C de P blog
Dear Paul and All.
‘One side will make you grow taller, and the other side will make you grow
shorter.’
‘One side of what?’ thought Alice.
‘Of the mushroom’, said the Caterpillar.
There is a certain difficulty in explaining in text the precise point of a
circle where action should be taken, so let us try to define what is up – or
down.
As Simon has indicated the confusion arises in part because of a
misunderstanding, which I find surprising, for on p 16, para 3, it is writ
‘the instrument is tipped away from the body,’ and on p 31, para 4, ‘the
strokes will not be in a vertical plane, but slightly oblique.’
When I refer to a stroke being given at 12 of the clock it seems to be
assumed that I refer to a clock hanging on the wall with 12 at the top. But
in order for the keys to fall we tip the instrument forward and this moves
the 12 to a point approximating 1.30 on the wall clock. The ‘down strokes’
will then naturally become push strokes. But it is easier to describe these
nominal points of the clock using 12, 3, 6, 9 rather than 1.30, 4.30, 7.30
and 10.30. Further, it is written on p. 34, para 7, ‘You should establish
the tail piece as the starting point and return there at the end of each
stroke,’ giving further confirmation, if any were needed, of the diagonal
relationship of the two main strokes vis a vis the instrument.
I can’t see myself describing all 7 strokes illustrated in terms of hand
contact, for this would seem a mite cumbersome, but I must try it some time.
With regard to the parts of the hand described on p. 31
1) the base of the thumb
2) the first joint of the thumb
3) the tips of the 1st and 2nd fingers
4) the side of the ring finger.
There is an error. Line 3 should read ‘the tip of the 2nd finger.’
I don’t know where the idea of using two fingers in the neck of the handle
came from, for as Doreen has just remarked, the shape of the knob shows
where the fingers should go, and two is a squash. I have always used the 2nd
finger only. There really isn’t room for two and I find one finger quite
adequate.
I had the impression that some people start the system level with the
soundboard, which strikes me as being too far round, hence my initial query.
The 3-stroke, p.52, para 4, should read , … ‘the strokes should be given
at the two buttons…and at the tail-piece, making a triangle.’
Now, to discuss Maxou’s method.
To play with this technique, which I understand is quite traditional
and not a "new school" at all, the parts of the hand have to be used in
the sequence:
1) the first joint of the thumb (my 3.00
2) the fingertips of the 1st and 2nd fingers (my 6.00
3) the side of the 3rd (ring) finger (my 9.00
4) the ball of the thumb (my 12.00
But now that you understand our techniques are much the same other than
being a ¼ turn apart, I still ask 1) What is the advantage? And 2) How do
you manage the 3-stroke in this system?
In this system both the 1st and 4th strokes are at points of maximum force
and this is fine when all four notes in a group are to receive the same
stress, and having a strong final note might help to hold the rhythm.
But in slower pieces of a more expressive nature the 1st note is the
strongest (which may be done by stress or length), while the last note is
the weakest, in which case my system would seem to be the more natural.
In the 70’s I was not aware of any conflict between two methods and I
wonder how long and where Maxou’s method has existed. Do they perhaps
reflect the regional differences between the Bourbonnais (d/g) and Limosine
(c/g) traditions? Each of these has its own traditional repertoire and 50
years ago some people regretted the new custom of playing both repertoires
on either instrument, thus losing the association between quality of sound
and repertoire. Each cultural region was distinct, with its own language,
songs, dances, customs etc. But I stray now into ethnomusicology.
At St Chartier in the 70’s I struggled to discover how to do the lift
stroke (ring finger at my 9.00) as the moment of leverage is very weak at
this point. I was able to observe leading players (including the young
Bouffard) minutely, and observed that they twisted the wrist, thus giving an
impetus to the wheel with the3rd finger. The other puzzle was the lowest
stroke (my 6.00), since again the pull is weak, and I worked out that they
must give a small snatch with the 2nd finger. No one imparted this
information which now must be general knowledge!
I also observed a number of players throwing up the index finger on each
turn, which seems to be related to the loose hold described by Dupuit (and
which he dislikes). But this is actually of no concern since the index
finger is not involved making the ‘cage’ or doing anything other than being
decorative. Of course there may be players who prefer to cling to the knob
with two fingers, but I can see no advantage in doing so. I am sorry if our
misprint has led people into a false habit.
On a personal note, while I am responsible for much of the pedagogical
content, Doreen was in charge of the c de p and other technical matters
since she was the expert, having studied with Rivière (who kneeled to her at
the end of the week), and then with Clastier and Marcheix, where I joined
in.
The above matters did not arise in my teaching because the players had
already mastered the basics (apart from beginner’s classes), while in live
teaching such matters are dealt with in a few seconds. Perhaps if I had done
more teaching over the years these inconsistencies may have come to light
sooner, and it did not occur to me to quiz my own work!
I am indebted to Paul for pointing out these errors.
So I think the ‘Muskett method’ (I lay no claim to this title) is not so
out of step as has been thought, for it is only by a quarter of a turn. I am
unable at present to assess the significance of this. But it is hardly
surprising that Maxou’s way is the more popular, for he is a leading player
and teacher, whereas I have only produced a book.
I am very pleased the Method has found so much favour and that demand
continues. It was written because Doreen found the need for a book to help
her students, many of whom could read music, but it has found much wider
use.
As for a 4th edition, that is a major undertaking. We were aware that a
number of subjects had to be omitted in order to keep the size and price
down and I am not sure if beginners will want a larger volume. Any
suggestions?
In the meantime I shall add the above corrections to the C de P Supplement
which goes with every book.
Best wishes to all.
Michael
P.S. You might care to visit my new website so as to encourage the system
to recognise it. (hurdygurdymethod.co.uk)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "hurdygurdy" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/hurdygurdy
The rules of posting, courtesy, and other list information may be found at
http://hurdygurdy.com/mailinglist/index.htm. To reduce spam, posts from new
subscribers are held pending approval by the webmaster.
