D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
OK, to be clear. I said that someone needed to have a few decades of actual "supporting-yourself-bona-fide-work" under their belts. That doesn't mean that they need to be 65, but I'm sure Tage Frid provided fine instruction at 65.
It does mean they need to be at least over 45 though. Basic maths.
In fact, these days, with working regulations and stuff, probably well past 50...
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
Also, as to what matters in terms of method? Well, if you don't care what you're doing, or you're just enjoying yourself regardless, I guess it doesn't really matter.
If it works for you, then surely it's fine?
I know what eminent teachers would all say is the 'correct' way to do a great many things in life, but my physical dimensions and limitations mean I have to do some of them differently... and in some cases I'll beat most people at it, teachers included.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
If you're intending to do a lot of hand work, and you want to do it in a way that's satisfying and efficient, then the quality of the content is more important than the quality of the instructor's teaching ability.
Disagree 100%.
I could introduce you to a man with many decades of proven martial arts ability and teaching. He really (and I do mean *really*) knows his stuff and is one of the most highly respected teachers and authors worldwide across three very different martial systems. What he teaches has a good 3,000 combined years of proven 'quality'... and to top it off, he's highly quotable... but his teaching is
not the best method for everyone, as he is 'stuck in the old ways' and favours certain styles of teaching.
Indeed, he taught me to understand in just eight minutes what 15 years of study with other teachers could not. But while he could spend four hours covering a technique and you'd probably understand the theory of it completely, you might still be unable to actually replicate it, despite it being proven right there in front of your eyes over and over and over. You'd certainly come away with one hell of a history lesson and be able to rival Stephen Hawking on understanding the physics behind the techniques... but you'd be damned if you could figure out how to make your own body turn all that theory into what you've been shown is a very real technique and that translation of mental theory into practical feel is the gap a good teacher will bridge.
By contrast one of his most senior students and now a master in his own right, as well as having his own proven history from other systems, I found to be a far better practical teacher. He understands enough different methods of teaching that it may only take a slight rephrasing of something for it to all suddenly click in a student's head.
The first guy is an absolute master in his chosen art(s). The second is a true teacher.
The first one could tell you all about the content, including translating Old and Middle English historical texts into modern terms, which is as 'quality' as you get... but the second is still better at helping you develop the right feel for properly controlling a 3' blade.
So too, I've known good and bad driving and riding instructors. You can tell a student all about how a car or motorcycle works, even down to the minutiae of countersteering or brake feathering, but unless you teach them what to feel for and how to feel it, they're gonna be crap motorists.
And so too can you watch every video by every woodworker on YouTube. You could even go watch the eminently professional Mister Ford working away and planing every tree on the planet... but unless he teaches you how to feel for when that plane binds, or catches a knot or needs a slight change of angle, you won't be able to do what he does and the whole thing is useless.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
* your source of information (be it an instructor, a demonstration, a video, etc)
* your personal effort in absorbing, observing, understanding, retaining, discerning, etc.
The latter aspects should be ongoing, but will be limited by things like budget and time. The former can only be as good as their ability to deliver effectively.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
We have long since passed the point where people care more about the delivery man's hair than the message, and that's too bad.
Not in the slightest. A number of things are conducive to being a good teacher... or messenger, salesman, supervisor, or whatever. One of those is presentation. The message you deliver must be done in a fashion which will be well received.
You're not going to instil much confidence in your message, if it's delivered by someone who looks like a clueless hobo, or is peppered by adverts for their own brand of expensive tools. Same as if you just stand-there-mono-ton-ous-ly-reading-the-words-off-the-obvious-cue-card or leaving....... long..... gaps in....... your..... Captain...... Kirk..... speech.....
Same for writing a manual or set of instructions - I think most people here would just switch off and disregard it if it looked like it was written by a teenager texting on their phone, yes?
