Klarinet Archive - Posting 001109.txt from 1998/11

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Absolutes
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 10:19:12 -0500

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Tony Pay wrote:
[MAJOR SNIP]
> Moreover, you get one bit of it round the wrong way -- even if I had
> been talking about students, as opposed to participants on the list, I
> was suggesting nothing like "the equivalent of giving a student a
> physics textbook, putting them in a room with 5 sheets of paper that
> suggest different approaches to solving problems and seeing if they can
> figure it out on their own". Quite the opposite. That's just the
> *effect* of what sometimes occurs here, which I started out complaining
> about.

I understand what you are saying now. I wonder how it was missed the
first two or three times around.

> explicit instruction *within a metaphor*. But, although you responded
> to that, I think you were still smarting from what you thought I had
> said about teaching in general to hear it:

> > let's just not say the approach that seems to work well for others and
> > doesn't work for you is wrong or less effective.

> ....which I hadn't said.

You concluded that I was "still smarting" yet when I conclude that you
imply something, I'm wrong for you never having said it? Hmmmmmm......

> So I hope that my suggestion that you read what I wrote again can be
> taken not as the insult it might have appeared to you initially. I
> suggest that what has happened is that you've read the whole thing with
> a particular slant, because of what happened right at the beginning.

I have not been insulted by you at all. I have many successful beginners
- I'm secure in my teaching of young students. I posted regarding your
post because I felt the message you were sending (while clearly, albeit
busily worded, stated) was not the correct ones for blossoming teachers.
It is, in my opinion, too general and philisophical - it is not really
something that helps a teacher teach. That I read it with a particular
slant - well, everyone has a slant when they read something - you too!

> By the way, I'm being quite surprised at the difficulty I'm having just
> getting one small simple idea on the table here. Everybody seems to
> want to hear me saying things I'm not.

In conducting class, I tell my students that if one person screws up an
entrance to a cue or gesture, it is probably the musician's fault. If
several or many screw it up, it is probably the conductor's fault. If you
are experiencing "everybody want[ing] to hear [you] saying things [you're]
not" than I would humbly suggest you are not saying it well!

Regardless of what you have said to support the "definition" of dogmatic
teaching (or whatever that was) - you stated an opinion based on your
definition - with your own slant with all the excess baggage that you have
encountered in your own experiences - which is fine. People, myself in
this case, will respond either positively or negatively in direct
proportion to the strength of the statement - your's was quite strong.

Regarding my teaching and your's (thanks for the compliment by the way):
> But by the same token, you know diddley-squat about mine. The fact that
> I don't at the moment have much to do with younger children doesn't mean
> that I have never taught them, nor indeed that I don't understand how
> important the job is. ("You have admitted....." Pfui.) And, by God, I
> certainly have the experience of encountering the results that people
> who *do* teach them produce, and engaging in lengthy and heart-breaking
> repair work, sometimes.

Well - I never meant to tell you that you don't understand the concepts of
teaching young children. My apologies for having implied that. I was
trying to say that teaching young children (beginning through 2nd or 3rd
year) requires enormous structure, many more "absolutes" than older
students, and firm pedagogy/sequence. Your descriptions of teaching did
not appear to fit into that mold - further, it appeared more philisophical
than pedagogical - and I was trying to point out that there is a
difference with different age levels - something I must not have done a
very good job of pointing out.

I understand the process by which my 1941 Chevrolet car's engine,
transmission, and front end were just overhauled - I watched, learned, and
joined in the lengthy and frustrating repair work - but that doesn't mean
I do it very well. I am not implying that you don't teach young students
well, just that you have said you don't teach very many (if any?) of them.
That usually leads one to conclude that your direct experience with them
is minimal at best. I hope you can see how I and others drew the
conclusions that we did?

My posts were really designed to discuss - not attack. Again, my
apologies if they provoked anger or feelings of being attacked - those
were not my intentions.

Now.....if only I could play the five and seven key clarinets as well as
you!!!

Roger Garrett
IWU

-------------------------------------------------------------------------