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

[goldenwave77]

I was referred, through another post here, to a youtube post by an American classical guitarist , Alice Arzt, who has a very nice (and detailed) exposition on classical gtr. technique, as taught to her by Ida Presti, a French classical guitarist who died in the 1960's, when she was only 43.

I checked out some youtube selections by Ida Presti, and was BLOWN AWAY. Her playing is incredibly forceful and strong, and also incredibly precise, and soulful. I am no classical gtr. maven, but I would almost call her a Stevie Ray Vaughn of the classical world. Reputedly, Segovia heard her when she was 13, and stated "I have nothing to teach her. She should accept advice from no other guitarist." Many people think her the greatest classical player of this century. Segovia had a big tone, as he sought to play classical gtr. in big concert halls before the advent of amplification, but Presti makes Segovia sound like a wimp, IMO.

The interesting thing, technique-wise is that Presti (and her husband, with whom she played duets for the last 15 yrs of her life) had an unconventional technique which used the rt-hand edge of the nail to sound the strings, as opposed to the more orthodox (as I understand), left-hand edge method. From what I can gather this is definitely a minority view, and maybe 5% of classical guitarists play this way.

Anyway, I have been fooling around with this method/technique....and it certainly helps to produce a BIG sound for chordal playing in jazz. (Alice Arzt lives in Princeton, NJ, I believe, and her playing is beautiful as well. She is also available for teaching, I believe.)

I think this rt-hand nail technique might be a worthwhile addition to the jazz guitarist bag of tricks.

[reventlov]

Most folks who hear Ida Presti are blown away

Someone has recently put lots of her recordings on youtube, mainly the duet recordings with her husband Alexander Lagoya, but a few solo items too. You can find the relevant channel here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCer...7vORVwewjuIwog

She is absolutely my favourite classical player of them all - such a shame she died so young, she should have had another 30 years of playing left in her. I'd say that she was without a doubt one of the most gifted people ever to pick up a guitar.

Here's a clip of her and Lagoya playing some Bach - just wonderful playing.....

[snoskier63]

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…:

[ninjasan]

She also had a left hand :-)

here is a wellknown shot of the 4 E position by Ida Presti :

[edh]

man! that's a hellava stretch.

[fumblefingers]

I was referred, through another post here, to a youtube post by an American classical guitarist , Alice Arzt, who has a very nice (and detailed) exposition on classical gtr. technique, as taught to her by Ida Presti, a French classical guitarist who died in the 1960's, when she was only 43.

I checked out some youtube selections by Ida Presti, and was BLOWN AWAY. Her playing is incredibly forceful and strong, and also incredibly precise, and soulful. I am no classical gtr. maven, but I would almost call her a Stevie Ray Vaughn of the classical world. Reputedly, Segovia heard her when she was 13, and stated "I have nothing to teach her. She should accept advice from no other guitarist." Many people think her the greatest classical player of this century. Segovia had a big tone, as he sought to play classical gtr. in big concert halls before the advent of amplification, but Presti makes Segovia sound like a wimp, IMO.

The interesting thing, technique-wise is that Presti (and her husband, with whom she played duets for the last 15 yrs of her life) had an unconventional technique which used the rt-hand edge of the nail to sound the strings, as opposed to the more orthodox (as I understand), left-hand edge method. From what I can gather this is definitely a minority view, and maybe 5% of classical guitarists play this way.

Anyway, I have been fooling around with this method/technique....and it certainly helps to produce a BIG sound for chordal playing in jazz. (Alice Arzt lives in Princeton, NJ, I believe, and her playing is beautiful as well. She is also available for teaching, I believe.)

I think this rt-hand nail technique might be a worthwhile addition to the jazz guitarist bag of tricks.

Thanks for the post. A nice player. She was indeed strong, and quick.

However:

1. Technique is a means to an end. Her right hand technique is not important, nor is it superior.

2. The guitar world does NOT consider her to be the greatest of the 20th century. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish.