I'm sure there's some Lefty Liberal Guardian readership wibble about not judging people, but the fact is the human mind is prejudiced. A teacher has to break past that prejudice and assert their authority on the matter and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen if you look like a bag of pineapples (or grapes) dragged backwards through a hedge, or you have a set of shining
$$ $$ where your eyes should be.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
I doubt sellers thinks his sharpening method should be named for him, and the old japanese chisels that I've gotten in the past that have had rounded bevels (some do)....I'd imagine those guys wouldn't know how to write sellers' name in kanji, or realize that they should be crediting him for something they did and he had not yet.
That's one thing I do like about Sellers - He presents most of 'his' methods as things he was taught by those before him, typically citing his teachers and apprenticing mentors, rather than taking ownership of them. Even the few things he does claim as methods or approaches he himself came up with, he delivers those more as "just the way I do it"... almost as both an invitation to try other methods and as a disclaimer that these are not long-used historical approaches like half of what he focusses on.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
If you like to look at the messenger more, then I don't think we'll agree.
I generally find one has to consider the source itself as much as the material, otherwise you fall into a great many traps. A quick wander through Victorian archaeology shows that.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
Eventually you'll get past lessons with your drum instructor helping you, and you'll benefit more from watching and listening to mike mangini, et al. that's not really a good comparison, anyway.
I already did, mainly because he taught me to teach myself, for the most part. It was this that led to me developing my own playing signature, land well-paying work with bands and residencies at various studios, and progress far further far faster as a "Mature Student" than most of the young and gifted ones he had.
I'm taking the same approach to woodworking - Learn how others do it, then use that to find what works best for me. The first step is learning what does work, regardless of what people think is the correct way, which is what I assume the OP was getting at when they started this thread?
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
Much more of music is universal technique (though there are savants who succeed ignoring some of the supposed rules), and while a lot of woodworking is technique, iteration and thought is at least as important.
See, that^ is the exact opposite of how I was taught, actually...
Yes, there are certain basic starting standards, rudiments, counts, fills and things which your teacher will take you through. There are also things like Guildhall and Rockschool gradings, examination set pieces and a myriad of different technical rules to playing.... But there then comes a time when you break all those rules, save the one Unbreakable Rule - It must sound good.
I actually skipped most of the rules and regulated stuff. While I could have done that if I wanted (and we did mess around with a few set pieces as examples), I wanted to play drums - So I was told to bring in three of my favourite songs and I was taught how to play them. But rather than learning to just read the musical notation and apply the 'correct' technique, I was taught to listen... and then learn from hearing.
Most American drummers are vastly superior, in technical terms. Their techniques are flawless, their accuracy is unparalleled and their timing is spot on...... but that's the limitation of almost every classically trained musician. There's no room for feel, for passion, for art. This is why so many utterly accomplished players can't manage something so simple as Country - Every note they hit is perfect, but music is the space between the notes and they leave no space.
All my favourite drummers tend toward playing comparatively simple things, but in ways that create a feel and enhance the music - Ringo Starr is a master at this, because he played backwards, against the rules and in doing so played to the feel rather than to rule. Something so simple as playing a hi-hat 'wrong' turned a pretty average song into a great song.
The aforementioned Joey Kramer of Aerosmith is another great example, with his single-stroke only patterns. Even (and in particular) the older greats like Baby Dodds, Tubby Hall and Zutty Singleton - Such simple, open playing and totally against any rules. Back in those days nobody ranted about what was correct technique because nobody played correct techniques... they played however worked best for the music.
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
If you pick up a set of drum sticks and put your own set together with no instruction, you might get some habits that will be hard to fix. If you pick up woodworking tools, find an object to make and do it 50 times, you'll probably find out that you settle into correct technique out of laziness (or economy if that sounds nicer).
Both, and neither, generally.
many drummers have a tendency to tense up during fills and fast sequences, while the opposite is required. Same for martial artists and motorcyclists. I assume tensing up is bad for sawing and planing too, no?
D_W":2vxg9dwt said:
I'd rather watch a pro work than hear a guru say that there's only one way (R) and all others are wrong.
Then I'd question which 'gurus' you're hearing and suggest you tell them to take a hike...
I'd then suggest that watching pros work will have little meaning unless you already understand what they're thinking in their heads and feeling in their hands... in which case, why would you need to watch them instead of getting on with what you're here to do?
).
