-
Joe Pass was curiously omitted from the recommended listening? Some good shouts otherwise (Taylor, Towner, Breau et al). His always minimal but hugely effective (and always swinging) RH fingers & thumb were wonderfully highlighted on the Virtuoso series. Stylistic divisions not always useful, Chet Atkins played the Django hot club songbook finger (& thumbpick) style long before his Nashville days (check out his early stuff).
Classical RH can be restraining as well as liberating, so be wary of all that didactic nonsense by Giuliani et al - unless its allied to a musical direction you'll end up sending the goldfish to sleep..... The secret to a good RH is as much about breaking rules as slavishly following them (check out Merle Travis playing Cannonball Rag with one-finger-and-one-thumb and ask yourself if Giuliani could play like that after a year of p-i-m-a-m-i etc..).
-
10-12-2009 10:49 AM
-
Well, there's one detail I think may exonerate Giuliani et al: the fact that classical guitar demands a greater force playing a note in order to get a decent note volume, than in electric guitar.
Given that, you could play as fast in an electric guitar as merle travis, with or without classical technique, just by playing soft and cranking the amp.
Think about it: why does the classical guitar has a +/- 52mm wide neck at the nut? Not because of the left hand, but because the string separation needed for the right hand to strike the strings with enough force.
My .02
-
Most electric pickers also play an acoustic or two. Chet even liked to mix nylon and steel strings. There is no lack of force in the electric picking technique (with the exception of Lenny maybe who made it a virtue)! Au contraire, it's the silly little parlour classical guitars on which Giuliani & co barely formed a blister on that didn't require any real input at all. It wasn't till the modern classical instrument came along with associated concert hall demands that scale lengths started increasing and strings widening.
NB: 'Playing soft' isn't an option on an electric to get any serious dynamics out of it.
Your point about string width is interesting, but there's no doubt a wider fretboard facilitates easier LH counterpoint as fingers don't damp vibrating strings so easily (try playing Bach on a narrow necked electric). Any knock on RH advantage to string width at the bridge would depend on that age old question, are you (instinctively) a striker or plucker?
So many players have yet to even ask themselves this, the honest answer to which will make their lives so much easier, as both paths can yield quite different technical possibilities! Do what feels right should be the advice, as theres nothing more tedious than being stuck trying to make your right hand do something it doesn't want to for no particularly good reason.
-
And there's hardly anything more tedious than recommending that practicing is not productive. And I wonder how Merle would have fared playing the Giuliani Concerto in A. Actually, I don't.
-
Sorry, but that is ridiculous. I'd love to hear Travis try and play through 1% of the Giuliani literature. They are both masters, just at different types of music. Segovia couldn't do what Wes did, does that make Wes a better guitarist? Wes couldn't do what Segovia did, does that make Segovia a better guitarist? These are ridiculous questions.
Originally Posted by H-D-A
...Classical RH can be restraining as well as liberating, so be wary of all that didactic nonsense by Giuliani et al - unless its allied to a musical direction you'll end up sending the goldfish to sleep.....(check out Merle Travis playing Cannonball Rag with one-finger-and-one-thumb and ask yourself if Giuliani could play like that after a year of p-i-m-a-m-i etc..).
The demands of the R.H. are very different than those of jazz and country guitar. To be honest, I actually consider my jazz guitar and my classical guitar to be different instruments. Most none CG guitarists who have done a little finger-picking assume that they have an idea about the CG r.h. But it took me 2 years of hard CG study before I began to even understand how much work I had left. And I was a fairly accomplished jazz finger picker before that.
As far as Giuliani (I assume your referring to the boredom of playing through his 120 arpeggio exercises) you have to understand the amount of work that goes into the r.h. of a CGist. Almost all of your sound comes from the r.h., and there are subtleties in tone generated by the r.h. that are hard for the uninitiated to hear easily. The Giuliani 120 (or others like it) remain a cornerstone of the development of CG technique. I would not recommend it for non-CGists, unless they pedantically want to go through every possible finger combination. To be honest, I don't even have my CG students go through all of them. Remember that these were written at a time when I serious guitarist would wake up, do an hour of scales, an hour of arpeggios, an hour repertoire, then they would eat breakfast! Once breakfast was out of the way they could get into some real practicing.
They are different instruments and styles and they should be not be judged by the aesthetics of the other. Listening to a jazz guitarist complain about classical guitar is like listening to a grunge guitar player try to lecture about jazz guitar.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Hey Kevin,
You would seem to have a somewhat unique perspective, being highly proficient at both Jazz and CG techniques. So, my question is this: What do you think about Charlie Byrd's approach to Jazz utilizing CG techniques (or did he actually use CG techniques, for that matter)? Sounded good to me, but I know next to nothing about CG. (Uh oh, I hope Ruben Diaz doesn't see this!)
Thanks,
Tom
-
Byrd's attack and control didn't sound anythng lik that of a great classical player to me. nothing does.
either you are doing it the classical way or you arent.
-
What does that mean? Every accomplished classical guitarist sounds different, some radically so. Granted, Charlie Byrd didn't keep up his classical approach (he was a Segovia student early on), but why would you expect a jazz guitarist to sound like a classical guitarist? I suppose it's possible, but the demands are so different it seems pointless. In my experience, a more user-friendly approach to jazz on the nylon-string comes from Flamenco, including the instrument. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Well, in all fairness, I'm still working on CG, studying for my grad recital for my MA. So I wouldn't label myself an "expert" in CG. Originally Posted by Tom Karol
And to be honest it's been a long time since I listened to Byrd. I used to be a live-in caretaker for someone with Cerebral Palsy, and he used to watch a lot of cooking shows. One of them always had Byrd playing as the background music. I enjoyed it, but I knew nothing of CG at the time.
I just watched several clips of him on youtube just now. What I see is someone who obviously had some training. You can see that he has some good things going on (good planting, full finger stroke) but then every now and then he does something that looks bizarre to me (tilts his hand back and plays a bunch of notes in a row with the index finger, loosing some tone in the process.) He seems to get a pretty good tone much of the time, but not always. I wouldn't say that he has great CG technique, but he is certainly much better than someone who taught himself. He sounds a lot better than most of the non-CGists who play nylon. (After having studied CG, untrained hands on nylon are like nails on the chalk board to me.)
But again, jazz performance is not about perfection of technique. Yes, technique is part of it, but it is not the end. A CG player sits around mastering technique, masters getting inside a melody, understanding how the voices of the piece relate each other, tries to plan out how to execute the piece perfectly. Classical is about taking an already composed piece of music and trying to dissect it and put it back together again to breathe life into it. Jazz isn't like that - jazz is about being in the moment and trying to spontaneously create, reacting to what is going on around you and how you feel in the moment. Technique is only important in how it serves that goal. I don't expect for a JGist playing on nylon to have perfect CG technique, and I don't see the need. It might be good for him to have some CG training so he knows how to properly plant and prepare, and he understand the subtleties of tone and timbre that come with nylon.
So no, I wouldn't say Byrd was a great exemplar of CG technique (but he's much better than most non-CGists that play on nylon.) But in all fairness, Segovia couldn't swing to save his life and was notorious for loosing the form on "Giant Steps."
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 11-14-2010 at 03:57 AM. Reason: typos
-
Geez you guys. How hard is it to tell the truth?
The simple fact is that there is not, nor has there ever been, a jazz finger style player who possessed a right hand technique that rivaled that of the very best classical players.
The general point was made - "but they aren't trying to, nor need they". Well, thats right! And they have succeeded. Simple as that.
-
"The demands of the R.H. are very different than those of jazz and country guitar. To be honest, I actually consider my jazz guitar and my classical guitar to be different instruments".
More one on that. Classical Guitar and Jazz guitar are diferent instruments!So why is we need to compare the masters in each instrument?
I studied classical guitar for 7 years in a conservatorium, and I'm studing jazz for five years now. It's a completly diferent story, each of the instruments have diferent approaches and diferents skill needs.
Sorry for my bad English.
-
But how can you say (mockingly) that they "succeeded" at not doing something that they weren't even trying (or needed to do) in the first place. It would be like saying: Originally Posted by fumblefingers
The simple fact is that there is not, nor has there ever been, a jazz finger style player who possessed the masonry skills that rivaled that of the very best brick layers. The general point was made - 'but they aren't trying to, nor need they.' Well, that's right! And they have succeeded. Simple as that.It is a completely nonsensical saying that proves nothing. I'm not sure what the point is. You are arbitrarily trying to judge one discipline by the standards of another?
The fact that they are both playing strings with fingers is a red herring - they have very different guitars (playing nylon takes much more care than playing steel), very different technical needs, and (most importantly) they have very different musical goals. You're comparing apples and oranges. There is some overlap but it's silly to judge one by the standards of the other. If you define what makes the best and most "apple-y" apple and then try to judge and orange by that standard, then of course the orange with pale in comparison. The fact of that they are both fruits is completely irrelevant if you start with the a priori assumption that one is a paragon by which the other should be judged. We could have very easily started with the orange and come to the complete opposite conclusion. What is the point? I see none.
Yes, CGists train harder on rh finger technique. So what? That is not the standard by which all guitarist should be judged.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 11-15-2010 at 05:21 PM. Reason: slight elaboration
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I can see that you are struggling young man, so let me help you a bit:
1. They have succeeded at developing a technique that is inferior. It nevertheless seems to suit there needs. <End statement>
2. You're not sure what the point is? The point is...... "see #1 above". Got it now? Great!
3. We did not establish who "they" were, now did we, Kevin? But you took it upon yourself to assume. You should never assume Kevin. Why? Because "assumptions make an ass out of you and me", and "assumptions are the mother of all screw ups". Yes, you got in a big hurry and failed to account for the fact that Earl Klugh, Charlie Byrd, and Gene Bertoncini did/do not play steel stringed instruments with a narrow nut width. So you flunked that section of the discourse. We'll overlook it though.
4. We aren't talking about apples and oranges, are we son? No, we are talking about guitar technique. We are talking about scales, chords, arpeggios, melodies, strumming, pizzicato, legato, staccato, etc, etc, etc. Techniques and materials that are common to many styles. And yes, you are correct - classical players work harder than others on right hand technique (so you got one thing right). And!!!
Their right hand technique is superior to all other finger-stylists.
As a lesson for you, I advise repeating that last sentence out loud 100 times until you fully understand it. No, no. Don't thank me, you're welcome.
5. Who died and annointed you as the expert on defining the "standard by which all guitarist should be judged"? (seriously, is english your first language?).
Our opinions are just that. They are equally valid and/or invalid. We probably don't agree on much, son. But you should take a powder. You have gotten yourself worked up into a lather lately.Last edited by fumblefingers; 11-16-2010 at 12:56 AM.
-
If you can define me as "young man" I have have to start thinking of you as a curmudgeon. Really, what is my age? Are your multiple ad hominen attacks against my inferred age meant to weaken my argument? You think my perceived lack of age (old enough to be a grandfather, a great-grandfather in Arkansas) makes your argument stronger? Originally Posted by fumblefingers
But that is circular logic. "I postulate that group A is the quintessence of quality Q. What is the point? The point is that, 'I postulate that group A is the quintessence of quality Q.'" Originally Posted by fumblefingers
How does that answer the question? You still haven't explained the relevance to the judgment of others. The continuation of your argument is that group A is better than group B because group B doesn't have as much of quality Q as group A. But you have failed to explain why group B should be judged by quality Q. Instead you dance around the point and come back with a specious circular argument.
No need to overlook it. The point is that you created a straw-man. You took a tiny portion of my argument and proved that it can't stand on it's own. Duh. That is the nature of a sequential/dependent argument - the statements do not prove the argument on their own. You ignored that the full statement that I made was, "they have very different guitars (playing nylon takes much more care than playing steel), very different technical needs, and (most importantly) they have very different musical goals." But you choose to ignore the whole statement and pick at a tiny piece of it as if it were the whole argument. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
You are also assuming that even if the jazz is played on a nylon sting guitar, that the subtleties that we CGist work so hard to get can even be heard in a combo setting.
Really, you mock me because of my (assumed) age and yet you pull out that silly statement that I haven't heard since the 4th grade? Remind me, am I supposed to come back with, "I'm rubber and you're glue..." or "My daddy can beat up your daddy!"? Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Yes, they are. They have completely different goals. Would the guys you listed have been better jazz guitarists if they'd spent 6 hours a day working on CG guitar technique. I don't think so. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
That is assuming that because they are made up of the same constituent parts, that the results must be judged but the same standards. The same basic materials go into a lawnmower and a jetski. Must the results be judged by the same standards? Do we say that the lawnmower is better then the jetski because it is better than cutting grass? Do we say that the jetski is better than the lawnmower because it can convey you across water in a fun manner? Why one and not the other? Both start with an unwarranted assumption about what the "best" objective is. Classical guitar technique is the best way to play classical guitar and jazz guitar technique is the best way of playing jazz guitar. If classical guitar technique were the best way to play jazz guitar, someone would have figured it out by now and revolutionized jazz guitar. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Well, if you'd read what I wrote I said what should not be used. (There is a big difference.) The point is that I think that they should be judged on their own merits, not like there is some God-given universal standard. I don't think that the standards of one genre should be used to judge another. I don't think that we should use the standards of good jazz guitar should not be used to judge a Indian sitarist. I don't think that the standards of good Hindustani raga sitar playing should be used to judge Renaissance lute performance. I don't think that the standards of good Renaissance lute technique should be used to judge a Travis picker. And I don't think that the standards of a good Travis picking should be used to judge a good Japanese koto technique. And I don't think that the standards of a good koto technique should be used to judge a good classical guitarist. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
I made the same argument to some guy who tried to say that Segovia couldn't hold a candle Chet Atkins. I've heard the same argument in the complete opposite direction. They are both wrong. The problem with either of these arguments is that they start with an assumed premise of what is the standard by which all guitarists should be judged. But what is the source of this universal standard? It starts with an arbitrary and subjective opinion about what is "best."
Through all your condescending name calling, non sequiturs, misquotes, and straw-man attacks aside, you still have failed to explain the underlying premise of your entire argument - why specifically classical guitar technique should be the standard by which all other guitar techniques are judged. All you seem to offer are closed tautologies and Procrustean circles of "logic." You are also assuming that there is a universal standard. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Your condescension aside, opinions are not "valid and/or invalid." "Validity" refers to the quality of an argument. Opinions can be "true," "untrue," "conditionally true or untrue", "nonsensical," or "indeterminate," but they cannot be "valid" or "invalid" because opinions are not arguments. A conclusion based on a valid logic, but where the premises are opinions can lead to an "untrue" conclusion if the premises are indefensible. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Since you seem to want to step into the field of logic (You opened the door, counselor), if I was still in my epistemology class, we would outline your argument thusly:
(P1) - There exists a universal and objective standard by which guitar right hand technique can be judged.
(P2) - Classical guitar right hand technique is that universal and objective standard by which all guitar right hand guitar technique is judged.
P3 - Classical guitarists have better classical guitar right hand technique than non-classical guitarist.
Therefore:
C - Classical guitarists have the best right hand technique.
Your two implied premises (in parentheses) are entirely unfounded and you fail to even try to build an argument in support of them. Even if I were to give you P1 (I'm not sure how we would begin to prove it) I still don't see how you can prove P2 without depending on subjectivity or circular arguments (which you do heavily.) You keep trying to prove P3 (which most of us would accept as true by definition), but its relevance to your conclusion is completely dependent on P1 and P2. You seem to think that once you prove P3 your work is done, but P3 cannot support C without P1 and P2 - that is the nature of sequential/dependent arguments. Without that, P3 is just a circular argument.
I find your statement "Our opinions are just that" to be extremely ironic. You tried to rile people up and start a fight with statements like:
"either you are doing it the classical way or you arent."
"The simple fact is that there is not, nor has there ever been, a jazz finger style player who possessed a right hand technique that rivaled that of the very best classical players."
"Simple as that."
"They [JGists] have succeeded at developing a technique that is inferior."
"Their [CGists] right hand technique is superior to all others."
Where are your qualifiers indicating that these are your "opinions?" (True, you did start with "Byrd's attack and control didn't sound anythng lik that of a great classical player to me. [emphasis mine]" but then quickly went off the reservation.) You are not expressing opinions there, you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner. You made a bunch of definitive statements while the rest of us were trying to say that that was just your opinion. You defiantly tried to defend that you were right and that these were not subjective opinions but that they were objective statements of fact. Then, after failing to build a cogent argument you try and run and hide behind statements like, "Our opinions are just that." In the future, why don't you start with that and leave off statements like the ones above? It will be clearer to the rest of us that you are expressing an opinion.
The irony is that I have been trying to argue that this is just an opinion all along, that there is no objective standard. You were the one trying to argue for objectivity before pusillanimously hiding behind "opinions."
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 11-16-2010 at 04:53 AM. Reason: slight elaboration and typos
-
its a darn shame you don't get paid for this stuff. you've worked so hard.
-
The truth is it's own reward and I used to have to write 2 ten-page grad papers a week, this it nothing, this is relaxing. It's like I was in the NFL and now I'm playing Pee-Wee football. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
And yet again you have completely avoided my argument by distraction. Based on the two threads we've had these scraps in, I think I've figured out your dialectical technique:
1. Make unfounded hyperbolic statements to rile people up.
2. Attack other people's arguments by either taking tiny shreds of their argument out of context or sometimes by misrepresenting what they say to mean the exact opposite as what they mean. This is much easier than attacking what they say directly. Never go after any substantive points that they've made; they are all too easily ignored, and it's too easy to distract them with minutiae. Remember, if your opponent makes 10 salient, well thought out and explained, don't under any circumstance discuss the points directly - it's much safer to take a sentence here or there out of context or simply misquote. Remember, you won't have to defend your misrepresentations because you'll simply move onto something else and pretend like they never happened.
