Blown away by Ida Presti---and her unconventional technique--possible jazz use?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Simple enough for you?

Your little barbs insinuating that I'm a simpleton are insulting, but they don't change the reality of the conversation.

The fact is that "classical" guitarists use the term "classical" to describe THEMSELVES and their craft, as do other "original" purveyors like "stage actors". They, themselves, are most likely to BE the ones to use the qualifying adjectives.

And I don't think there's anything personally insulting in my challenging the assertions in your other post. I think 99% of the rest of the world disagrees with you about this. The way you think things "should be" has nothing to do with reality. Preach all you want about the way you "think things should be", but don't state it as fact if you don't want somebody calling it BS.

You have the obnoxious habit of pretending to be very fact-based and academic in your reasoning, while at the same dropping personal insults and talking down to others (not just me , in this very thread no less) . If you're going to be small, be small, but don't pretend to be some kind of great mind arguing "the facts".

I think you'd look smarter to stick to the actual conversation, and leave the personal insults out of it.

[fumblefingers]

You know, you're correct, chronologically. But if you go around the world and ask who plays guitar--probably 80% (or more) of those who consider themselves guitarists will not be classical guitarists. And if you go around and ask people who listen to "guitar music" probably 90% of it (or more) will NOT be classical guitar. So, language is kind of a living thing, not Procrustean prescription, so perhaps given usage and custom, maybe the definition (based on chronology) ought to change, as well.

And I'm curious...when did Flamenco arise? I kind of hear a lot of Arabic/Moorish influence in it, and those people were driven out of Spain in 1492, so maybe chronology is not dispositive here, either.

a good point regarding Flamenco. i don't have a lot of history except that Flemenco guitar arose in the 19th century, and according to Wikipedia:

"Antonio de Torres, one of the most renowned luthiers, did not differentiate between flamenco and classical guitars. Only after Andrés Segovia and others popularized classical guitar music, did this distinction emerge".

[fumblefingers]

Well, I'm admit I don't know much about Renee Fleming. However, if she is an extremely derivative singer with uncertain pitch, and loose personal habits, then comparing her to Janis Joplin would be appropriate. I think even Janis Joplin knew her claim to blues singing was a bit tenuous...remember "Oh Lord, Won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz".

And re:THE GUITAR'S claims to etymological superiority based on chronology, this is pretty dodgy. A few minutes worth of research uncovered a manuscript (1705) in which observers described Fandangos, a predecessor to flamenco which predates your classical guitar dating (1800-ish, or so) by roughly a century. Other observers noted that Spanish guitar was a folk-lorish phenomenon back in the 1700's as well. There is the further point that folk traditions are undocumented given widespread illiteracy in that time and place, and it is likely that the 1705 fandango manuscript reference is probably not the 1st instance of this phenomenon. (I found this stuff on Wikipedia and there are citations to the 1705 manuscript. I'm assuming its accurate, but haven't independently verified it.) It's possible that the stuff I hear in Flamenco independently developed outside of Moorish influence, but I'd be surprised, as the stringed instrument predecessors to guitar were not European, either.

You really ought to get off your high horse about classical guitar's claim to chronological primacy---because that horse won't let you ride.

sure. soon as you get off your low horse.

and "chronological primacy" relative to Gibson/Martin type acoustic guitars, and all electric guitars is fact based, so not really debatable.

[fumblefingers]

Your little barbs insinuating that I'm a simpleton are insulting, but they don't change the reality of the conversation.

The fact is that "classical" guitarists use the term "classical" to describe THEMSELVES and their craft, as do other "original" purveyors like "stage actors". They, themselves, are most likely to BE the ones to use the qualifying adjectives.

And I don't think there's anything personally insulting in my challenging the assertions in your other post. I think 99% of the rest of the world disagrees with you about this. The way you think things "should be" has nothing to do with reality. Preach all you want about the way you "think things should be", but don't state it as fact if you don't want somebody calling it BS.

You have the obnoxious habit of pretending to be very fact-based and academic in your reasoning, while at the same dropping personal insults and talking down to others (not just me , in this very thread no less) . If you're going to be small, be small, but don't pretend to be some kind of great mind arguing "the facts".

I think you'd look smarter to stick to the actual conversation, and leave the personal insults out of it.

i really don't see a "personal insult" here, but while you're having an emotional tailspin i'll go ahead and admit that you're not my favorite person either.

[Stevebol]

Well, excuuuuuse me...

