robert e wrote:
I'm sure guit-box can and will speak his own mind, but I had to speak up just because some of these accusations, if taken out of context, are misleading. I also want to point out how these negative comments highlight the value of this thread.
First, let's get out of the way the fact while there may be "wrath for teachers" in this thread, it isn't coming from guit-box. Lawler did not say that it was, but it's worth pointing that out for those coming to this without context.
Second, "deep mechanical-engineering-type perspective" is a gross exaggeration. What I see being promoted is an effort to exploit current technology to closely examine the activity of fingers during guitar playing. I don't see that in itself as anti-teacher; rather, it's something that should help teachers check and refine their own pedagogy, and, indeed, if one reads through this thread, that's exactly what's happened, at least for certain open-minded teachers who use this forum.
If there's any specific corrective being aimed at classical guitar pedagogy in general here, if my understanding of guit-box's intentions and the refinement of this discussion over time is correct, it's not so much to methodology as to the language used by teachers and method books to communicate their intentions and rationale. The comments posted above are excellent examples of how this thread has forced a discussion of both pedagogic language and intent as applied to right hand technique.
As to that, an objection raised repeatedly by guit-box's critics, and now again by Lawler, is that "of course" teachers are speaking in sensory, rather than mechanical terms. Well, Lawler is fortunate to have learned in a situation in which that distinction was clear. It's a mistake, however, to assume that everyone is so fortunate. In this era of open, unguided access to just about every aspect of guitar study, I can't think of a valid justification for keeping that distinction implicit, and potentially ambiguous, when it can now be made explicit. If that small corrective is all that comes from this thread, it would be a significant contribution to guitar pedagogy, especially with respect to self-teaching and remote learning.
We all have access to far more evidence--and, yes, new perspectives--about how our bodies go about various, often remarkable, feats. While it's sensible to be cautious about misinterpreting and misapplying that data, I can't think of any reason not to acknowledge that it's there, or the fact that some of it raises valid questions about aspects of accepted pedagogy, even if it addresses only language and terminology and how they have been interpreted, or misinterpreted.
Thank you Robert e, I appreciate when people say nice things every once in awhile. I understand this is a public forum, so people are going to voice their opinions. It goes with the territory, and I accept that many will think this is a waste of time. The fact that there is so much contention IS a sign that this is an important topic, I agree.