| Author |
Subject |
Laura
Wichers
Moderator
(1/29/01 9:07:03 pm)
Reply |
Developing tone/color range
Okay, I've come far enough I don't
*usually* have to worry about intonation/rhythm anymore, so now my
biggest concern is creating a range of different tones/colors. I
know to experiment with bow speed/pressure, different articulation,
playing high on lower strings, low on higher strings, etc. Do any of
you have suggestions on developing tonal/color range? For example,
I've heard of using scales and picking different emotions each time
through the scale. I suppose this works for some people, but I tend
to need a more analytical approach. I listen to a lot of recordings
and many times, I'll hear something I want to duplicate but can't
figure out what the player is doing. Any
ideas/suggestions/experience you might be able to relate would be
appreciated.
Laura
|
dennisw
Registered User
(1/29/01 9:31:44 pm)
Reply |
re:
tone/color range
I'm not sure an analytical approach
is the best one for this.... It's tough to come up with exercises to
develop qualities that are so continuously variable in the music...
I'm stumped.
|
Daniel
Ortbals 
Registered
User
(1/30/01 12:59:47 am)
Reply |
Re:
Developing tone/color range
I'm with Dennis on this one. I enjoy
the analytical approach in subjects that are a little more concrete
such as math and science (and in cello playing: posture, balance,
comfort, mobility), however, not when it comes to generating sound.
I'd say just have the sound you want in your head (I mean, REALLY
have it in your head so you can hear it and really want it) then
just play the cello as you sing it inside you. Don't give up until
you have duplicated the sound you want. Try varying whatever it is
you are doing in the middle of your bow stroke - rather than playing
one note one way, stopping, and playing another note a different way
- so that you can hear the changes as they occur. Once you have
generated a sound you are satisfied with, perhaps a little analysis
of what exactly it is you did will be in order. Again, though,
remember that trying to generate a sound by thinking of bow
placement, speed, etc. FIRST, is a lot like trying to write a piece
of music by mapping out chord progressions and filling in a melody
that "fits." Kind of backwards in my opinion.
Dan O
|
Tim
Janof
Administrator
(1/31/01 11:15:09 am)
Reply |
Re:
Developing tone/color range
This is a difficult question to
answer without lapsing into useless cliches or annoying
psychologizing, but I'll do my best to avoid both.
From your
description it sounds like you know what tones/colors you want to
achieve, but you just aren't sure how to create them. It also sounds
like you understand what many of the ingredients are that you can
alter in order to vary your sound. It seems that what you want is
some sort of cookbook that will tell you what ingredients to use and
in what proportion, depending on the color or sound you want to
achieve. Not a bad idea!
It sounds like you are at a
wonderful cross-roads in your playing. You realize that there is
more to playing the cello than noodling and you are feeling the
frustration of your own technical limitations. Congratulations! This
is a good thing! As Paul Tortelier once said, "I have noticed that
when some of my students succeed in correcting poor technical
habits, there is a change in their interpretation. They become aware
that their interpretation has been mediocre as well as their
technique."
It seems that you have learned many of the
"rules" and now it's time for you to question them, to look outside
your current assumptions. The great news is that you are not the
only one who has struggled with this issue:
"I ... went more
towards the Rostropovich model, a very deep, "sloppier" bow grip,
where the stick is held more in the palm, which helped me to get the
sound I wanted." -- Carter Brey
"I found out from
Rostropovich that this 'rigid' approach sometimes prevents the
production of certain sounds, thus narrowing one's expressive
palette. Certain sounds were not available or even in my imagination
because I was following Starker's technical rules too strictly." --
Maria Kliegel
It's interesting that Rostropovich was the
"corrupting" influence in both of these players.
So it sounds
like it's your turn. Of course I encourage you to try to achieve
your colors through "sound" technical principals first. But maybe
it's time for you to experiment with other ideas, perhaps playing
with flatter fingers for certain passages, flatter knuckles
(yikes!), sagging elbows, over-pressing with the bow, bowing above
the fingerboard, lengthening your endpin, or whatever you have been
telling yourself is wrong or bad! Just try out new ideas! I'm not
saying you should use these techniques ALL the time, but maybe there
are times when they will come in handy.
As an example, you
won't find Lynn Harrell's ideas on his ever-changing bow 'grip' in
any textbook:
"One hold is when the fingers are very shallow
over the bow, so that they don't come down nearly as far as the
hair, as they usually do with the "standard" bow hold. The thumb
touches the stick and maybe touches the top of the crook of the
frog. The hand is in a relatively high position so that you can
twist the stick between your thumb and fingers. The little finger
may be on top of the stick, like a violinist, and the wrist dangles
naturally. This bow hold is for a more delicate sound. The
disadvantage of this grip is that there's very little ability to
stop the bow from rotating back and forth, because you're gripping
something that's round and it can just move under the force of
playing, particularly on the lower strings.
"For a more
powerful bow hold, I lower the third and fourth fingers. The third
finger is lowered so that it can grab underneath the frog, and the
fourth finger is almost underneath the frog too. The thumb slides
down and presses directly into the crook of the frog, but at an
angle, so that it doesn't slide through. My wrist is flatter when I
use this bow hold. With this hold, it's almost impossible to twist
the bow at all, it's almost like holding the bow like a baseball
bat, which gives one a very strong grip."
My guess is that
your (life-long?) challenge is going to be that, as an intelligent
analytical type, once you figure something out you probably say to
yourself, "I figured that out. Now on to the next thing." Well,
maybe now it's time for you to go back and re-examine the things
that you think you have figured out. I guess it's about "letting
go."
What the heck, maybe you would benefit from taking Nick
Anderson's "Inner Cellist" seminar. Another cellist I know is
delving into the Feldenkrais Method: "The more aware we are of our
body mechanics and motions, the wider our tonal palette becomes.
What kind of sound can I produce if I move my left foot while
playing, for example." Maybe you need a new teacher or a change of
scenery just to get the creative energy flowing.
I hope that
there's something useful in this post. The quotes from the big-names
were meant to give you ideas on specific things to try, not just
casual examples of "thinking outside the box." Puke.
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 1/31/01 11:15:09 am
|
Arco
Registered User
(1/31/01 11:57:26 am)
Reply |
Re:
Developing tone/color range
While the left hand contributes a
lot to tone color with vibrato (wide, narrow, none) the bow is
really the tone-meister so I think being able to control bow speed,
contact point are huge in terms of tone color.
I like the
long tone exercises I learned from Zara Nelsova which I have at my
website: www.erikfriedlander.com/cello.htm
(look for "Olympic Cello Workout")
It's a very basic exercise but
it's not easy and I think after practicing it for a few days you'll
start to feel more control over your bow.
This exercise will
give you some tools to work with but the real key to all this is
what you can imagine the music sounding like before you play. This
aural "vision" will guide your hands, which with training, will
produce the effects you're looking for.
Erik Friedlander
http://www.erikfriedlander.com/
Erik F
|
Jon
Pegis
Registered
User
(1/31/01 12:13:42 pm)
Reply |
Developing Tone Colour
I prefer to use my ear rather than
an analytical approach. I've listened to both instrumental and vocal
pieces and tried to imitate the sound. Lynn Harrell always
encouraged his students to listen to vocal music. If you do this
long enough you begin to incorporate certain breathing and phrasing
ideas without even realizing it. For example, when I was in High
School I had a recording of Aida that I just about wore out. Placido
Domingo sang "Celeste Aida" on this recording, and I tried to
imitate his sound and phrasing. You don't need a long piece or even
a lot of time--just a few minutes listening and then playing. When I
"got it" I would then look in the mirror and see if anything had
changed in my playing that I could see. Some of my other favorite
challenges are:
Heifetz in Chausson Poeme
Zukerman in the
Elgar Violin Concerto with St. Louis and Slatkin
Lynn Harrell in
just about anything
Different vocalists in Schubert and Schumann
art songs
Great arias sung by both men and women to get the feel
of the different vocal registers. Look for singers with voices that
are both big and full/rich, never tight or strained.
I hope
these ideas work for you, and that you come up with your own list of
"inspirations." After all, you can never have too many colours on
the cello!
