Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
By 1984, the funding for the arts was declining seriously, and many groups began folding, such as American Philharmonic Orchestra, Affiliate Artists, and later, the National Endowment for the Arts Touring Program. Public Television (before cable) stopped consistently broadcasting serious culture, and the networks by that time had stopped altogether, except for a rare appearance on the Tonight Show by a violinist or singer, and those declined in frequency until they were extremely rare by the time Johnny Carson retired. Cable television attempted to broadcast culture but gave up after just a few years. Bravo, for example, began as an all arts channel, but now is a no-arts channel. Other attempts have failed to make enough money and changed or shut down as far as I know. They are also not available in all cities. A large number of people were casually exposed to the classical arts through television and radio, and maintained a relationship, going a few times a year to concerts to hear favorite pieces or performers. Those people have disappeared with the programming, it seems to me. The FCC required cultural programming by the networks until cable came along or thereabouts, and not requiring any was a cultural disaster. As long as the Republicans were in office, post-Reagan, the funding for the arts declined. Ironic, that a former actor would have that effect on the country, but he did. The spirit became meaner and greedier, and you can see that reflected in television programming. The warm and kind comedies like the Mary Tyler Moore show gave way to ever-harsher humor, ridicule and gross insensitivity, until you have South Park and the Simpsons; Desperate Housewives and insanity of reality television.
I was discussing the Angelaires recently with Liz Ilku, a longtime member, and how many adventures they had, and what a great series it would make. I said, it would work better as a reality show, with all the possibilities for backbiting and so on, and she said they always got along beautifully. Well, there goes today’s entertainment values…We can always be proud of our roles as harpists making the world a more beautiful place to live. It is more important than ever.
By 1984, the funding for the arts was declining seriously, and many groups began folding, such as American Philharmonic Orchestra, Affiliate Artists, and later, the National Endowment for the Arts Touring Program. Public Television (before cable) stopped consistently broadcasting serious culture, and the networks by that time had stopped altogether, except for a rare appearance on the Tonight Show by a violinist or singer, and those declined in frequency until they were extremely rare by the time Johnny Carson retired. Cable television attempted to broadcast culture but gave up after just a few years. Bravo, for example, began as an all arts channel, but now is a no-arts channel. Other attempts have failed to make enough money and changed or shut down as far as I know. They are also not available in all cities. A large number of people were casually exposed to the classical arts through television and radio, and maintained a relationship, going a few times a year to concerts to hear favorite pieces or performers. Those people have disappeared with the programming, it seems to me. The FCC required cultural programming by the networks until cable came along or thereabouts, and not requiring any was a cultural disaster. As long as the Republicans were in office, post-Reagan, the funding for the arts declined. Ironic, that a former actor would have that effect on the country, but he did. The spirit became meaner and greedier, and you can see that reflected in television programming. The warm and kind comedies like the Mary Tyler Moore show gave way to ever-harsher humor, ridicule and gross insensitivity, until you have South Park and the Simpsons; Desperate Housewives and insanity of reality television.
I was discussing the Angelaires recently with Liz Ilku, a longtime member, and how many adventures they had, and what a great series it would make. I said, it would work better as a reality show, with all the possibilities for backbiting and so on, and she said they always got along beautifully. Well, there goes today’s entertainment values…We can always be proud of our roles as harpists making the world a more beautiful place to live. It is more important than ever.
By 1984, the funding for the arts was declining seriously, and many groups began folding, such as American Philharmonic Orchestra, Affiliate Artists, and later, the National Endowment for the Arts Touring Program. Public Television (before cable) stopped consistently broadcasting serious culture, and the networks by that time had stopped altogether, except for a rare appearance on the Tonight Show by a violinist or singer, and those declined in frequency until they were extremely rare by the time Johnny Carson retired. Cable television attempted to broadcast culture but gave up after just a few years. Bravo, for example, began as an all arts channel, but now is a no-arts channel. Other attempts have failed to make enough money and changed or shut down as far as I know. They are also not available in all cities. A large number of people were casually exposed to the classical arts through television and radio, and maintained a relationship, going a few times a year to concerts to hear favorite pieces or performers. Those people have disappeared with the programming, it seems to me. The FCC required cultural programming by the networks until cable came along or thereabouts, and not requiring any was a cultural disaster. As long as the Republicans were in office, post-Reagan, the funding for the arts declined. Ironic, that a former actor would have that effect on the country, but he did. The spirit became meaner and greedier, and you can see that reflected in television programming. The warm and kind comedies like the Mary Tyler Moore show gave way to ever-harsher humor, ridicule and gross insensitivity, until you have South Park and the Simpsons; Desperate Housewives and insanity of reality television.
I was discussing the Angelaires recently with Liz Ilku, a longtime member, and how many adventures they had, and what a great series it would make. I said, it would work better as a reality show, with all the possibilities for backbiting and so on, and she said they always got along beautifully. Well, there goes today’s entertainment values…We can always be proud of our roles as harpists making the world a more beautiful place to live. It is more important than ever.
You’re talking about the RUSSIAN school, right, Carl? They’re the only people I’ve ever heard who play the way you describe. Tasteless playing is bad no matter what school it comes from. And there are tasteless players in every school, right?
