't have to re-invent
the wheel for every piece, or keep trying over and over to work on
something that won't fit their hand without modification.
It would seem that this is the
> prescribed technique for *the* harp, irrespective of whether it is suitable
> for the instrument or not.
The value of lessons for BEGINNERS is the subject, not which technique
they are to learn.
> There is no such thing as a single technique. It would be quite pointless
> to go to a teacher and learn a technique designed for a large, high tension
> instrument and then try to implement it on a low tension, small harp...yet
> this goes on all the time.
Now this is a statement I absolutly agree with, and I've seen and heard
horror stories. A teacher has to at least understand the differences in
the instruments -- and anyone who thinks that using a full blown concert
harp technique on a delicately strung instrument hasn't listened to the
awful sound this produces. (or is really stubborn)
>
> I have taken 3 lessons on the harp...all on points of musical stylistics
> rather than on technique and all long after I had tought muself to play
> harps. Since then I have spent the bulk of my life working out different
> techniques to make different types of harp work. I have been a professional
> harpist for the last 17 years and can certainly do more than pluck my way
> through a few tunes.
>
> I am perfectly capable of playing a large double action with the technique
> presented in the Bochsa tutor books but can also play with the vertical
> hand position recomended by Elouis or with the 5 finger technique of
> Desargus and Mme de Genlis.
>
> I would suggest that if I had been through the brainwashing of a classical
> training, I would have had a great deal more of a struggle in adapting my
> hands to the minute string spacings of a gothic harp ot the intracacies of
> chromatic stringing.
Classical training doesn't NECESSARILY mean you've been brainwashed, but
in many cases it sure seems that way -- don't tar us all with the same
brush.
>
> Provided a student has a reference and is prepared to be totally honest
> with themselves, there is no reason why anyone should not teach
> themselves...it is far more important to be comfortable with ones own
> playing than to slavishly follow some ortadox technique.
I agree that you must be comfortable with your own playing, but there is
no need to slavishly follow any technique. Again, lessons for beginners
are more than beating the technique of any "school" into their heads and
hands. There are some people you CAN'T teach a standard technique to
due to hand problems or other muscular problems. You can still teach
them to play very well without subscribing slavishly to any one
technique and in fact you may have to incorporate techniques from other
harps or schools to benefit the individual student.
You can learn to do nearly anything on your own, but it will almost
always take longer. Even a few lessons can help. Think how long it
takes most people to learn how to tie the end of a harp string to
replace it from the picture in Sylvia's book versus being shown how to
do it. They'll eventually get it, but not as quickly as being instantly
shown.
Happy New Year guys, may you have lots of wonderful things in 1997.
Robin