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.

[goldenwave77]

Thanks for the post. A nice player. She was indeed strong, and quick.

However:

1. Technique is a means to an end. Her right hand technique is not important, nor is it superior.

2. The guitar world does NOT consider her to be the greatest of the 20th century. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish.

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.

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.

[reventlov]

"2. The guitar world does NOT consider her to be the greatest of the 20th century. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish."

No, it's not rubbish. A large proportion of the classical guitar world does consider her as one of the greatest. As to whether she is considered 'the' greatest.....some folks think so, some don't - most don't care about such things, they're just content to listen to her music and enjoy it.

Here's what a couple of the most influential figures in the world of the classical guitar have to say on this very subject - http://www.bristolclassicalguitarsoc.../articles.html

[pushkar000]

1. Technique is a means to an end. Her right hand technique is not important, nor is it superior.

Her right hand technique is one of many right hand techniques, whether it is superior or not is a different matter, but important it definetely is. I'd rather have two right hand techniques than one. As you said, technique is a means to an end. If you have less means, how can you choose the best ending?

[goldenwave77]

"2. The guitar world does NOT consider her to be the greatest of the 20th century. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish."

No, it's not rubbish. A large proportion of the classical guitar world does consider her as one of the greatest. As to whether she is considered 'the' greatest.....some folks think so, some don't - most don't care about such things, they're just content to listen to her music and enjoy it.

Here's what a couple of the most influential figures in the world of the classical guitar have to say on this very subject - Guitar Life Editorial

Let me clarify: When I said, originally, "many consider her to be the greatest"... I used the word "many" advisedly, and deliberately. To me, the word connotes not an isolated view, but one not universally held.

Indeed, I think George C. Scott, the actor, had it right many years ago when he refused to attend the Academy Awards ceremonies, stating that acting was not a competition. Frankly, there is no way to say definitively....this artist is the best.

Stan Getz, to me, is a great, great ballad player: There is a reason he was called "the Sound". His uptempo stuff, to me, is not as good, and I prefer Sonny Stitt. Jim Hall, to me, has great "compositional gifts" in his playing (probably a legacy of studying classical composition, and writing string quartets): His playing, to me, is not predictable and free from cliché. In a small group, at medium tempos, or backing others, he is superb. In a larger setting, or at faster tempos, his gift is not as evident. Joe Henderson, to me, is better at playing "out" type of stuff than Getz.

Once in a while, we could say, definitively, this person is just better than another. I call myself an enthusiastic amateur but put me up against guys from this site who can really play, and they will be faster, more fluid, more adventurous harmonically, and more in the groove...just better on every measure. But that's an easy case. And as it should be---the professional is expected to be better than the amateur.

With professionals doing different things, or styles--it is not so easy to say this. I enjoy Chopin, because, to me, he has the ability to bring out, succinctly, beauty and power in his many, short pieces--he is a renowned miniaturist. There are plenty of fusion guitarists (and I won't name names) who, if played for Chopin, would probably cause him to say, "My they certainly play a lot of notes..." (And he was no slouch when it came to writing challenging stuff.)

And again back to Stevie Ray....there are tons of guys who play blues guitar....go to any bar, or open mike, or jam session, and chances are...you'll find them. Some play well...some play "in the box"---both in terms of note choice, and being devoid of feeling. To me, Albert King is a great, great blues player...maybe the best ever. He speaks with perfect blues "diction"---his phrasing is always clear, he doesn't waste notes, and he can conjure up the entire range of emotions in the wink of an eye....his nickname "the Velvet Bulldozer" captures this well, I think. And yes Stevie Ray lifted a LOT of stuff from Albert King...but he also played with an energy and rhythmic drive that few others could match. It's a cliché, but he is one of the few white guys, to my ear, who play the blues with real force and authority (Johnny Winter is another)....in this sense, Ida Presti's playing has that same sense of energy and force...and to bring it back to my original query---maybe that right nail technique of hers deserves a 2nd look.