Re: Point 1: I never implied anything to the contrary....frankly I find a LOT of classical gtr. players to be polite-sounding, but DULL---lacking in tonal dynamics and touch. Presti to me, is an player with tons of both to spare...all in the service of an artistic vision, and not technique for its own sake. It seems to me that if her playing is different, and at least to my ears, better, dismissing her somewhat unusual technique as unimportant is just begging the question---intellectual laziness. Just fooling around with using her right nail technique, I was able to get a much bigger sound out of chordal work on a jazz guitar...to me, this is exciting.

Point 2: I won't debate this....my brief foray into the classical guitar world of gossip-mongering and players whose ego knows no bounds is enough to cause me to steer clear. For example, I spent almost an entire afternoon reading debates about I. was Segovia a Fascist, ii. did he terrorize his students, iii. did he sabotage careers by bad-mouthing rivals, and cause them to lose bookings, iv. was he persistently boffing mothers of students who came to study with him, or did he only do it occasionally? v. how much of the success of certain contemporary female performers is due mostly due to the "babe factor", and vi. was Segovia, at any time, ever the best in the world, or was he only ready to claim this mantle, etc.

I actually think there is a tendency within the classical world to engage in more of this type of idiocy, given the substantial overlap that many artists have with others in playing the "standard repertory". Imagine a world where all sax players and small groups played Night in Tunisia; Cherokee; Koko; and a relatively small # of other pieces. Don't you think this would encourage gossip-mongering---I think it would, given that everyone knows the pieces, and are probably bored to tears in hearing them...the excitement comes in saying...wow her tremolo was a little deficient, etc. or other extremely rarified, but essentially trivial matters. Or maybe a comparison with the world of competitive ice-skating is apt---but even there, performers have more freedom to at least compose their own free-style programs.

Point 3: Do you know how ridiculous this sounds?...it is like Segovia saying that no other music at all,,,is worthwhile, either to listen to, or to perform...I forgot who it was whose performance/gig he attended, and then at the end, he clapped twice...OK, Andres---we get it ---we know you think you're THE GOD of GUITAR--whereas all the others are just pretenders at--- electric guitar---folk guitar----flamenco---that bastard art-form, or whatever. The point, which you refuse to understand is that Stevie Ray Vaughn had a BIG sound...and could actually sound like a 4 or 5 piece band, even though I think he played in a trio. It seems to me Presti shares this quality, along with an energy and sense of abandon in her playing that a term like "force of nature" or "whirlwind" might capture. Her playing to me, is utterly natural, as if she is channeling music...and plenty of people who played with Stevie Ray said the same thing . I think Django R. had this quality as well. In contrast, to me, most classical performers look constipated...as if their greatest fear is making a mistake, but I guess this is to be expected. Scott LeFaro was asked one time why he didn't pursue classical bass, as he was trained to do, and he said something like "It's boring...connecting someone else's dots...." People rag on Beatlemania, or the local tribute to LED Zeppelin band...but aren't classical performers really tribute artists, after all?! You know I think Liberace said something profound when he was asked why he shortened up a lot of classical pieces and he said "I cut out all the boring parts."

Do you really think that Julian Bream or John Williams or Elliot Fisk, or whoever else you might cite, did much to change the perception or attention of the world, in a larger sense...the way that a Jimi Hendrix did?! I think they were accomplished practitioners in a small segment of the classical musical world, and if they hadn't been playing, probably that world would have continued on the way it has...beloved by a tiny group of admirers and performers in a world that seems to change hardly at all. I suppose the advent of good sound systems has changed the whole schtick Segovia attempted in bringing that instrument into larger performance venues, and out of the parlors.

Not sure I would call having a big acoustic sound a 'schtick'. It's still the holy grail for violinists. Pianists? Who cares they all play like bulls now. Pounding away. As for classical music being 'tribute' music, no, I wouldn't call it that. It starts on paper not with a recording.
I call tribute bands- classical music for people that don't like classical music. They're funny.

[Stevebol]

I don't know about anything about Presti yet but SRV insisted a lot comes down to just the way you hold the guitar. Listening to Presti now it's obvious she was a great player. She really makes the guitar sing. There seems to be a lot of discussion about her technique.
The guitar is such an odd instrument for classical music. The low volume, the strange tuning.

[goldenwave77]

Not sure I would call having a big acoustic sound a 'schtick'. It's still the holy grail for violinists. Pianists? Who cares they all play like bulls now. Pounding away. As for classical music being 'tribute' music, no, I wouldn't call it that. It starts on paper not with a recording.
I call tribute bands- classical music for people that don't like classical music. They're funny.

You know I know enough about Segovia to know that his insistence on use of the fingernails to achieve a big tone was controversial. There were literally riots in the streets between his followers and those who thought the older finger-based style was more melodic, softer, more subtle. It was almost as if he was playing arena rock, and he was accused of destroying classical guitar.

Secondly, your quotation to a classical guitarist who didn't differentiate between flamenco/classical is misleading and a red herring. He would like to ignore the history, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The point is that flamenco, and the stuff that preceded it were folk-based traditions that predated, probably by centuries, what came to be codified as "classical guitar". So, as we used to say back in my tournament debating days---"Mr. Speaker---the proposition (classical gtr. is NOT the original gtr. music) is still before the house."

Ditto, re: tribute bands: I didn't say I like them. I think them moronic. I saw the Allman Brothers play live for almost four hrs. back in 1974. If I want to hear them, I'll put on the CD and listen away. I guess the real question is why I shouldn't be doing the same thing if I want to hear a particular classical piece. But that's another debate for another day.

You know I started out with a few simple points: This woman has an amazing tone, and an amazing sound.
Her technique is (surprisingly) ignored by the great majority of the classical gtr. world, but perhaps could be of use to jazz guitarists, even if they only use it for chordal stuff. My request/query was---maybe this should be put into one's bag of tricks.

At that point, you came back with a bunch of intellectual baggage that you evidently carry around with you: She was overrated, but the music she played is the true "guitar" music, based on chronology. The chronology argument is refuted on 2 scores: general usage and an appreciation of what history really shows, not your myopic classical-centered view of the guitar universe. As far as her playing, I don't need to argue for it---just turn it on and listen, and that's all anyone needs to say. As far as the propriety of comparing her to a "lesser" guitar player---Stevie Ray Vaughn---that is your hangup, and your baggage. I'm given you my rationale, and it is reasonable, though perhaps you might phrase it differently, or not put it that way originally. I think it apt and not offensive---for the reasons given.

I think it was Vladimir Horowitz who went to see Art Tatum and came away astounded, and who said he could never play like Tatum. You, refuse to even consider the talent or technique of someone who was thoroughly grounded in that tradition. Even Segovia, not known as Mr. Niceguy, had to concede the quality of her playing. You, in contrast, won't even grant that. I just find that ridiculous. I'm not asking you to marry this woman---just consider the possible value of something she did that I think helped her to achieve a tone, and command, that is think is pretty rare. At any rate, I find it intriguing, and maybe something to look into.

[goldenwave77]

[QUOTE=Stevebol;519907]I don't know about anything about Presti yet but SRV insisted a lot comes down to just the way you hold the guitar.


I think he also played with really heavy strings---14's I think. He also had freakishly strong and big hands, used all 5 springs in his tremolo, and was a stickler for guitars (his #1 was tested, and found to have overwound pu's which Fender later brought out as 'Texas Specials" ---I think), and piggy-backed his amps in a certain way. To be honest, I like his playing but am not crazy about overwound pu's but man he has a lot of drive in his playing.


Howard Roberts also used really heavy strings, I think, and he a jazz tone to die for, IMO. (Jack Z. would probably know, as I believe he studied with him.)

[pushkar000]

Disagree. Her not needing instruction by any other guitarist, even Segovia as a teenager, her illustrious career with hubby, and the fact that she died in her forties fly in the face of the "died too early for us to tell" narrative.

From what I understand with the help of a google search, the popular consensus is that she did in fact die too young for her to gain the fame and renown that she deserved and that would be necessary for her technique to have any considerable influence.
Case in point : Me. I knew Benson for a long time but Ida, I just found out about today. Logically I haven't been influenced by Ida's technique since I never even knew of her existence until now. Willing to bet there are lots of others like me.
Of course having said that, I do understand that google isn't always the best or most reliable source. However it's the best I can do.

But regardless of influence or other factors, my point ultimately boils down to this - If any technique has some specific value that cannot be replicated by any other technique, then it has value and worth as another weapon in a guitarists arsenal.

Ida's influence or lack thereof has no effect on the fact that her technique provides something that is not provided by other techniques, at least as far as I know. IMO in this regard, it cannot be considered "not important" as was mentioned in your earlier post.

[destinytot]

It may help to include some videos of what you're talking about.


The Ida Presti right hand technique for guitar - …:

The Ida Presti right hand technique for guitar - …:

The Ida Presti right hand technique for guitar - …:

The Ida Presti right hand technique for guitar - …:

Rare Classical Guitar Video: Ida Presti - HVL Pre…:

Ida Presti plays Robert de Visée, Malats and More…:

Thank you!

[matt.guitarteacher]

3. It is somewhat of an insult to call a fine guitarist the "Stevie Ray Vaughn of classical guitar", or the Jimi Hendix, or the BB King, or what have you. Ida Presti played "the guitar". Those other gentlemen played the "electric guitar". Adjectives are required for steel string, plectrum played, electric guitars, not the other way around. When one says "the guitar" it means classical, period.

This is your opininon, and you state it as fact.

On the SRV comparison thing, I'm just trying to help you a little bit. I'm sorry if it seems snarky. Picture yourself approaching Renee Fleming after a performance at The Met at the patrons greeting table or whatever. After she autographs something for you, you tell her - "Ms. Fleming I loved your performance tonight - it was brilliant! Why, I think you're the Janis Joplin of Opera signing!"

As someone once said, "now there's a right way of doing this kind of thing, and this is not it"!

I think there's quite a distinction to be made re. the difference in what one says face-to-face vs. casual conversation, which this forum is. "Don't say anything about Fleming you wouldn't say to her face" is ridiculous. If someone at the cafe says that she's the Joplin of opera or the Lebron of Opera, who cares? You can say that she's more of a Kobe than Lebron or that either comparison is silly, but when you start saying it's "wrong" for casual conversation or "insulting", that's your rule and your judgement. You don't get to say for everyone.

Saying that Fleming is a bad-ass or the Joplin of Opera in a casual setting is the opposite of insulting. That you (obviously) wouldn't say it to her face is kind of beside the point. There's politeness and decency, but it largely depends on context.

And as far as politeness or decency goes,

i really don't see a "personal insult" here, but while you're having an emotional tailspin i'll go ahead and admit that you're not my favorite person either.

it's obnoxious to speculate on what you presume to be my personal thoughts or feelings. They are none of your business. It's especially insulting to do so in place of responding to my comments pertaining to the actual conversation.

You talk about insulting Renee (or all of ̶c̶l̶a̶s̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ guitardom), though they ain't here, but you don't seem to have a problem provoking other members who are actually present and willing to have an on-topic conversation with you. Spare us the sermon on insulting people.

[fumblefingers]

This is your opininon, and you state it as fact.



I think there's quite a distinction to be made re. the difference in what one says face-to-face vs. casual conversation, which this forum is. "Don't say anything about Fleming you wouldn't say to her face" is ridiculous. If someone at the cafe says that she's the Joplin of opera or the Lebron of Opera, who cares? You can say that she's more of a Kobe than Lebron or that either comparison is silly, but when you start saying it's "wrong" for casual conversation or "insulting", that's your rule and your judgement. You don't get to say for everyone.

Saying that Fleming is a bad-ass or the Joplin of Opera in a casual setting is the opposite of insulting. That you (obviously) wouldn't say it to her face is kind of beside the point. There's politeness and decency, but it largely depends on context.

And as far as politeness or decency goes,



it's obnoxious to speculate on what you presume to be my personal thoughts or feelings. They are none of your business. It's especially insulting to do so in place of responding to my comments pertaining to the actual conversation.

You talk about insulting Renee (or all of ̶c̶l̶a̶s̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ guitardom), though they ain't here, but you don't seem to have a problem provoking other members who are actually present and willing to have an on-topic conversation with you. Spare us the sermon on insulting people.

i think that you need some chicken soup and bed rest. you're obviously not feeling well.

[matt.guitarteacher]

i think that you need some chicken soup and bed rest. you're obviously not feeling well.

Sure. Thanks, brother.

[snoskier63]

Way too much bickering and arguing over opinion and that which can never be proven and, ultimately, matters very little. Why can't we just appreciate a talent for what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. As a physical therapist I know how to evaluate and treat the knee, as an example, in many different ways. Why bother to know more than one or two methods? Because everyone and every situation is different. What works well with one person and in one situation may not work at all with another person presenting with the very same symptoms. And if I successfully evaluate and treat a client one way, does that necessarily mean I am the best, or that no other method of evaluation and treatment can be equally successful? Of course not! There is no such thing as the perfect right hand or left hand technique, just what works best for an individual. As an example, feel free to look up Jim Mullen on YouTube. By his own admission his technique is awful and should never be emulated, yet I consider him to be a very fine and accomplished guitarist. That said, I'm sure one or more among us will find it necessary to disagree with my opinions on the playing of Jim Mullen if for no other reason than to bloviate excessively about technique and artistry in the hope of sounding knowledgeable, or simply to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. All I can say to those that can't resist tearing down the opinions of others is continuing with your attacks if it helps you to sleep at night. As they say, opinions are like @ssholes; everyone has one, and more often than not they stink. 'Nuff said.

