Cavaliers Technique Question

[skluyuk]

There. All fixed.

I still stand by my assertion that learning/understanding something doesn't automatically mean you can explain/teach/transfer it to others. Neither do I believe that one MUST explain/teach/transfer that knowledge in order to prove to anyone else that one knows or understands it in the first place.

What's the old adage? Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Nothing in there about those who "do" being required or expected to teach as well.

Stef

You know...that has to be one of the most arrogant things I have read from you. You are usually articulate and make a decent argument for your perspective without coming across too negatively, but I think you enjoy disguising personal attacks. That's too bad.

Your use of the 'old adage' is simply you hiding behind the fact that you choose to not have a thorough understanding of the areas you pursue. 'Those who can' are in pursuit of full comprehension. 'Those who teach' have acquired enough comprehension to both be able to do and communicate the methods and techniques for doing to others. BTW, I'm not a teacher, but have great respect for those who do teach.

It's a shame that you are satisfied with having just enough information to do something. I guess there is a need for that too. Based on how you present yourself I think you have a greater potential if you would take the chip off of your shoulder.

[justanopinion]

You know, I really didn't take Steph's use of the adage as an endorsement of what it said. I thought it was a humorous way of pointing out that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you can, or have to, teach it.

I don't see any chip on Steph.......hey....what's that on your shoulder? :P

edit for typo

Edited July 11, 2007 by justanopinion

[cire]

more people assuming things are being said which never were.

noone at any point said that you HAVE TO or MUST teach what you know.

but if someone asks you to explain something of what you love, and if you truly know anything about what you claim to love, you should at least know something half intelligent to tell them other than "oh i dont know, i just do it"

[justanopinion]

more people assuming things are being said which never were.

noone at any point said that you HAVE TO or MUST teach what you know.

If you read really carefully, I said that I (me) read it a certain way, and that I (me) thought something. I did not say someone said that. I said I took what Steph said that way. I could be wrong. But it is what I thought and said.

As far as having something half intelligent to say other than 'oh i don't know, i just do it', we've been down that road already. Do you really want to rehash that discussion??

[ScribeToo]

You know, I really didn't take Steph's use of the adage as an endorsement of what it said. I thought it was a humorous way of pointing out that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you can, or have to, teach it.

I don't see any chip on Steph.......hey....what's that on you shoulder? :P

hahaha.. that's not a chip.. it's a battery. Go ahead.. I dare ya! (jeez how else can I show my age around here?)

I'm glad you picked up on what I was trying to say -- you hit the nail square on the head. I suppose I could take offense to people telling me, because I don't or couldn't effectively teach something I do really well from a combination of training and talent, that I don't fully understand it or desire to. That's simply not true and anyway I'm not offended by it.

I know what's true. I understand the mechanics of what I do in a way that makes sense to me and if someone asks me to explain it, that's what they're going to hear. They can run up and down the schoolyard yelling about how I don't know what I'm doing or what I'm talking about but when I open my mouth to do what I do, it would silence them.

Kind of like the many corps at the center of this discussion.

Anyway.

There it is.

Stef

[cire]

I understand the mechanics of what I do in a way that makes sense to me and if someone asks me to explain it, that's what they're going to hear.

what will they hear? that you just do it in way that makes sense to you?

or that they will hear your explanation based on what makes sense to you?

[ScribeToo]

what will they hear? that you just do it in way that makes sense to you?

or that they will hear your explanation based on what makes sense to you?

As I said previously, it seems you skipped that part of my previous posts in this conversation.

You curtly informed me that you had NOT skipped what I said -- but alas, it appears you did after all.

Here it is again:

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you because you DO learn things to re-teach them. Not everybody does. Not everybody learns things by breaking them down into specific definitions. It sounds like, in this case, you are under the impression that EVERYONE learns the same way and that's simply not true.

When I learn something, I listen, observe and do -- in the process it becomes part of MY understanding but sometimes MY path to understanding and execution (whether it's a marching technique or an operatic aria) doesn't make ANY sense to someone else.

Asking me to explain how I sustain my voice in a tessitura above G for 12 minutes is fine but when I tell you it's all about visualization and imagery, is that gonna really make any sense to you? Would you be able to do it based on my explanation? Likely not.

My understanding of the TECHNIQUE involving breath support, vocal placement and artistic interpretation is centered on visual cues.. I still DO all those other steps.. but the way I learned it so that I could DO it has almost nothing to do with the actual steps involved. I get lost in the translation of all the steps and in MY HEAD and MY MEMORY, it triggers those technical aspects to visualize, instead.

This is why I'm a performer and not a teacher.

Stef

I even used the "bold" feature to give you a clue of the "meat" of my comments.

My best friend used to joke with me about what he called "thought continuation" -- the practice of recalling previous parts of a conversation as you move forward through it. I was never very good at it in my 20s... and I worked on it.

Hope that helps.

Stef

[cire]

so if i asked you how do you sing, you would say

My understanding of the TECHNIQUE involving breath support, vocal placement and artistic interpretation is centered on visual cues.. I still DO all those other steps.. but the way I learned it so that I could DO it has almost nothing to do with the actual steps involved. I get lost in the translation of all the steps and in MY HEAD and MY MEMORY, it triggers those technical aspects to visualize, instead.

?

what are the other steps that you do? hmm.. but it sounds like you dont know what you do. makes me wonder if you even know how to sing.

ok. since obviously you dont know what you do when you sing..

explain to me how you post an image in your signature.

[Pit Mac]

I was surprised to see that this thread exploded in posts today. I left and it was around 17 replies, and now we're around 130 replies. I was just CERTAIN before I began reading all the new replies that it had just reduced into a 'cavalier/bent leg' technique Vs. "Blue Devils/straight leg' technique shouting match.

SO, Kudos to everyone for keeping the discussion more intelligent and above that nonsense! :)

And with that said.....I think we're past due for.....

STRAIGHT LEG TECHNIQUE IS FAR SUPERIOR TO CAVALIER TECHNIQUE!!!1 YAR! ALL OTHER TECHNIQUES ARE TEH SUX! ...........................and GO.

It kind of did...altough it is more of a one-sided "You have no Idea what you're talking about" shouting match.

Hm...I just realized something...I actually took this post seriously. (Maybe it's the fact that he capitalizes his words, you know, with that 'Shift' key thing?)

I have a question for cire: What is your experience with the Cavaliers' marching technique?

Oh, and "The Line" kudos for using capitalization! ^OO^ ^OO^

[jthomas666]

I agree. In terms of "failures of humanity" on the internet, he is second only to those who misuse conjunctions.

Oh, SNAP!!