[fumblefingers]

Her right hand technique is one of many right hand techniques, whether it is superior or not is a different matter, but important it definetely is. I'd rather have two right hand techniques than one. As you said, technique is a means to an end. If you have less means, how can you choose the best ending?

is it important enough to change a significant number of players' technique?

nope.

it was a very individual thing, and virtually everybody was/is doing it the "other" way.

if there are some major advantages to it, let's see the list. bullet points please.

[fumblefingers]

"2. The guitar world does NOT consider her to be the greatest of the 20th century. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish."

No, it's not rubbish. A large proportion of the classical guitar world does consider her as one of the greatest. As to whether she is considered 'the' greatest.....some folks think so, some don't - most don't care about such things, they're just content to listen to her music and enjoy it.

Here's what a couple of the most influential figures in the world of the classical guitar have to say on this very subject - Guitar Life Editorial

well that's two. what is a "large proportion"?

just like the OP - "Many people think her the greatest classical player of this century"

not only did she die last century, we have no idea what "many people" means, nor who they are.

anybody can say anything.

[pushkar000]

is it important enough to change a significant number of players' technique?

nope.

it was a very individual thing, and virtually everybody was/is doing it the "other" way.

if there are some major advantages to it, let's see the list. bullet points please.

Is it important enough to be considered as a worthwhile addition (nobody said replacement) to a jazz guitarists bag of tricks?

You can see the videos posted by snoskier above for the pros and cons of the technique and decide for yourself of course if it is worthwhile or not.

A couple of examples of "individual things" : Wes' octaves, Benson picking. Should those be discarded as "not important"?

[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.

In your OPINION, I assume? It seems you're stating these things as well known facts. Is this somehow quantifiable?

I shudder to think about what idiots we've been using the term "guitar" so flippantly on the forums here for years on end.

[fumblefingers]

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.

so your points would be:

1. Classical guitarists are boring - except her.

2. Segovia was an ass. (yep, this is becoming safer and safer to say without being stricken down by lightning. no arguments here).

3. There is limited repertoire in classical, and it gets boring to play over and over. (many share/shared this view, including Segovia and Bream - at least with respect to the guitar. the truth is, there is more than enough masterful music to cover a lifetime of playing.)

Now, comparing classical it to jazz? Another thread please. And comparing classical guitarists' historical contribution and artistic importance to that of Hendrix'? Another thread please.


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"!

[fumblefingers]

Is it important enough to be considered as a worthwhile addition (nobody said replacement) to a jazz guitarists bag of tricks?

You can see the videos posted by snoskier above for the pros and cons of the technique and decide for yourself of course if it is worthwhile or not.

A couple of examples of "individual things" : Wes' octaves, Benson picking. Should those be discarded as "not important"?

anticipated this one.

Wes' octaves? Yes it has influenced a lot of players but they have to be careful of not doing too much, don't they? Otherwise they're seen as clones. That's the thing with jazz, you have to be an individual. So, important? I vote thumbs up (no pun intended).

Benson picking as a watershed game changer for the world's best jazz plectrists? Uh, time will tell. If I have to answer now, I'll say no.

[pushkar000]

anticipated this one.

Wes' octaves? Yes it has influenced a lot of players but they have to be careful of not doing too much, don't they? Otherwise they're seen as clones. That's the thing with jazz, you have to be an individual. So, important? I vote thumbs up (no pun intended).

Benson picking as a watershed game changer for the world's best jazz plectrists? Uh, time will tell. If I have to answer now, I'll say no.

Few things are game-changers.
But it doesn't have to be a game changer to be worthwhile.
Even if Benson's technique is not a game-changer, it's definetely worthwhile.

Could Ida's technique be a game-changer? We won't know yet. But is it worthwhile? Yeah - if you want that big sound it gives, then by all means its worth a shot.