[fumblefingers]

that's a nice sentiment, but when someone comes out saying that so-and-so is/was the greatest in a century, they're virtually guaranteed a counter opinion or three. and it probably doesn't help when the artist in question is fairly obscure.

[destinytot]

Way too much bickering and arguing over opinion and that which can never be proven and, ultimately, matters very little. Why can't we just appreciate a talent for what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. As a physical therapist I know how to evaluate and treat the knee, as an example, in many different ways. Why bother to know more than one or two methods? Because everyone and every situation is different. What works well with one person and in one situation may not work at all with another person presenting with the very same symptoms. And if I successfully evaluate and treat a client one way, does that necessarily mean I am the best, or that no other method of evaluation and treatment can be equally successful? Of course not! There is no such thing as the perfect right hand or left hand technique, just what works best for an individual. As an example, feel free to look up Jim Mullen on YouTube. By his own admission his technique is awful and should never be emulated, yet I consider him to be a very fine and accomplished guitarist. That said, I'm sure one or more among us will find it necessary to disagree with my opinions on the playing of Jim Mullen if for no other reason than to bloviate excessively about technique and artistry in the hope of sounding knowledgeable, or simply to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. All I can say to those that can't resist tearing down the opinions of others is continuing with your attacks if it helps you to sleep at night. As they say, opinions are like @ssholes; everyone has one, and more often than not they stink. 'Nuff said.

I've been around, and I've been struck by how good-natured the best musicians are. I find that the better the player, the nicer the person. You can almost judge quality of their musical output by examining a musician's character. Too much ego makes an enemy of self, but balancing it with personality and funnelling it appropriately makes for something worth listening to. Nobody wants to listen to a jerk - I'm applying the latter term equally to myself.

In order to master music, you need to master yourself. This isn't an idealistic principle; it's a very practical idea which involves keeping emotional responses in check - important not only for communication but for collaboration.

As I say, I'll be the first to admit that I struggle with this. But it's worth it.

Happy picking and strumming.

PS. Re. Jim Mullen, he played opposite Tania Maria at Ronnie's back in the 90s and was sitting in by the end of the week. He'd picked up all the tunes, but part of why he was invited was because he's also fun to be around.

[goldenwave77]

My last word on this....

Please go back and re-read my original post. I did NOT say:

1. definitively, she is the best classical gtr.-ist of all time. I said "many consider her", and I later clarified that I think "greatest" is a meaningless overall term. Segovia was impressed by her, but I guess some are not.

2. this is the ONLY way to play classical gtr. In fact I stated it is a minority view, but find that interesting. I think she has obvious power and dynamic range.

I did say:

1. I find this technique interesting as a POSSIBILITY...and maybe this is something that "might" be put in your bag of tricks

2. Using this technique, seems, to me, to produce a very big ringing tone.

IN response to throwing out a tentative, possibly useful tip, which people are free to use/consider/employ or reject, I got back a non-response, full of misleading and tendentious statements., such as

1. classical gtr. is "THE Guitar Music", based on its (non-existent) status as the earliest form of guitar music.

2. Segovia's fingernail technique was no big deal---when in contrast, people literally had fistfights over whether his technique, designed to bring classical gtr. into bigger concert venues, was ruining classical gtr. or not. (this is a minor pt., clearly Segovia did not ruin classical gtr., but this dispute/controversy was real, just like the "moldy fig" disputes between "trad. jazz" and "beboppers" in the 40's.

3. comparing her to a non-classical gtr. player, who also had a famously big sound, is inappropriate and disrespectful.


I used to teach debate to HS students. (I was a college debater, and 3 years at the Harvard Law School taught me to spot fallacious arguments in a heartbeat.) I would my students draw, on a piece of paper---4 columns: statement for the affirmative---statement for the response (negative)---rebuttal (response) by the affirmative---and response to rebuttal by the negative. It is the job of the affirmative to provide reasons, and support (evidence or logic) for the affirmative, and it is the job of the negative to respond (rebut) to these arguments, and/or disprove them. My opponent has done none/little of his job. I put forth evidence (reference to Presti's youtube excerpts), and Alice Arzt has a lot of interesting bio-mechanical logic, to support this technique, which again, does not have to be exclusive. Finally, there is Presti's playing, which speaks for itself.