3. If they start to realize that you are not discussing their argument, start in with the personal attacks. These can be thinly veiled, but they should distract them from your specious logic.
4. When you get called on too much hyperbole and misrepresentations, you can always just abandon any pretense of discussing, claim it was just an "opinion" and start pretending to be a victim.
Now, if the other thread ("Women can't play jazz guitar!!") is a judge, this is where you'll start attacking my assumed politics (and anyone like me) and then end with a Tea Party endorsement. How close am I?
Or you could put your money where your mouth is and discuss any of the dozens of points we've made (in their entirety and in the right context please) or explain the mountains of contradictions and non sequiturs in your statements.
Well?
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 11-16-2010 at 01:11 PM. Reason: typo
-
I play fingerstyle solos on my nylonstrings guitar.
Regards
Kris
YouTube - Kanaal van karasek52
-
And I thought it was because a narrower neck makes it difficult to keep left hand fingers holding down one string from interferring with the vibration of another string. Originally Posted by kambor
I have those shows on tape.and he used to watch a lot of cooking shows. One of them always had Byrd playing as the background music.
Hearing Byrd play Austurias at a jazz concert is one of the things that got me interested in classical guitar. I don't think I ever heard it before, but I remember thinking it wa such a great piece of music that he ought to have the decency not to play it so sloppily.So no, I wouldn't say Byrd was a great exemplar of CG technique (but he's much better than most non-CGists that play on nylon.)
IMO, best jazz and classical combo on nylon is probably Laurindo Almeida.
-
Hilarious thread is hilarious.
I think, somewhere in the middle of all that jazz (pun intended?), we've lost the point.
A nice step to take to repair things is...
I request, with all respect, ksjazzguitar and fumblefingers to RESTATE THEIR OPINIONS (opinions - their thoughts on the subject, not on other members), without any references to, or even a mention of, earlier posts, members, or incidents.
(If they do that, obviously, they prove their sincerity to the point. I've my money on fumblefingers replying with anything other than what I've requested.)
Classic. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
+1!! Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
This is awesome that you guys have so much time to spend on this stuff. I love reading these arguments.
Anyway, what about Romero Lobambo or Jaco Abel? We haven't even mentioned flamenco or brazilian guitarists. I personally think Guinga and Romero (who don't adhere to either jazz or classical fingerstyle) float my boad just fine.
-
Romero is a really hot player. never heard of him before. thanks for that. just saw a couple of his youtube vids. one was easy Brazilian pap, the other was full on jazz blowing. seems he may have heard a little Larry Coryell before.
as far as the earlier statement made by me about classical fingerstyle technique vs. other, i'm done with that. its not really a debate IMO.
-
Really? I'm finishing up my MA in CG and I find that I prefer to use jazz technique for jazz and classical technique for classical. I really don't consider by solo jazz RH technique as "whatever the F I can cook up to get by with." Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-14-2011 at 04:32 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Really? I'm finishing up my MA in CG and I find that I prefer to use jazz technique for jazz and classical technique for classical. I really don't consider by solo jazz RH technique as "whatever the F I can cook up to get by with."
Peace,
Kevin
no. there is no such thing as jazz right hand finger style technique! not in the standard sense. i said it right the first time.
-
backing up a bit. the earlier post by Ron regarding Lenny B was not a complete thought or statement.
if the point was - "gee, he was good on nylon strings and wasn't a classical player" (and if he was trained on classical technique) then that would be an inadvertant example of agreeing with my point.
(for review - my point was/is that classical right hand technique is the superior finger style technique).
but if the point was - "gee, he was good on nylon strings, so good in fact that he played on par with classical masters" (and he used his own home grown technique) then that would be false.
all i can tell about the guy is that he was very versatile. (and he could improvise, which is not part of the current discusssion). he played fingerstyle quite effectively for what he was attempting. and he seemed to have some classical background, however limited.
more than that, i am not sure what was being claimed by Ron about his playing.Last edited by fumblefingers; 02-14-2011 at 10:02 AM.
-
Then what was my teacher teaching me all those years ago. He wasn't a classical player and it wasn't classical technique. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Let's try to break this down. It was finger-style RH technique. He was a jazz teacher. I was a jazz student. He was teaching this RH technique to me on a jazz guitar and playing jazz music. It clearly wasn't classical technique.
But for some reason, you declare, "there is no such thing as jazz right hand finger style technique."
Is it because it is not standardized? So what, neither is CG technique - there are still arguments about hand position, whether or not to use the pinky, etc.
It's still technique, even if it isn't written down and standardized.
Peace,
Kevin
Reply With Quote
Seeking
Today, 03:50 PM in For Sale