[fumblefingers]

In your OPINION, I assume? It seems you're stating these things as well known facts. Is this somehow quantifiable?

I shudder to think about what idiots we've been using the term "guitar" so flippantly on the forums here for years on end.

overthinking are we?

classical guitar virtuosi and masterful music were established roughly a century and a half before Charlie Christian plugged in. (Sor, Carcassi, Guiliani, Paganinni). The "modern" guitar was designed by Torres about 50 years before CC plugged in.

"The guitar" is still alive and well. It is simply a thing which came before an endless series of off-shoot variants and inventions, yet has not been replaced. So it's name needn't be qualified with adjectives. Not so for its variants.

Simple enough for you?

[fumblefingers]

Few things are game-changers.
But it doesn't have to be a game changer to be worthwhile.
Even if Benson's technique is not a game-changer, it's definetely worthwhile.

Could Ida's technique be a game-changer? We won't know yet. But is it worthwhile? Yeah - if you want that big sound it gives, then by all means its worth a shot.

disagree. it's been long enough to take measure of IP's technical influence.

i'm fairly risk averse but i'll venture a guess that there are more pickers toiling away with so-called Benson picking on this very forum than serious classical players busting their buns on IP's technique.

further, I don't believe for a second that Benson will be remembered for "Benson picking". I think he'll be remembered for his smooth virtuosic playing and gigantic, artful, musical soul.

[goldenwave77]

overthinking are we?

classical guitar virtuosi and masterful music were established roughly a century and a half before Charlie Christian plugged in. (Sor, Carcassi, Guiliani, Paganinni). The "modern" guitar was designed by Torres about 50 years before CC plugged in.

"The guitar" is still alive and well. It is simply a thing which came before and endless series off-shoot variants and inventions, yet has not been replaced. So it's name needn't be qualified with adjectives. Not so for its variants.

Simple enough for you?

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.

[pushkar000]

disagree. it's been long enough to take measure of IP's technical influence.

i'm fairly risk averse but i'll venture a guess that there are more pickers toiling away with so-called Benson picking on this very forum than serious classical players busting their buns on IP's technique.

further, I don't believe for a second that Benson will be remembered for "Benson picking". I think he'll be remembered for his smooth virtuosic playing and gigantic, artful, musical soul.

IP died early before she was well-known. Maybe that's why her technique is not as popular.

Nobody said it would become the most common technique. But niche techniques are viable if one wishes.

What Benson will be remembered for has nothing to do with the importance of his technique. He will be remembered as an artist, and his technique is worthwhile if one wishes. They are independent of each other.

[reventlov]

"if there are some major advantages to it, let's see the list. bullet points please." Alice Artzt explains the rationale behind it in her videos.

“When one says "the guitar" it means classical, period.” Language, though, is an ever-changing thing; meaning and idioms reflect their time. On another recent thread you posted this - "i owned a Lee Rit L5 signature for a few years. It was a beautiful guitar". Why rag on somebody for doing precisely the same thing that you do yourself?

[goldenwave77]

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.

[fumblefingers]

"if there are some major advantages to it, let's see the list. bullet points please." Alice Artzt explains the rationale behind it in her videos.

“When one says "the guitar" it means classical, period.” Language, though, is an ever-changing thing; meaning and idioms reflect their time. On another recent thread you posted this - "i owned a Lee Rit L5 signature for a few years. It was a beautiful guitar". Why rag on somebody for doing precisely the same thing that you do yourself?

because context had already been established by naming it. And I'm not ragging.

[fumblefingers]

IP died early before she was well-known. Maybe that's why her technique is not as popular.

Nobody said it would become the most common technique. But niche techniques are viable if one wishes.

What Benson will be remembered for has nothing to do with the importance of his technique. He will be remembered as an artist, and his technique is worthwhile if one wishes. They are independent of each other.

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.