Re: Re: An interesting lesson


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on February 19, 2004 at 18:26:51:

In Reply to: Re: An interesting lesson posted by Andy on February 19, 2004 at 10:25:26:

Your post presents two principles:

1.) One should not attempt microscopic control of musculature while making music.

2.) One should not measure progress by how one executes the means, but rather by the results.

I agree with both those principles. But one can be consistent with the first principle by undertaking specialized physical practice until those microscopic movements are so firmly ingrained that they become automatic. Others only mess themselves up by trying to think about the details of what they do, and they have to be warned off of analysis paralysis.

If one is to walk the path from not achieving results to achieving results, then that path must necessarily dwell on the method needed to achieve those results. That is not the same as focusing on method for the sake of method.

Jacobs tells a story of asking Donatelli how he played a high G (I think it was). Donatelli demonstrated, and it involved an adjustment made in his embouchure (which may or may not violate the notion that Mary Ann learned--no matter--that isn't the point). He said that as soon as he saw the trick, he was able to not only play the G, but the G above it. Clearly, he had made a breakthrough in his understanding of means that allowed him to achieve the ends on which he was focused.

Thus, it may be that people take Jacobs's advice out of the context of what he was teaching them at the time. Many people address musical problems mechanically, and he opposed that. But from all accounts he addressed mechanical problems mechanically.

There are lots of folks who do not suffer from analysis paralysis, and the proper analysis gives them the mental tools to train the proper mechanical reflexes into their automatic system so that they don't have to think about them. I learned that racing cars (which require reflexes that are impossible to practice because track time is so limited). I learned it again when I wanted to learn out to swim 2.4 miles in an Ironman triathlon. In both cases, mental breakthroughs led to physical training, so that when the time came I didn't have to worry about microscopic muscle control or the means. Analysis was the tool that led to those mental breakthroughs. Practicing without those mental breakthroughs kept me out of the solution space, because I could not determine what direction to go.

Rick "who understands calculus and can visualize wheels within wheels" Denney


Follow Ups: