Charlie Parker. We consider that we could

Hasina566

Charlie Parker's response was to practice his melody day and night until he play it perfectly: one of the greatest saxophonists of all time had been born. Given this, Professor Fletcher wonders if Jones' reaction to Parker's poor performance would have been to pat him on the back and say "good job, boy." Charlie Parker would simply never have become  not establish a cause-effect relationship from the reaction of Charlie Parker's “teacher.” In the best of cases, the anecdote refers to the trigger for the ability of the brilliant Bird ; but he does not found it.

Suddenly, telling a student “good job, boy,” would have the same effect as the saucer on other sensitivities. The limits of teaching must never exce respect for the student , the limits of his training must  Middle East Mobile Number List be drawn by him himself, the teacher's task is to show him his own limitations in order to overcome them. For the rest, is it about training only the virtuosos of each discipline? Don't the non-virtuous have the same rights? Who decides the limits between one and the other? Isn't it the teacher's task to form integral people? Now, in the film a “square” is establish that clarifies the complexity of professional and human training.




The talent but unscrupulous teacher; Neiman's kind father, but with professional limitations; the virtuous young Neiman, who is more concern about his professional future than his future as a person; and the young woman in love with Neiman, a well-intention person, but who has not resolv his professional destiny. Such a “square” shows us the dangers of an exclusive formation. Terence Fletcher's talent student is left with a father whom he loves but does not admire, he is left without the woman who could have been the great love of his life, he is left with professional admiration for the teacher whom he detests personally.