I thank the original poster here who mentioned Alice Arzt's technique postings on youtube, which led me to Presti. I have benefitted from Robert Conti's technique studies which use classical violin exercises (Wohlfahrt), as well as other classical-oriented stuff in other books I have. I know Kenny B. had classical training, and I know Joe P. did some stuff as well, and probably Jim Hall as well, and Sal Salvador and Johnny Smith. Conti's chord melody stuff is very dense and flowing, but he makes heavy use of finger style as well. I think, in many ways, jazz guys could benefit, enormously, from working through classical stuff, as this stuff has indeed been around longer than jazz, and it is a demanding discipline, with a lot of beauty in it. I also think finger-style stuff even helps precision and touch in pick-style playing, as it helps to train the right hand, as well.

I offered this post, because I thought some would find it interesting, and possibly useful. I suppose, though, that no good deed goes unpunished.

[destinytot]

I offered this post, because I thought some would find it interesting, and possibly useful.

Very interesting, and very useful indeed - thank you!

[targuit]

From my perspective, Ida Presti was an accomplished classical guitarist who played with verve and fluidity. But, I do find the discussions of "who is the best" to be shortsighted. I think it is more a question of personal taste than an Olympic gold medal competition in swimming. There are many beautiful flowers in the garden.

As a classically trained guitarist for what it is worth, I doubt that any particular method of addressing the strings is definitively superior to any other. What works best for you individually and in service to your tone and emotional content in your music is best.

Jay

[fumblefingers]

goldenwave - no good deed goes unpunished?

actually, i thanked you for your post and will thank you again. but i took - and still take - modest exception to some of your points, all in good nature of course.


yeah, you said that "many people think her the greatest classical player of this century". well, it would have been more balanced to offer that many don't as well. you see, the overwhelming majority would bestow that honor on Bream or Williams, and some to Segovia too. the latter perhaps more for his overall contribution than his pure performance capability.

you said that Segovia was impressed by her as if that says it all. (sigh, everybody has to make some lineage to Segovia to promote their legitimacy it seems. that'll be over soon.). but then you said that she makes him sound like a "wimp". well, if that's true, then who gives a sh^t what he thinks, since she's better than he is, eh?

you said "I would almost call her the Stevie Ray Vaughn of the classical world". almost, lol. i'm really sorry that you fail to appreciate the hilarity of your statement, funny as it is. i believe that I said it's "somewhat of an insult" to call a fine classical player the SRV of whatever - and that's surely true. fine classical guitarists - especially the best of the century as you say - are not elevated by comparing them to the howlin', screamin', wailin', smokin', drankin', skirt chasin' blues man. dig - it will never be a compliment to a classical maestro to tell them that they are "almost" the jazz/pop/rock/country/blues so-and-so of classical. is that really so difficult to understand?

i never said that "classical guitar is THE Guitar Music". F- for accuracy. i said that "the guitar" implies classical guitar, and that other styles are qualified with an adjective. let's take an example. if you decide to attend a fine conservatory in the US and major in guitar or simply take some guitar instruction, you will quickly notice that a Guitar Department, Guitar Major, Guitar Instruction, Guitar Class, etc., refers to classical. if they have jazz or contemporary guitar they will qualify them as such. the exception would be at one of the few contemporary music schools like Berklee or Musicians Institute. of course these are not traditional/classical schools, and indeed are even moving away from jazz so that their students can hopefully eat after graduating. of course, one would not have been exposed to any of this at Harvard.

[goldenwave77]

goldenwave - no good deed goes unpunished?

actually, i thanked you for your post and will thank you again. but i took - and still take - modest exception to some of your points, all in good nature of course. (What would show 'good nature' is actually reading what I said, and not importing your own value judgments and beliefs into it.)


yeah, you said that "many people think her the greatest classical player of this century". well, it would have been more balanced to offer that many don't as well. you see, the overwhelming majority would bestow that honor on Bream or Williams, and some to Segovia too.

