Problems of CG College Students

[Vivienne McLaughlin]

Browsing the web, I found this site with an in depth article about the problems encountered by CG university teachers wrt incoming students. I think the article has some broad applications - especially to right hand development - self taught folks might be extremely interested.
Here it is:
http://www.delmar.edu/music/teachcol.html

Vivienne

[Larry Deack]

Vivienne McLaughlin wrote

I think the article has some broad applications - especially to right hand development - self taught folks might be extremely interested.
Here it is:
http://www.delmar.edu/music/teachcol.html

 

The following snip from the Philip Hii article must drive Kent nuts:

 

In giving instructions, a potential danger is being over-specific in the details. ... To give detailed descriptions of which joint and muscle to move in a right hand finger stroke can be counterproductive and further inhibit them.

 

He goes on in more detail but the gist of it is that the Shearer *vocabulary* of guitar technique that Kent so often reminds us of is viewed as a possible danger by Mr Hii. What do you think Kent?

[Vivienne McLaughlin]

Larry Deack wrote:

> The following snip from the Philip Hii article must drive Kent
> nuts: In giving instructions, a potential danger is being
> over-specific in the details. ... To give detailed descriptions of
> which joint and muscle to move in a right hand finger stroke can be
> counterproductive and further inhibit them.

The article has the feel of an investigative report, and is pretty rare
from the standpoint of a player to hear what pedagogues think - one
reason why I own Glise's book, and found this article compelling. But
this particular passage is a recurring theme I notice: the trend to
avoid altering a developed or mature student's technique, by exposing
them to the minutiae of "correct" muscular coordination and mechanics. I
can't possibly see how it can be disastrous to tell a developed student
how, why and where movement in the right hand occurs, and then to show
them. Hii says that mature students lack the childhood ability to learn,
I assume he means to easily form habits. I find that to be nonsense.
Older people can learn and change habits, with no disastrous effects, if
we are disciplined.

Also, in a more practical way, this does not even seem significant
enough an issue to belabor - if the student has developed a good tone,
an even sound and control over dynamics, colors and speed, then why even
bother telling them "no, no - more from the nuckle," or "no, no - you're
too close to the strings."

Vivienne

[Reza Ganjavi]

 

 

Larry Deack wrote in message ...

Vivienne McLaughlin wrote

I think the article has some broad applications - especially to right hand development - self taught folks might be extremely interested.
Here it is:
http://www.delmar.edu/music/teachcol.html

 

The following snip from the Philip Hii article must drive Kent nuts:

 

In giving instructions, a potential danger is being over-specific in the details. ... To give detailed descriptions of which joint and muscle to move in a right hand finger stroke can be counterproductive and further inhibit them.

 

He goes on in more detail but the gist of it is that the Shearer *vocabulary* of guitar technique that Kent so often reminds us of is viewed as a possible danger by Mr Hii. What do you think Kent?

 

 

------------------

Larry, in all respect, is this a real, vital question??!! Doesn't sound like an interesting thread... anyway, I can always skip it...

--
Reza Ganjavi
REPLY TO: gan...@dtc.ch (the default reply address is anti-spam and will not work)
www.dtc.ch/reza

[Larry Deack]

Reza Ganjavi wrote

Larry, in all respect, is this a real, vital question??!! Doesn't sound like an interesting thread... anyway, I can always skip it...

 What's wrong with the thread Reza? The vocabulary thing was a point Kent made and Matanya said was only known in the US. There was a fad here in the US where everybody in the CG world talked about flexors, extensors and all kinds of things about the physical hands that are interesting but I find dubious and from Mr. Hii we hear caution to teachers using this potentially confusing information. Kent likes this language and thinks it's critical to learning CG and points out Shearer's contribution to CG pedagogy as mostly a *vocabulary* about technique. If this vocabulary is potentially confusing then what's a teacher to do?

 

 My personal belief is more in line with Mr. Hii but I have found some students who find the technical information to be very helpful ( I taught at Loma Linda University where many of my students were pre-med, doctors or nurses). I think that the technical vocabulary can be more confusing than other less detailed explanations like the one that Pepe Romero did in the masterclass that Kent said was probably because Pepe didn't have the *vocabulary*.

 

Reza,  in all respect, if you are going to teach CG then this thread should be very important to you. How are you planning on explaining how the hands works to your students? Do you think all students should be taught about flexors or do you think it's better to show them like Pepe and avoid the potentially confusing medical terminology?

[Elvin Long]

I wish to say something not necessarily related to this message.
When practicing, play loud and play soft. Play legato and staccato. Staccato is interesting because it forces the RH finger to learn a task after the plucking motion. This leads to better control of rhythmical articulation. Playing loudly? One can always play softly if one can play loudly.
Elvin

Vivienne McLaughlin wrote:

 Browsing the web, I found this site with an in depth article about the problems encountered by CG university teachers wrt incoming students. I think the article has some broad applications - especially to right hand development - self taught folks might be extremely interested.

Here it is:
http://www.delmar.edu/music/teachcol.html

Vivienne

 

[Reza Ganjavi]

Larry, I am fully in Pepe's camp with this regard. Appreciate your comments and fully agree with your points. My only point was that we know Kent's position - you already outlined it - so I thought your asking him what he thought was not necessary because we already know what he thinks... or maybe not!!!
Cheers.

--
Reza Ganjavi
REPLY TO: gan...@dtc.ch (the default reply address is anti-spam and will not work)
www.dtc.ch/reza

Larry Deack wrote in message ...

