It all depends on how naturally talented you are. For example, if you were a great piano player in your last life like I was, then fingering happens automatically and lessons become an after thought. If you're really a master from the past, you can pretty much just play naturally and how the piece is played becomes an expression of that past greatness. All the masters took lessons but that was not because they needed to be taught fundementals, ie., fingering, scales, etc., but to simply bring out and polish the greatness that is already there. On the other hand, if you haven't spent lifetimes developing your skill, by all means take lessons, but even with this, greatness will take some time.
--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I taught myself how to read music and play piano and guitar. > > I got pretty good on the piano -- could play any of several hundred > songs by memory -- learned the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata > one note at a time. > > But finally I hit a wall -- the passages I wanted to next learn to > play were becoming impossible for me because I had self-taught "bad > fingering." I had bad habits that prevented me from the next step up > in keyboard skills. Shudda had a teacher, shudda learned by using the > correct fingering on the basic scales etc. > > It didn't stop me from learning more songs, but I was always looking > over the fence to greener pastures I would never roam. > > So, heck with re-inventing the wheel, learn from someone who's been > there, save yourself a lot of time lost building bad habits etc. > > You know, stand on the shoulders of giants. > > I had bragging rights -- could say the magic words "self taught," but > I'd rather be able to say, "My parents forced me to take piano lessons > from seven to 13 years old." > > Edg > > > --- In [email protected], Bronte Baxter > <brontebaxter8@> wrote: > > > > Bronte: > > My friend, what should I call you? I can't pronounce your web name > -- so, "friend": Thanks for this observation, and I agree: learning to > play an instrument is often easier with a teacher, but not always. And > teachers are not essential, although most gurus will tell you that > they are. It's one thing to say "I'm a great real estate agent and > will help you sell your house if you like" versus saying "You will > never sell your house without my help, you poor miserable schlep." The > latter being analogous to most gurus are saying. And I'll continue to > gripe about that kind of manipulation. > > > > > > --So which approach is easier, with, or without a teacher? (in > > generaly, don't talk about isolated exceptions). In advance, let's take > > care of one exception: HWL Poonja. He states that in his last > > incarnation (prior to being "HWL Poonja"...died in the 90's), he was an > > advanced Krishna-bhakti Yogi. Then as Poonja in the course of his > > travels as an engineer, he happens to get an urge to visit Ramana > > Maharshi in his cave. Poonja tells RM about his many visions of > > Krishna, and RM asks, "Are you having a vision right now?". Then after > > a few more leading questions RM in essence tells Poonja he's "already" > > Enlightened. Poonja "got it" and became Enlightened on the spot. > > But then, RM was a teacher, wasn't he? > > > > In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Bronte Baxter <brontebaxter8@ ...> > > wrote: > > > > > > ---Sure, one can get Enlightened without a Guru; likewise, one can > > > learn how to play the violin without a teacher. (as Borak would > > > say...."NOT" !). > > > > > > > > > Bronte: > > > Curious, I know lots of people who've taught themselves musical > > instruments. > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not > web links. > > >