Jon Pegis
|
Paul
Tseng ICS Staff
Administrator
(1/31/01 12:59:14 pm)
Reply
 |
Re:
Developing tone/color range
I think you are well on your way.
Someone once said "In order to have that beautiful sound, you must
WANT it."
Well, duh... but seriously, it's true. Finding
methods and understanding tone production concepts are only the
begining. They are a means, not the end.
Definitely
experiment and learn from others. Get that sound you want in your
ear.
There's a lot of conventional wisdom that can be
reversed.
Try playing ppp in the bow and vibrato
ff!
Play in higher postitions on lower strings (chose the D
string instead of 1-3rd pos. on the A string and likewise d-g and
g-c) The string you use has a greater immediate effect on the color
than sounding point, weight and bow speed.
Find different
kinds of vibrato. Practice vibrato in rhythms so you hands can
become used to vibrating at different frequencies and
amplitudes.
Try using MORE bow when playing big instead of
more pressure.
Of course, these are some very simple ideas
that you may already have heard of. Watch, listen and learn from
cellists you admire. Indeed, obsess over the detail of how they
sound, look, etc. Imitate where you can and better yet, understand
what they are doing and feeling when they do something you like.
Take all that you gathered and create your own colors
too!
Have fun! 
Paul Tseng
My Website
MP3!
|
Nvbob7
Registered User
(1/31/01 1:14:13 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Developing Tone Colour
You may have already considered
this, but I'll add my two cents anyway. Technique is key, but don't
overlook the importance of the 'acoustic mechanics' of your cello.
For example, it is said that strings should be replaced at
least twice a year, and professionals might replace them even more
frequently. At first I thought this was an attempt to sell more
strings, but now I believe in it. Tension causes metal to change its
mechanical properties over time, so the sound of a steel A string
will become quite harsh with age, even though it may rarely require
much adjustment in tuning. Maybe your cello is using a type of
string with a fast response but a harsh tone, and that would make
hard to create the warmth you may be looking for. I have found
Ifshin Violins to be very helpful in suggesting types of strings for
my cello. There is no exact formula, the best results are attained
by experimenting with different types.
Another consideration
is the bridge. Are the strings the proper height over the finger
board? Have the strings dug too deep into the bridge? How is the
posture of the bridge? And what about the position of the bridge
relative to the sound post?
Setting a cello up is quite
complex, so I've only scratched the surface here.
To get to
the point you are now at required a lot of hard work. Perhaps it is
time to let a qualified technician give your cello a 100,000 mile
checkup. If your cello is set up to it's full potential, then you
have a better chance of playing to yours.
Good
luck!
Bob Short
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered User
(1/31/01 1:16:05 pm)
Reply |
Possibly helpful perspective?...
Excellent questions articulated here
on an extremely challenging issue. This is my favorite subject, and
I appreciate even being mentioned in connection with it. If I can
get around to it in the next few days, I'll try to add a comment
that's hopefully not too long and annoying, and NOT a plug for my
seminar, but an attempt to contribute something to an area that has
fascinated me for many years. Anyone who's not interested doesn't
have to read it! -Nick
|
dennisw
Registered User
(1/31/01 3:21:47 pm)
Reply |
re:
tone color
It sounds like you are looking for a
method. Ok, here's one that may help....
If you want to mimic
the color/atmosphere of a recording you like..
Get a copy of
the recording
Grab the music and a pencil and a writing
pad
Play the recording (listen carefully)
mark off the
bowings
mark off the articulations
mark off the
phrasings
mark off string changes
notate (in English) your
sense of the recording as you listen
commit to memory those
things you can't state in English
Recheck your work
see if you
can figure out logical fingerings implied by the bowings/phrasing
etc.
Go to the cello
Try to play exactly what you just heard
with all the markings & notations considered
Keep trying
until you are satisfied
Most of the time you'll achieve, at
best, a vague approximation of the recording, but along the way you
have forced yourself to look for ways to play what you have just
heard. I suppose it's a useful exercise, but one with clear
limitations.
I've tried this before, but before long I wind
up playing the piece the way I want to play it anyway, so I usually
end up changing all the bowings/fingerings etc. around to suit my
own taste.
