> Caio I hope you feel vindicated now that you've managed to
> convince yourself by reference to Brazilian custom that the
> abs goes from the ribs to the pubic bone. OK Enjoy.
>Ops... are you sure you can read?!
Yep! How else can what you have written be interpreted?
It could be rewritten , " this is true because this is what I believe."
I'm not twisting your words, isn't this called circular logic below?
It sounds uncommonly religious from a proclaimed atheist.
>BTW, it may be a popular assumption in Australia but it's not a popular
>assumption in Brazil that the abs go to the navel only.
You also jumped to an incorrect conclusion below. I was
actually speaking of conscious effort, NOT what really happened.
There is a difference.
>Maybe you didn't get what I meant before, but what I'm discussing is not how
>engaged the whole abs must be in singing, if only the upper part or not
>( you may even be right regarding that ), but the fact that you tried to
>convince her that >only the part that goes down to the navel should be
>engaged because it's the >only existing part.
^ that bit.
Of _course_, there is involvement of the whole of the body,
as you say, how could there not be.
The original intention of this discussion when I asked Ian Belsey
to describe his conscious singing action, was to try and arrive at
some agreement on applied body action during singing..
Perceived....NOT actual.
The two confusing images seem to be, in Lloyd's terms, leaning
out on the upper abs and the second, seems to be concentrating
on pulling in the lower ones. A completely separate treatment
from people on the list who speak about it! Four potential images!!
If there's another even, it also needs addressing.
And the use of the terms in and up etc only add fuel to the inferno of
confusion.
In my opinion all four cannot be correct and I think Lloyd
has the same opinion from something he wrote mid 98.
Surely you can concede, that because we are confined to
communicating in the written word, we'd better make some effort to
get clear in our minds just what is meant by terms like pulling or
pushing the upper or the lower or anything else. It's certainly a
concern Lloyd has expressed many times.
For this reason I strongly resent your determination that only
strict nomenclature and descriptions should be used. That is _not_
what most listers understand.
It is also exactly the direction I did NOT want the discussion to take.
So, using your terms......please try and relate to this image:
sure when you type, you use your whole hand and fingers ...but if there's
any attention at all, it is to where the tips are placed. I really
don't give a damn about the rest.
That doesn't deny their involvement. OK?
>Can you play any instruments using the tips of your fingers only?
YES.....the dynamism of my involvement goes to certain extremities, I do not
have to concern myself with the rest and I shall concentrate my attention
on those extremities: while my heart and bones and tendons support my task
without my need to direct them. BUT...there must always BE a place of
physical intensity, whatever the subject, so as to consolidate a method of
originating and performing that task.
I really think some of this should have gone on the open list.
With your permission I'd like to redirect it. (Granted)
Reg.
|