As for amplification, a harp amplified is not a harp, it is a synthesized sound, and it is crap to my ears. A harp can NEVER be amplified in an orchestra, because the whole point of an orchestra is that it is all acoustic instruments. The conductor should have learned to balance the dynamics better from your demonstration, and to place you differently on stage, and maybe you could find a more resonant instrument, Sid. That’s my feeling. There’s no tasteful way to amplify a harp with an orchestra. When electronic instruments play with an orchestra, there is such a gap in the types of sound being produced. The speaker you use also necessarily limits the origin of the sound to its small position, where a harp radiates from a much larger space. And what if you got feedback, or spilled water or something? Fried harp and harpist sandwich!
We have been getting more European conductors in America for some time, and I think that partially explains their hiring preferences, as they have much less experience with STRONG players who can be heard. Nevertheless, Salzedo-trained harpists do get hired, despite your hints otherwise. There are other trends at work, too, where we don’t have as many strong, senior teachers at work as we used to have, but we will once again very soon, I think.So, to answer the question much more directly, I had two or three teachers when I was younger, depending how you count. I then began my advanced study with Lucile Lawrence, whom I consider my major teacher. I had ten lessons with Alice Chalifoux who was quite helpful by contrast, but within the same technical family. After that, there was no-one else but Miss Lawrence, partly because I couldn’t find anyone else who would be complimentary but compatible and acceptable, and partly because I never ceased learning from Miss Lawrence. She was always amazing and wonderful and completely challenging. She always taught for the long-term benefit, and more or less expected committed students to always have lessons. Just because you finished a degree was no reason to quit learning. It takes as long as it takes. For me, it just took gradually longer and longer to prepare the next lesson as I could do more and more preparation on my own. My last lesson was in 2004 in her last master class. She frowned on what she called “shopping around” going from this teacher to that one. Such players generally seemed to end up in a muddle of approaches with no clear way of playing. And those who decided to play however they felt like after leaving school seemed to compromise what they had developed, so I trusted her viewpoint. The only alteration I have made over the years is to refine what I do and to do it more effortlessly. I would love to have a coach now, just to help me prepare better. I do think that should continue, just as singers always have coaches.
It used to be that you could only have one or two “great” teachers, they didn’t allow muddling around from this one to that one. It gave us stylistic purity. These days, with fewer authority figures, it is hard to make that stick. Nevertheless, if you have found a teacher who can take you through all your advanced training, stay put, I say. It is different with the harp than with piano or flute, for example. If you are learning a complete, systematic approach, then going on to teachers who are completely different will compromise what you have developed, not likely add to it, in that line of thinking. If you find a teacher who can improve what you are doing, then you should be completely open-minded to what he or she offers, which may mean completely renovating your approach. A student who feels, I am finished to this point, I need no technical help, for example, is merely shutting off growth and access for the teacher. A great student is like a sponge. The reason for this, I find, is that all musical problems are generally solved technically.
On the harp, if you are not able to clearly play the musical ideas, it is usually do to a fault in your position or finger technique. The technique gives you the ability and freedom of expression of what is in the score. That gives you something to interpret. In my experience, anyway, musical insight came part and parcel with technical training. If there is an inner voice in the music to be brought out, well, you can do it if your 234 are balanced with your thumb, but if they are weak or one of them is weak, then it is doesn’t come out clearly, and you notice it. But you may think it is a musical problem when it is actually muscular.
Sometimes it is not in the hand but in the ear. Do you hear clearly what you are actually doing? Most of the time, we hear what we wish to hear, what we are attempting to do and not the actual result. A student whose technique is polished may have only this problem and musical styles to learn. So, I contradict myself. In this case, you need the teacher who will help you to be the best artist. Most of us have not reached this stage. But, if you haven’t learned musicality by this stage, something else may be wrong?
What I was told at the factory is that the Chicago harps are made out of solid pieces of wood rather than laminated layers. It is less labor-intensive that
Did you tape the pedals to each other or to the wood? I wouldn’t take a chance on tape on the wood. Could you tape the levers to the baseboard? It’s definitely a struggle. The ones that I get aligned, I put into natural to help hold the base. I’m sure you do that, too.
This is specific to your hand position and strength. Only a teacher can help you fix it. Your description isn’t clear. Your fingers should be rounded when playing, generally speaking. It is a strength issue. If you poke it from underneath with a chopstick or knitting needle, the joint will quickly get used to playing in the right position. It is possible that you are not in the right position and it is making it worse. You can do exercises to increase your grip strength. You may have your fingertip too high on the string relative to your other fingers and that is forcing the knuckle to misbehave. If you are learning anything like Salzedo technique, re-read the Method and study the photos closely.
Do not use white-out, it will ruin your strings. It just takes time to get them. There are no shortcuts to playing well. If Mr. Grandjany used something, it was long before white-out was invented, perhaps white grease pencil.
I think that is the difference between new and old strings. The tension is the same on an Ogden as on a pedal harp. I highly doubt Ogdens do anything by themselves to break strings. Maybe the harp elves do it at night.
You need to lift weights to play any harp, it seems! By shimmy, I hope you mean walking it from foot to foot. You don’t need to keep it covered except maybe when moving it.