In the end you will realize that your musical
interpretation is like your fingerprint. It is unique to you and,
try as you might, you will never ever sound like anyone but yourself
when you play. Attempting to mimic someone else for any reason other
than for getting new ideas or for the fun of it, is an exercise in
futility. The fire that burns in you that made you want to pick up
the cello and play it in the beginning is the same fire that drives
your ability to search out and create your own interpretations of
pieces that have been played to death by lots of people for a long
time.
The art of playing is enhanced through a continuous
process of discovery and learning that never ends.
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered User
(2/8/01 2:53:18 am)
Reply |
A new,
empowering insight...
Okay, here we go. Just one caveat -
if you don't want to read something *long,* this is the place to
stop.
This issue is very important, because it has to do with
what makes cello playing into *art,* instead of mere mechanics.
Cello technique, and also the structure of musical interpretation,
are largely a matter of straightforward procedures that can be
learned; and it doesn't take a genius to do it. But making those
very things into an artistic expression is another realm entirely,
and that is what eludes most people, no matter how technically and
musically proficient they may be. That's why being a "great artist"
exists as kind of a mythical Holy Grail that seems to be out of
reach. The "state of the art" knowledge of how to attain it is about
the equivalent of doing a rain dance to try to produce rain. It's
safe to say that *most* cellists live in a state of resignation to
the secondary accomplishments, of technical and musical mastery.
That sometimes even includes expert rationalizing, like, "I never
wanted all that oozy-goozy artistic stuff anyway!" The greatest
irony is that the "rare few" who are famous for having what's
considered to be great artistry are of no help - because they don't
even *know how* they do it themselves, (even though they are
consummately *able* to do it). The evidence for that is that if they
did know how they do it, they could produce it in someone else -
which they can't. They can certainly teach their technique and
musical interpretation, but they cannot transmit to another person
that thing that gives them their artistic greatness. The situation
is generally considered to be so obvious that raising the issue
almost seems preposterous. After all, how could anyone possibly
"bottle" the thing that allows someone to develop into that kind of
artist whose existence has so far only been a rare fluke? How could
there possibly be an approach that could actually produce *that*?
It's certainly nowhere to be found in the canons of cello teaching,
on any level from the lowest to the highest.
When I say
*art,* I'm talking about an experience inside a person that needs to
come out. In cello playing, it exists in the realm of physicality,
requiring a very subtle and specific type of flow of communicative,
expressive energy. If that flow is *not blocked,* (and it's very
rare for it not to be), if occurs as "manifest artistry." It
definitely includes an enormous range of tonal colors in the actual
sound of the cello, and also a number of other qualities, far beyond
what is merely "musical." It is heard as a sense of *drama*; the
sound has *sensuality,* rather than just richness or color; the
tonal expression has a *mystical* or *soulful* quality to it; it's
*poetic* rather than being *prosaic,* or even "grammatically
correct"; it has *high energy,* rather than feeling dead or dry;
it's *emotionally giving,* in the sense of *open*, rather than
closed; and most of all, it has the feeling of being *alive,* or
living in the active present moment, and spontaneously free - it's a
direct experience, rather than a representation of something - as
Wallace Stevens put it, "Not ideas about the thing, but the thing
itself."
The reason these qualities are so rare in a
performer is that the established and respected conventions of
teaching technique and musicality, (with all the best intentions in
the world), are deeply grounded in certain unexamined, underlying
assumptions in the human experience of *physicality* which, though
totally logical, result in unwittingly building *artistic blockages*
into one's approach to the instrument - in spite of successfully
developing technique and musicality. Historically, the players
considered to be "great artists" have been mostly *self-taught* --
rebellious personality types or free spirits who went their own way,
essentially ignored what their teachers said, operated on pure
instinct and intuition, and had no knowledge of how they generated
their own artistry. (Casals and Piatigorsky are excellent examples,
among others. They unquestionably understood how to be technical and
musical - no debate there - but their actual *artistry* went far
beyond that, and far beyond anything they understood.) Their
artistry was there precisely because they were not *blocking* it
with well-intentioned teachings; and therefore, some other nameless,
ineffable force happened to be able to take over - as if by chance
or accident. That proves that the thing definitely exists; but it
does almost nothing to give us direct access to it.
The
exciting news is that there now exists a way of approaching the
cello *physically,* (based on new insights and perceptions far
outside of the norm), which has a concrete and far-reaching impact
on radically enhancing a cellist's ability to produce these
profoundly artistic qualities. For example: with this relationship
between the body and the cello, (which can now be developed
intentionally), one's sound automatically produces and releases a
tremendous range of artistic colors and qualities, whether or not
one is consciously trying to create them - solely based on the way
the instrument is being approached. And at the same time - if there
*is* a certain color or quality that one deliberately wants to
produce, one is simply able to do so - the physical means are there
for achieving it. This happens with significantly less physical
effort and struggle than one was previously making when one was
producing less of an artistic result. And this "liberation" of a
person's artistic expression, in a physically manifest way, applies
to all the artistic qualities mentioned in the above paragraphs, and
more. Furthermore, it's produced not by a "rain dance," and not by
wishing and hoping for it, but by direct, tangible, hands-on,
specific means. The implications for human fulfillment in cello
playing are astronomical.
Now, here's where it gets even more
interesting. It turns out that this very same thing that
revolutionizes one's ability to deliberately produce these artistic
qualities, also thoroughly resolves the issue of technical security,
(including all related matters such as relaxation and freedom from
injury or strain). The two things come from the same source; and it
all lies in this empowering breakthrough in the physical
relationship between the body and the cello. So it's not just a
matter of being artistic; it goes to the heart of the whole physical
act of cello playing -- and while it isn't technique, it's
nevertheless entirely a physical body thing, and has a radically
positive *effect* on technique. Given the magnitude of this, the
fact that it is *missing* from present-day cello knowledge is even
more striking. It would be one thing if this missing item were a
minor detail - so that, maybe it's missing, but, well, we can live
without it. But it's *not* a small matter - it's really the whole
thing.
It ultimately addresses and affects the issue of
*creativity* - which is not only the indispensable ingredient in
artistry, but also the kind of thinking needed to come to terms with
this *breakthrough* in artistry. Without gaining access to the
source of *creation* in art, in a highly rigorous, accountable,
tangibly effective way, we're reduced to something like "painting by
numbers" - as I believe Dan O. was suggesting in his very perceptive
last couple of sentences above. Here's a quote from Rostropovich,
which reveals something of the nature of the problem, (though
without showing any real insight into what can be done about it):
"When Casals played it seemed to me impossible to interpret Bach in
any other way, such was the force of his personality and his nature
as an artist, his total conviction in what he was doing. Therefore
no copy can be authentic. A copy cannot reflect your own feelings or
your own sense of phrasing, and is like a bottle without any wine in
it." (Unquote.) That "wine," so to speak, is *creativity,* (in the
truest Dionysian sense); it's the unexplored, unconquered frontier
of cello playing, and it calls upon us to rise to the challenge of
venturing into uncharted territory, with all the attendant
discomforts, risks, and rewards.
I'd like to just touch on a
couple of Tim's remarks. I know that it's kind of "cute" to refer to
my work with this whole matter as "Inner Cellist," and I don't
really mind it that much - but I just want to point out that it's
really not accurate. That title implies that it's primarily
internal; but my entire point is to deal with a new kind of
effectiveness in the most external, manifest qualities of cello
playing - finally gaining access to those physical dimensions that
have always been essentially out of reach, (for all practical
purposes). I prefer to call it something like "Natural Cello
Artistry," or "Breakthrough Cello Playing." This is not some
Swami-Gwami, Eerie Theory, New Age kind of thing. Quite to the
contrary, it's a quantum leap in a kind of ultimate pragmatism with
one's cello playing. In the same vein, I see nothing wrong with the
notion of "thinking outside the box." What's to "puke" about with
that? Maybe it's not such a bad idea. Our thinking is very boxed in,
to say the least. There's no problem about what we already know; or
about what we don't know, (but are aware of needing to find out).
The problem is in what we *don't know that we don't know.* In that
area, we're not just ignorant, but blind - which is a whole degree
worse. It's also where we have the greatest opportunity for going
beyond previous limitations, and thus finding a new level of
inspiration - what Rilke called "the grace of great
things."
In closing, I have to acknowledge that I know I
sound terribly extravagant to some people. I'm sorry, that's just
the way I am. But I figure that if I can eventually get my point
across to a few more who are interested, then long after I'm dead
and gone, some cellists might pick over what I did, and be able to
say, "Well, Nick may have been a weird character, but he was onto
something valuable, and we should pursue it further." Planting seeds
of that type for the future just *might* make a difference; in any
case, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
|
Tim
Janof
Administrator
(2/8/01 4:21:40 pm)
Reply |
and....?
Nick,
I must respectfully
point out that all I see in your post (and all of your past posts on
this subject) are interesting lofty thoughts, glittering
generalities, and grandiose claims, but I don't notice nor have I
ever noticed a single thing that I can take to the practice room. Do
you have any tangible specifics? If you are holding out on us, your
bait is becoming increasingly rancid.
Tim
Edited by: Tim
Janof at: 2/8/01 4:21:40 pm
|
dennisw
Registered User
(2/8/01 7:50:30 pm)
Reply |
re:
And...
You may want to go right to the
source. The source of Nick's ideas come from the holistic methods of
Margaret Rowell. There is the article here by Irene Sharp that will
give you some background on the subject. I really don't know if she
published any method-books, but her methods are fairly
well-known....
|
zambocello
Registered User
(2/8/01 11:37:33 pm)
Reply |
I have
to admit, I just don't get it
I don't mean to sound critical, but
HUH?
Is there really a new way to teach or play the cello?
It's easy to say that much of our study and teaching leads
to only partial success, with the obstacles being self-made. That's
easy. Merely recognizing that fact isn't the same as having a means
to a better way.
I used to enjoy this mysterious,
quasi-mystical, highly intuituve approach. But it didn't help me
play very well!! Putting one's butt in the practice chair and taking
care of "mere mechanics" is the first step towards having the
opportunity and freedom to be musical.
Of course there's more
than one path towards being a musician, but what can I take from
this approach for myself or my students? I must be missing
something....
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered User
(2/9/01 4:37:20 am)
Reply |
Hilarious...
Tim - I find it highly amusing to
look at these unusually long, impassioned communications that I
write, and then have you suggest that I'm "holding out." If that's
what you think -- then I'd like to get into a poker game with you!
And what I write is most certainly not "bait"; if that's what I were
trying to do, I'm clever enough to come up with something that would
actually *work.* As for the lengths I go to in order to make my
knowledge available to people, that's a matter of many years of
history, and a substantial track record.
On this board, I've
gone out of my way to avoid saying anything that anyone could even
remotely construe as something to take into a practice room. There's
a time and a place for everything, and this isn't it! The most I
could possibly hope to accomplish here is to *hint* that there's
another way of looking at things; and as you see, it takes a great
many words to even do that. There are certain aspects of my work
with this that actually *can* be discussed in some depth here, to
the considerable advantage of all of us, without our being so
misguided as to try to go into *any* of the physical
specifics.
There are two circumstances or conditions that are
required for sharing the actual "nuts and bolts" of this
cello-playing breakthrough. 1) Since it's a series of subtle
physical sensations, it has to be transmitted in person, in a
tactile way, from one person to another; 2) Since those sensations
are embedded in and dependent on an unusual, unfamiliar way of
thinking, it needs to be discussed in a dialogue, back and forth, in
person - until a new understanding emerges. Not a lecture, not
something in writing, not even a video - but the old-fashioned way,
in person. There's a lot that the internet can do, but it hasn't
gone that far, yet, anyway. Maybe at some point some type of virtual
reality application could make a stab at it; but that's really
getting way ahead of ourselves. It would be a misuse of this medium
to try to force it to handle what it's not yet ready to handle. Some
people try to discuss the specifics of technique here, and I even
question that; but while that might be conceivable, my contribution
isn't technique, and it needs "a different kind of soil in which to
grow."
If it were possible for me to just casually give you
this material on a message board, do you really think I would
consider it worth the trouble to spend an entire *weekend* dealing
with it in person with a group of 10 to 20 cellists? I'm not going
to get rich off of that. Do you really think it would have been
worth the trouble and expense for me to set up my elaborate website
about it? I've actually undertaken some much greater
"inconveniences" for the sake of this, which I won't even go into.
