jmaulz wrote:I studied with a student of Shearer's for a year or so, can't say if he was representative of the "Shearer method", but every movement had to be accompanied by another movement: one finger flexes, another extends. This focus on complementary and opposite finger movements contributed to loss of independence in the fingers and a susceptibility towards the development of focal dystonia. Just my experience.
As one who worked closely with Shearer over eight years—as editor of his three part published method, and as a student—I have an informed perspective when someone talks or writes about the Shearer method. Sometimes I encounter people who know what they’re talking about. Other times I encounter people who say things that have little or no relation to what Shearer actually wrote and taught.
Based on what you wrote above, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Your statement that “every movement had to be accompanied by another movement: one finger flexes, another extends” makes no sense. And I would say that whether you’re talking about Carlevaro, Duncan, Glise, Iznaola, Käppel, Parkening, Romero, Ryan, Shearer, Tennant, or any other method. I’ve never seen any guitar teacher claim that every
be accompanied with another movement.
And since you’re portraying “one finger flexes, another extends” as a potentially damaging movement, please explain how to do rapid i
alternation without having the two fingers move in opposite directions?
You might reconsider whether hit and run attacks on a method are in any way illuminating. I’ve no problem with someone disagreeing with something a teacher has written. (I’ve often done so myself.) But one should exercise a certain minimum of care in doing so. There’s nothing useful about vaguely worded claims devoid of evidence that the teacher said what you claim he said. If you want to accuse someone of advocating potentially harmful ideas, then take the time to frame your accusation in a clear and documented way.
South Euclid, OH