Three Finger Guitar Technique

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 11:52 AM

I'd be up for that.

I actually think the 3 fingers/4 fingers distinction is a bit misleading. What really is at the core of this, is how you place your thumb, how much you pronate your fretting hand, and how much you shift or play positionally.

If you pronate the hand then you will naturally be able to reach further with the 3rd finger and the 4th finger will be relatively hard to use. This is an effect as much as cause.

Even for so called classical technique, as we have seen above this will vary from player to player.

For example, the recommended fingerings for a 1st position C major scale on the ABRSM Classical Guitar syllabus on the top two strings are 1 4 0 1 4, now. This is to prevent rotation of the left hand and to keep it parallel to the neck (if I understand it correctly) while the traditional 1 3 0 1 3 fingering (how I was taught) means that the left hand will no longer be parallel to the neck - you end up like Wes, Charlie, Jimmy and the gang!

If you haven't observed this, give it a go.

**Vladan** · 03-01-2016, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

For example, the recommended fingerings for a 1st position C major scale on the ABRSM Classical Guitar syllabus on the top two strings are 1 2 4 1 2 4, now. This is to prevent rotation of the left hand and to keep it parallel to the neck (if I understand it correctly) while the traditional 1 2 3 1 2 3 fingering (how I was taught)

Cool.Now when we agreed that it is not really 3 vs. 4 but actually something completely different, I'd really appreciate clarification on above.

Top 2 strings? are those E and B - top in pitch, or E and A - top in physical position, measured from ground level?

Whatever they are, you say someone thaught you to play notes F G and A, 1st position, E string, with 2 stretches, stretching both middle and ring, so to cover 5 frets span with only 3 fingers and you actually believed that was a good approach, haven't noticed how awkward that is, learned it that way and now you play that way?

Also, you say 2 stretch way is traditional way?! Never heard of it until this day. I'm not a scholar type of guitar player, but I guess in these couple of decades I'd occasionally run into this instrument I'd have heard it being mentioned.

Maybe it's other way around. 124 is traditional while 123 is being taught in classical, for reasons you've mentioned?

BTW, what is 1st position C major anyway? I think 124 on E, A, D, B and E strings belongs to 2nd position.

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Vladan

Cool.Now when we agreed that it is not really 3 vs. 4 but actually something completely different, I'd really appreciate clarification on above.

Top 2 strings? are those E and B - top in pitch, or E and A - top in physical position, measured from ground level?

Whatever they are, you say someone thaught you to play notes F G and A, 1st position, E string, with 2 stretches, stretching both middle and ring, so to cover 5 frets span with only 3 fingers and you actually believed that was a good approach, haven't noticed how awkward that is, learned it that way and now you play that way?

Also, you say 2 stretch way is traditional way?! Never heard of it until this day. I'm not a scholar type of guitar player, but I guess in these couple of decades I'd occasionally run into this instrument I'd have heard it being mentioned.

Maybe it's other way around. 124 is traditional while 123 is being taught in classical, for reasons you've mentioned?

The top 2 strings as in strings 1 and 2, E and B.

I don't follow you. There's no stretching involved. I'm talking about the following:

E---------0--1--3
B--1--3

In tab terms. The difference in school is whether you finger the third fret notes with the 3rd or 4th finger. Try it and watch what happens to your hand.

EDIT sorry my bad - no wonder you are confused. I should have written 013 013 and 014 014 for the fingering haha.... :-)

**Vladan** · 03-01-2016, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

... EDIT sorry my bad - no wonder you are confused. I should have written 013 013 and 014 014 for the fingering haha.... :-)

This clarifies it a bit, but still .. how did you learn and what do they teach now? Maybe you meaan 013 vs. 024, where index is kept behind the nut, to preserve strict positional fingering scheme? That would make some sense.

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 01:45 PM

Bud powell with three fingers:

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Vladan

This clarifies it a bit, but still .. how did you learn and what do they teach now? Maybe you meaan 013 vs. 024, where index is kept behind the nut, to preserve strict positional fingering scheme? That would make some sense.

I learned beginners classical guitar and it was one finger finger a fret, strict - 1st finger 1st fret, 2nd finger 2nd fret etc... Pretty old school AFAIK.

After a year a moved onto electric, but I never lost the basic classical left hand. I also teach this to beginning students because - as the cry of the lazy teacher always goes - it's how I learned :-)

I use it even now to some extent in my jazz playing....