(This is all irrelevant---my comment is not really about her standing as a classical guitarist as such, it is an observation about the possible usefulness of her unconventional technique. Whether she is the best, the 3rd best, the 99th best, or doesn't even rate is IRRELEVANT---go listen to her playing, and ask yourself, wouldn't it be nice to make chordal passages ring out the way she does, and might not her technique be something useful to look into? Her precise standing as a classical artist, is a matter I'll leave to you people to debate...but saying she was a player of some stature is a shorthand way of indicating some degree of authority, which people use as a rough and ready means of evaluating credibility, but still--- her playing by itself demonstrates that, assuming you get people to listen in the first place.)

you said that Segovia was impressed by her as if that says it all. (sigh, everybody has to make some lineage to Segovia to promote their legitimacy it seems. that'll be over soon.). but then you said that she makes him sound like a "wimp". well, if that's true, then who gives a sh^t what he thinks, since she's better than he is, eh? (No, this is also a point about her robust tone---NOT her standing vis-à-vis Segovia, or any of these other people.) See above.

you said "I would almost call her the Stevie Ray Vaughn of the classical world". almost, lol. i'm really sorry that you fail to appreciate the hilarity of your statement, funny as it is. i believe that I said it's "somewhat of an insult" to call a fine classical player the SRV of whatever - and that's surely true. fine classical guitarists - especially the best of the century as you say - are not elevated by comparing them to the howlin', screamin', wailin', smokin', drankin', skirt chasin' blues man. dig - it will never be a compliment to a classical maestro to tell them that they are "almost" the jazz/pop/rock/country/blues so-and-so of classical. is that really so difficult to understand?

(Yes, you've obviously spent too much time in the classical gtr.-mindset and world. Can you not understand that most people here DO NOT play or probably even listen to classical gtr. as their primary focus...you need to learn that there is another possible viewpoint other than your own---and that my simile/metaphor---what have you....actually probably strikes more of a chord, with most of the readers here, than your self-created ivory pedestal that you put these people on...my point is NOT to elevate her, it is to emphasize the robustness of her style in a way that is more communicative...the pt. of communication is to address your audience...not to insist on a narrowness in communication ----"we are not amused" that frankly shows a lack of empathy, or the ability to think outside of one's own focus. BTW, the subject of the statement is hardly in a position to complain, in any event.

i never said that "classical guitar is THE Guitar Music". F- for accuracy. i said that "the guitar" implies classical guitar, and that other styles are qualified with an adjective. (Actually you did by implication, by belittling other types of music, and arguing for the primacy of classical guitar, based on a chronological argument which is anti-factual and anti-historical.) let's take an example. if you decide to attend a fine conservatory in the US and major in guitar or simply take some guitar instruction, you will quickly notice that a Guitar Department, Guitar Major, Guitar Instruction, Guitar Class, etc., refers to classical. if they have jazz or contemporary guitar they will qualify them as such. the exception would be at one of the few contemporary music schools like Berklee or Musicians Institute. of course these are not traditional/classical schools, and indeed are even moving away from jazz so that their students can hopefully eat after graduating. of course, one would not have been exposed to any of this at Harvard.

(Right, and if you go out into the larger world, you will find plenty of "guitarists" who don't give a hoot about your precious classical guitar--don't play one, don't care to, and wouldn't know Tarrega from a bottle of strega, and if you drive down to "Guitar Center", you will find a store filled with instruments--the majority of which are NOT classical, and if you look in music catalogs you'll find an awful lot of publications devoted to stuff besides classical guitar.)

I bet if you asked Kenny Burrell, he would not share your narrowness of vision, and he studied classical guitar. It is quite astounding that your artistic training has evidently succeded in narrowing your outlook and focus, and it is actually quite sad. Again, Charlie Parker listened to Stravinsky and opera (he quoted them a lot), and Tatum was admired by at least one instrumental virtuoso, who musical training had not succeeded in closing his mind.

But again back to my primary point---my comment/observation is not really about classical guitar as such, but about the possible usefulness of a technique that we might borrow from that style. And frankly, I didn't spend a lot of time listening to music in law school---too busy learning rule structures, their language, and how to analyze/debate/take apart fallacious arguments....I'm sorry your musical training didn't equip to do the same.

God, I hope your sight reading skills are better than your reading skills.

[fumblefingers]

My reading skills are fine, as are my arguments.

You said it in the OP, you're no maven of classical guitar. Comparing a great player of same to SRV sealed it.

if you like to twist your hand while playing then suit yourself.

[targuit]

Last night I was briefly playing along with various recordings of a major theme from Il Postino by Luis Bacalov. Josh Groban sang this song as Mi Mancherai. In the film the song is in the key of C with modulation to Eb.

It is a beautiful and evocatively lyrical song that plays well on solo guitar or with bandoneon. It struck me that this could not be called jazz, but it is so lovely and emotional that a good performance just grabs you by the gut, reminding you of love lost and those deep regrets of the heart. Reminds me that jazz is not the only music in town worth playing.


