And I don't either, Chris, although Tom insists I do because it is convenient for his agenda. I believe strongly in a swing which is essentially a loading cycle followed by an unloading cycle. In one continuous motion, with some overlap. The overlap being what creates separation, obviously.
The devil is in the details, and there is a progression of learning I have found useful on the way to attaining what I would consider ideal. During the progression, the girl typically doesn't look ideal, and isn't ideal. Skipping the progression doesn't work if maintaining competitiveness and results is a factor in the equation. As it is for most female hitters, who often play year-round and need results. And I have found VERY few hitters who respond to the same progression, same drills, same teaching emphasises, or styles of communication. It can be really hard to find the breakthrough. I truly didn;t realize that until I was 100 students or more into my learning curve. But it is true for me. I suspect for you as well?
My point is this - the instructional influence needs hands-on experience. And needs to be getting results with his students (a good percentage are progressing to higher levels). That's not to say a new instructor is a bad decision. It may not be if hard work and personal interest / involvement with the student is part of the equation. But it IS a harder decision.
IMO, there is no decision to be made if the "instructor" doesn't work with kids in person.
I don't know why anyone would work with a piano instructor who summarized the teachings of great piano instructors, and responded to parents with eMails and posts about how Chopin played. Rather than working together, i person, starting with scales and progressing from there. And I don;t see ANY reason why this is different.
Best wishes, Chris. I've been pleased to follow the progress of your students. Talk soon,
Scott
The devil is in the details, and there is a progression of learning I have found useful on the way to attaining what I would consider ideal. During the progression, the girl typically doesn't look ideal, and isn't ideal. Skipping the progression doesn't work if maintaining competitiveness and results is a factor in the equation. As it is for most female hitters, who often play year-round and need results. And I have found VERY few hitters who respond to the same progression, same drills, same teaching emphasises, or styles of communication. It can be really hard to find the breakthrough. I truly didn;t realize that until I was 100 students or more into my learning curve. But it is true for me. I suspect for you as well?
My point is this - the instructional influence needs hands-on experience. And needs to be getting results with his students (a good percentage are progressing to higher levels). That's not to say a new instructor is a bad decision. It may not be if hard work and personal interest / involvement with the student is part of the equation. But it IS a harder decision.
IMO, there is no decision to be made if the "instructor" doesn't work with kids in person.
I don't know why anyone would work with a piano instructor who summarized the teachings of great piano instructors, and responded to parents with eMails and posts about how Chopin played. Rather than working together, i person, starting with scales and progressing from there. And I don;t see ANY reason why this is different.
Best wishes, Chris. I've been pleased to follow the progress of your students. Talk soon,
Scott
Last edited: