Dear List:
I want to address with greater clarity the distinction I draw between
a teacher and a book. There are several examples of teachers of
singing who wrote books - Cornelius Reid, Anthony Frissel, Richard
Miller, Seth Riggs, etc.
In general, most of us have not studied personally with these
teachers, but we may have read their books. In an ideal world, the
book would be written with perfect clarity and would accurately
represent the beliefs and teaching practices of the author. In
practice, books are imperfectly written, and the author's ideas may
not make complete literal sense to one with only access to the book.
The written word is subject to interpreration and mis-interpretation,
and may not mirror what is actually taught.
It is well known that were attempts to develop various
computer "expert systems" - compilation of rules obtained from
interviews with experts. It was often observed, as I recall, that
capturing and systematizing as a set of rules what "experts" do -
medical doctors, voice teachers, power plant operators, etc. is
challenging if not impossible to do well. Further, people are not
static - over time ideas evolve and perhaps even change.
At any rate, it seems to come up from time to time that someone will
comment on a BOOK, and a student of the book's author will say "No -
that's not what so and so teaches" even though the words in the book
are inescapable. Discussing what Cornelius Reid teaches, for
example, is interesting to know, and relevant to interpreting a
book. Nonetheless, the written word should be acknowledged, and
discrepancies resolved.
For what it's worth, I find problems with most books about singing -
some things don't make sense to me, or there is not complete
consistency, etc. I have read comments that suggest that Reid was an
excellent teacher for many pupils, and a not so excellent teacher for
some others. And guess what, doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable?
Cheers,
Michael Gordon
|
