Like Barbara, I too have classroom teaching experience, in public
school music (appreciation, militaristic band music, the whole thang).
I understand what she is saying, and overall agree. I see a few angles
working in this thread. Many seem to be hesitant to embrace the
formality of lessons that most music ed. has always adhered to.There is
an element of slavish devotion to "classical" technique.<Aside> I've
been playing piano for over thirty years- if a hit a scale in a piece
sometimes, I use Czerny's little fingerings, sometimes I wing it.Sounds
the same.Barbara is right on the money there..the SOUND is what counts.
But folks have raised the valid point that a teacher can show you
different ways of doing things.Example:
I took two master class/seminars with Ann Heymann...it completely
changed my approach to the clairseach. I used to play strictly in the
piano style (like most folk harpers), that is, chords against
melody.She demonstrated and taught a "two hands doing melody/harmony
comes from the melodic line" approach I never would have dreamed of! I
call it flying octaves. It was the secret of how she plays jigs and
reels as fast as any fiddle player I've seen. Then we learned a few
trick approaches to ornaments, like rolls, and the sound is amazing.On
to staccato fingernail-triplets that would make a piper jealous. The
list goes on, and this was TWO lessons.
I like others, am inclined to reject the rigid myopic view of the
"classic" music lesson. I think that many people embrace folk music
because of that rejection. But by the same token, is there a one of us
who wouldn't jump at the chance to sit and talk harpering with Turlough
O'C., Rory Dall or Dennis Hempson? If you find someone worth asking
some questions...listen. It might change your whole view.
Robert Mouland
wireharp@ix.netcom.com