anne wrote:
<< What I noticed during the class was the importance of allowing the breath
muscles to work rather than making them work. Both singers and wind
instrumentalists ended up with more air than they thought they had and did
not ever sound as if they were running out. What I got from the course was the
importance of accurately knowing how your body is designed and how it
works so that you can let it work as nature planned it to work. >>
anne,
great point! your statement above is a nice, concise explaination of
the 'path of least resistance' philosophy.
it seems ubiquitous in the arts and sports that the dilemna between
mechanical vs. 'natural' exists. i think the solution to the question is to
understand the mechanics of whatever endeavor you've undertaken, accept those
principles and act in accord with their design.
the 'naturals' who resist understanding of mechanics, do so out of a
fear of being 'cookie-cutter'. what they end up with, the lucky ones, are
occasional brilliance marred by usual frustration. the mechanical approach
often attempts to plan everything making them far more reliable but, leaving
them stale and uninspired.
if we were all the same with the same intentions, the fear of
understanding mechanics making one 'cookie-cutter' might be well founded.
to understand mechanics and then attempt to 'take over' the controls is as
goofy as wanting to take over the running of one's heartbeat.
the solution to both concerns, i think, is to understand the mechanics
and, in light of that understanding, instruct the body 'what' to do, not
'how' to do it. the things we tell our bodies 'what' to do reflect personal
experience and choice. by making those choices (and they can be planned in
advance or, 'go with the flow', spur of the moment) using the design of the
body, an audience can appreciate the artist and not the accident.
mike
|