If my "claims" are as "grandiose" as you say, how can you expect me
to do justice to them on a message board? As I said in my post
above, this is exploring uncharted territory! I mean, come on! If I
tried to do that here, I would not only be trivializing my work, but
damaging it - by implying that it could be transmitted this way, and
letting people think they might have grasped it without the benefit
of an exchange of direct feedback in person. It would be egregiously
inappropriate for me to try to give you any specifics here. It would
be the equivalent of trying to do surgery in one's living room
instead of in an operating room. It could get blood all over the
walls!
If all you can see in my efforts here is a bunch of
fancy verbalizing, (rather than years of hard work, commitment, and
visionary thinking), then that's not surprising. As Walter Bagehot
said, "One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a
new idea." It's also another example of the extent to which the type
of *listening* a person brings to something determines what they
will get out of it. "Rancidness" might just be in the eye of the
beholder!
In any case, if you want specifics, (and I'm not
holding my breath for that), I'm afraid the only way is to meet me
and deal with it - God Forbid! Of course, that might not be a fate
worse than death. But it also may be that this board is not the
place for me to be discussing any of these things. My work involves
many experiments, and I learn as much or more from the failed ones
as the successful ones. It's only worth pushing this particular one
so far. In any case, we'll see where it all leads!
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered User
(2/9/01 4:54:52 am)
Reply |
You're
not missing anything...
Dear Zambo,
Thanks for your
intelligent and civilized questions, as well as the friendly and
constructive spirit you always bring to this board.
Maybe I
can try to clarify a couple of things for you. I don't mean to
suggest that my *approach* is mysterious, quasi-mystical or highly
intuitive. In using words like that, I was trying to characterize an
aspect of the *result* of the approach, in some of the qualities of
sound and expression one can hear coming out of it. The actual
*approach* itself is very specific and brass-tacks. However, I
haven't given you any specifics here, because they're a little
unusual, and are not easily captured on a message board. So don't
worry, you're not missing anything - because I haven't *given* you
anything, except a very general perspective on what I'm trying to go
for. The only way for me to give you the specifics is to show you
and discuss them in person; and that takes a little patience,
because it's kind of involved. I don't know if we'll ever have that
opportunity. But if you'd ever like to, I'd be happy to meet with
you sometime and talk about it, as well as general cello-blabbing! I
know a lot of people in LA, and I get there from time to
time.
Let me also say that I totally agree with you about
practicing and the "mere mechanics," etc. I was exaggerating a bit,
because I actually think the mechanics are fascinating, and I love
to be involved with building technique and musicality, at all
levels. What I hope to contribute is something that actually gives
kind of a super-boost to those very mechanics, and puts them in a
whole new light, helping us to get the most out of them. At first,
it might seem to come a bit from out in left field; but in the end,
it can really help in concrete ways.
Thanks again, and keep
in touch - Best, -Nick
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered User
(2/9/01 5:03:57 am)
Reply |
Sources...
Hey Dennis, old
friend,
Thanks for chipping in. Just a bit of info on the
points you raised. The original source of this stuff, of course, is
deceased - so she can't be "gone to" any more. She never wrote a
method book, except one ill-fated attempt that she considered a
total failure, and so do I. She was convinced that the insight
couldn't be captured in a book. I'm not so sure; but it certainly
doesn't exist now. As for Irene Sharp, I respect her work in many
ways, but I have a very different "take" on Margaret's material from
hers. If I felt that the core of this were even "fairly well-known,"
believe me, I would not be devoting all this effort to it. But I'm
convinced that it's not understood, and is in danger of extinction.
That wouldn't be a problem, except that I think it's critically
important, for *all* of us. And it's not the kind of thing that
normal intelligence can come up with; or that could ever be stumbled
on by accident, like lightning striking in the same place. What
we're left with is my 24 years of extremely intensive, in-depth work
with her. So, there's now a unique opportunity, with all the urgency
that implies. Hence, all of this how-do-you-do about it! That's it
for now - talk with you later! All best, -Nick
| |
Email This To a
Friend
Topic Commands
(Moderator only)