Reza Ganjavi wrote

[Tom Poore]

From Philip Hii's "Teaching Classical Guitar at the College Level: A
Perspective":

> In giving instructions, a potential danger is being

> over-specific in the details. It is important to realize
> that most students at the age of seventeen or eight-
> een have already lost the innate childlike ability to
> learn quickly and without inhibitions. In other words
> they have an added disadvantage compared to the
> student starting as a child. To give detailed descrip-

> tions of which joint and muscle to move in a right

> hand finger stroke can be counterproductive and fur-
> ther inhibit them. A good example of students misun-
> derstanding detailed instructions concerns the "knuckle
> stroke." While no one will dispute the effectiveness of
> movement from the knuckle, oversimplifying the stroke
> by emphasizing the role of the knuckle can have disas-
> trous results. The most common consequence is for stu-
> dents to attempt to lock their tip and second joints in a
> rigid entity while trying to move from the knuckle, re-
> sulting in loss of accuracy and speed. The remedy for
> these students is to give them precise instructions on
> how to get greater mobility in their fingers by empha-
> sizing movement from the second joint. This is perhaps
> the only instance where detailed instructions can have a
> positive impact.

There are a number of problems with this paragraph:

¥ On the one hand, Hii says being over-specific in technical instruction
is potentially dangerous. On the other hand, in the one real world case
he describes, his solution is to give "precise instructions on how to
get greater mobility in their fingers by emphasizing movement from the
second joint." Thus, he contradicts his own point. Indeed, he seems to
realize this, and he ends the paragraph with "This is perhaps the only
instance where detailed instructions can have a positive impact." This
disclaimer begs the question: if detailed instruction is useful in this
case, why isn't it useful in others? Hii doesn't explain.

¥ Hii needs to define what he means by "over-specific" instruction. I
suspect what he really objects to is detailed instruction that's
cluttered with irrelevant information, abstruse descriptions, and wrong
ideas. Consider Hii's example: "oversimplifying the stroke by
emphasizing the role of the knuckle can have disastrous results." This
isn't the result of over-specific instruction--it's the result of bad
instruction. Indeed, the culprit here is oversimplification. The
solution to oversimplification is more, not less, detail.

¥ Although Hii doesn't explicitly say so, he seems to imply that adults
are less able than children to assimilate detailed technical
instruction. This is simply wrong. Adults have a much higher ability to
assimilate technical instruction. The key, of course, is that the
instruction should be clearly and concisely worded, and that it actually
helps the student improve.

Specific instruction that offers relevant information in clear and
concise language is a solution--not a problem. With all due respect to
Philip Hii, I don't think he's thought through his position with
sufficient care.

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA

[Lutemann]

In article <375EE4D5...@bellsouth.net>, Vivienne McLaughlin
<vah...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>But
>this particular passage is a recurring theme I notice: the trend to
>avoid altering a developed or mature student's technique, by exposing
>them to the minutiae of "correct" muscular coordination and mechanics. I
>can't possibly see how it can be disastrous to tell a developed student
>how, why and where movement in the right hand occurs, and then to show
>them. Hii says that mature students lack the childhood ability to learn,

Good teachers don't over-teach. Often, if you merly put the student's hand in
a good position, the fingers move well on their own and you don't have to say
anything. Shearer advacated saying as little as possible.

Kent Murdick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for a free catalog...NEW, IMPROVED WEB SITE!!!
Free Guitar Music: http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
Aaron Shearer Discussion Board: http://199.20.31.179/shearer

[Lutemann]

In article <Z5z73.696$F2.58...@nnrp2.ni.net>, "Larry Deack" <lar...@zeno.com>
writes:

>He goes on in more detail but the gist of it is that the Shearer =
>*vocabulary* of guitar technique that Kent so often reminds us of is =

>viewed as a possible danger by Mr Hii. What do you think Kent?

Yes, I agree that Mr. Hi is a danger.

[Lutemann]

In article <375FA8E8...@po.cwru.edu>, Tom Poore <t...@po.cwru.edu> writes:

>" Thus, he contradicts his own point. Indeed, he seems to
>realize this, and he ends the paragraph with "This is perhaps the only
>instance where detailed instructions can have a positive impact." This
>disclaimer begs the question: if detailed instruction is useful in this
>case, why isn't it useful in others? Hii doesn't explain.

This is because Hi doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Regor3]

In article <375FA8E8...@po.cwru.edu>, Tom Poore <t...@po.cwru.edu> writes:

>¥ Although Hii doesn't explicitly say so, he seems to imply that adults
>are less able than children to assimilate detailed technical
>instruction. This is simply wrong. Adults have a much higher ability to
>assimilate technical instruction.

AHHHhhhh.....my problem in my advancing years is not the ability to assimilate
detailed instruction but instead the problem is to remember it. :-)

Sorry I could not help but add my irrelevance to the thread. :-)

Nice post Tom...raises some interesting points in a straight foward manner!

[Larry Deack]

Lutemann wrote:
> Yes, I agree that Mr. Hi is a danger.

That's funny, Kent. I just hadn't heard a lot from you lately so...

[Peter Inglis]

I was dismayed by his statement.....

"I myself draw the line at playing a piece by rock guitarist Steve Howe for
jury,
even if it is "played with classical technique and has plenty of left hand
slurs."

Peter Inglis gui...@migman.com.au
http://www.migman.com.au/aes

Vivienne McLaughlin wrote

[Vivienne McLaughlin]

Peter Inglis wrote:

> I was dismayed by his (Philip Hii's) statement.....

>
> "I myself draw the line at playing a piece by rock guitarist Steve Howe for
> jury,
> even if it is "played with classical technique and has plenty of left hand
> slurs."

I agree, its rather snobby. Didn't all that "appropriate" stuff go out with the
19th century?
Poor Mr. Hii - he's drawn alot of criticism - maybe he should stick to
recording.

Vivienne