Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
> I don't know very much about either of these
> techniques, but Alexander seems to be more often
> recommended by musicians (and I believe that Alexander
> developed it becuse of voice problems in himself).
>
> Those who have studied both, what are your opinions
> about the pros and cons of each?
I have worked with both, and have found both to be valuable. I have been
working with Feldenkrais Awareness Through Movement® and Functional
Integration® lessons regularly for about the past year, (prior off-and-on
exposure for about the last 6 years) and have been accepted to the Chicago
International Training Program for Feldenkrais Teachers, so I guess you
could say I lean more toward this work than the Alexander Technique.
I incorporate concepts from both in my studio teaching. There's really not
a need to speak of the two in opposition. In fact, my voice teacher, who
had the opportunity to work with both Marjorie Alexander Barlow (F.M.
Alexander's niece) and Moshe Feldenkrais, sees a flow and complementarity
between the two. He believes that if Alexander had really kept meticulous
records of all of his cases, and had sequenced the lessons in a certain way,
we would have Feldenkrais.
If you check the vocalist archives, I believe there's been a post in the
last few months about the differences in instructional methods. My
impression is that Alexander lessons are mostly a one-on-one proposition.
Group instruction involves the same methodology, but with the teacher giving
individualized coaching to members of the group. The Feldenkrais Method®
has two distinctive modes of instruction. Awareness Through Movement® (ATM)
is the group instruction mode, where the practitioner/teacher leads the
group through a series of easy, pleasurable, and sometimes amusing movements
with verbal instructions. The individualized instruction mode is called
Functional Integration®. The client lies fully clothed on a special, low
table, and the practitioner uses a gentle "listening touch" to lead an
exploration of various movements. The instruction is mostly non-verbal. It
is fascinating, amazing work.
My experience with the Alexander Technique dealt mostly with the mechanics
of body alignment, sitting, standing, and walking. Feldenkrais work
encompasses every imaginable (and some unimaginable) movement and function
of the body. I would also quote my current teacher, Patrick Siebert in
Austin, TX, who explains that Feldenkrais® is not a fix-it model, but rather
an exploratory model. I'm developing more awareness of my own habitual
movements and tensions, and exploring alternatives for different situations
which will result in more ease, efficiency, and enjoyment. It has been the
most effective means for me to let go (occasionally) of being totally
bottom-line, results oriented, deadline driven, and perfectionistic. I have
easier access to my instrument, am able to get more with less effort, and
move with more grace and ease on stage. The energy which was previously
used in unnecessary muscular tension is now available to be used in greater
expressive possibilities.
My personal difficulty in my Alexander experiences derived from my own
personality quirks. I found myself trying to master "the technique," to do
what the teacher wanted, and to do it right. Because I was focused on the
technique instead of on my own experience, I did not benefit as I know many
others do.
I suggest that you experiment with both. I will tell you that the
Feldenkrais is very relaxing, slow, and minimalistic. You may not feel
"productive, " or you may wonder whether you're really doing anything. But
I guarantee that if you give it a chance (several FI and/or ATM lessons),
you'll be amazed.
|
|  |