Jay

[destinytot]

I used to teach debate to HS students. (I was a college debater, and 3 years at the Harvard Law School taught me to spot fallacious arguments in a heartbeat.) I would my students draw, on a piece of paper---4 columns: statement for the affirmative---statement for the response (negative)---rebuttal (response) by the affirmative---and response to rebuttal by the negative. It is the job of the affirmative to provide reasons, and support (evidence or logic) for the affirmative, and it is the job of the negative to respond (rebut) to these arguments, and/or disprove them. My opponent has done none/little of his job. I put forth evidence (reference to Presti's youtube excerpts), and Alice Arzt has a lot of interesting bio-mechanical logic, to support this technique, which again, does not have to be exclusive. Finally, there is Presti's playing, which speaks for itself.


I offered this post, because I thought some would find it interesting, and possibly useful.

Thanks again for this extremely useful post.

Although I haven't worked on technique, I really enjoy using my fingers to play and - like one of my heroes, Earl Klugh - I use flesh, not nails.

The Alice Arzt videos clicked with me, and I spent most of yesterday luxuriating in the soft accompaniment of standards on my humble nylon-strung guitar (a beat-up Camps hybrid flamenco with polished strings that I use mainly for study), played with renewed 'confidence and authority' (a phrase purloined from the excellent Benson picking thread).

It's probably a good thing we can't legislate for love. Nevertheless, profound change becomes available with the right technique. I got through eighteen 'bucket list' standards, and I realised that each choice represents a principled stand.

And I'm not ashamed to say that one song moved me to tears. The original was by Ivan Lins, but I'd only heard it sung in English with the title Love Dance, so I checked out the original, entitled Lembrança. I knew I loved the melody and pretty changes, but I had no idea what the song was really about.

I don't blame any artist who's recorded English lyrics that depart from the theme of the original. But certain songs - such as Lins's Lembrança, or Milton Nascimento's Canção do sal - warrant treatment that doesn't trivialise the message in the lyrics.

[goldenwave77]

You know, REALLY great artists are humble when it comes to music. Bach, I believe, did not distinguish between secular and "religious" music, as to him it all bespoke of the majesty of creation. I believe in this as well, and BTW, don't think this reverence/awe/wonder depends much, or at all, on being religious in a conventional sense of the word.

For a long time, swimming the English Channel was considered an impossible feat. For scores of decades, people tried and failed. But then someone did it. But no one was foolish to think they have conquered the ocean--how could anyone think this?

IN your own classical guitar world, there are artists, notably John Williams, who have been receptive to music from folk traditions. Interestingly, his own father, and his first teacher was a studio musician, a lover of Django R. who then became more interested in classical guitar. Also interestingly, Williams' father was never dictatorial in saying "practice now--practice this" but instead Williams has stated that his father made him feel he should practice. As far as I can tell, Williams retained his love for music-making, and it is this sense of "joy" and life that I find in Presti's playing, as well.

IN contrast to Williams, I look at videos of Bream playing, and he looks like a scared rabbit playing, as if he can't wait for the piece to be over....and my God, maybe we'll get through it without mistakes. It doesn't look as if he is having much fun while he is playing.

Again really GREAT musicians like, and LOVE to play. There are numerous anecdotes of Charlie Parker playing three sets in a club, and then filing out, to go find another club, or late-night jam session so he could play more. Duke Ellington ran a big band, and dug into his own pocket to subsidize it, so he could find an outlet for his music to be played. Again, there are stories of him, late at night on yet another bus-ride to another cow-town in the boonies, hunched over, overhead light on with manuscript paper in hand, scribbling away at what became a legacy of more than 1000 composed pieces. And how did he keep people in his band, for years? Because, among other things, he famously asked his sidemen "Did you like/enjoy the part I wrote for you?" Again, a willingness to tolerate/embrace viewpoints other than one's own.

And as for SRV, I also hear a joy and energy is his playing. Scott Yanow, an author of numerous books on jazz and jazz musicians stated in his book "The Great Jazz Guitarists:The Ultimate Guide" that:

"Steve Ray Vaughn (1954-90), who is arguably the most recent and possibly the last of the
blues innovators, built up his style where Hendrix left off, showing just how intense and powerful
the blue can sound." (pg. xvi)

Finally, to complete the thought, I hear a similar power, intensity and energy in Presti's playing. And man, if you can't hear that in SRV's playing, maybe you don't appreciate the blues. And like Albert King (Stevie's idol) said, "Man if you don't understand the blues...you got a hole in your soul."

But I do appreciate your granting me the right to "consider" the use of a technique, Presti's right-hand nail and draped wrist, that MIGHT be helpful to me, someone who is not even a classical guitarist. It is very big of you to do so.


FINIS