I mean 014. Open, first finger on 1st fret, 4th finger on 3rd fret.

That's what they have as the fingering now for Grade 1 classical guitar scales for the Associated Board guitar exams. I know this because I've taken students through the classical grades.

But - 014 is a *lot* more comfortable... You would only use this for the top two strings.

**gmek** · 03-01-2016, 02:12 PM

I'm in the Raney study group for Confirmation, too.

I don't think I want to learn the whole solo both ways, but after I learn this weeks 4 bars maybe I'll record the first 8 measures first with my preferred fingerings (predominately pinky-less) and then with fingerings that require the least position shifts and most pinky.

By the end of the solo it should be a good confirmation if I really am a predominately three finger guitarist...

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

As a painting teacher with a degree in oil painting, I can concur--we definitely do!

This post is so spot on about CC. Maybe the easiest solos to play "note-wise," but the feel is...well..I kinda think you have it or you don't. I'm not sure it can be taught. Funny how coming from a rock/blues background can help this...my guess is it drives the classically trained NUTS.

Wasn't Jimmy Raney a keen painter too, IIRC?

**lawson-stone** · 03-01-2016, 02:16 PM

I did the solo on "Like Somebody" (based on "Like Someone in Love") and it's on video, but I would not hold myself up as an exemplary specimen of any style of playing except "somehow surviving the chart without creating a crisis."

I find my pinky working all the time, but that's how I've played all my life, even though I'm 90% self-taught on guitar.

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Seriously, my suggestion isn't a dare at all. More of simply an experiment. A parker solo would be just as good.

I learned from notation and am not as impressed at the superiority of learning these by ear. I'm not expecting to sound like Jimmy Raney, just like Raney on guitar does not really sound like Parker on Sax or Diz on trumpet. I want to sound like ME playing bebop. And fingering is mainly about being able to play a note with enough control to impart whatever phrasing and dynamics one's own aesthetic requires.

I've transcribed by ear as well, nothing against that, but for the question of whether a person can play a solo with sufficient control to be able to articulate and phrase any way they want (including imitating Raney's if that's the goal) notation is, I think, sufficient.

But this isn't a dare or even a challenge. It was a whimsical idea that we could all really have some fun with. Fun is what it's about for me. I already have a religion, a life-love, a family, a nation, etc. to get all worked up about.

I simply could find now way at all to play any of the solos I've worked on in even a rudimentary way without a significant use of the pinky. I am not classically trained, basically self-taught on the guitar, so I'm not bound to any method. I just physically, spatially don't see how someone could play those solos without the 4th finger being a full partner on the team. I would love to see otherwise.

I'm just teasing - sorry!

Would a bebop head do?

Look, seriously, the biggest bit advice (judging from the tenor of your posts) I would give you is this (and I give this because it is also the advice I give myself every day.) Stop second guessing. Stop aiming for results. Immerse yourself in music that you love. Trust the process. Be patient. Listen. Walk the path.

One classic way of doing this is learning solos by ear - this makes you a better musician, of course. It trains you ears and develops your musical imagination. It mirrors the process of improvising by teaching you to pre-hear phrases - eventually whole solos - in the entireity and then translate them onto your instrument. It's not about trying to imitate someone else.

I also believe it makes you a better technician. It's amazing the solutions you can come up with when you know what a phrase is going to sound like rather than reading notes off a page. If you are able to look at a page and hear what it sounds like right away (like a lot of classically trained string players can) - great - but if not you will not get the same experience from notation.

But that's not even the important thing. It's not about becoming 'good' or 'learning to play jazz' because these aims are highly relative. There is only the process.

The important thing, I think is that it teaches you to listen really hard and close, and you get more detailed as you get better. Photographers talk about 'ways of seeing' - I think listening closely and learning and studying solos by ear (however you choose to do so) teaches you 'ways of listening.'

This isn't to have a go or anything else. There is no end point. There is only the process - and this as far as I can see is the process. As Miles said - you listen - then you play. The implication being, you don't just play.

And I find this way of working a lot more enjoyable. It can be slow going, but people need to be patience. The result isn't the thing. It's the process. Trust the process, and the results will take care of themselves.

I say this not because I believe you want to become a professional player, but because I find this way of going about it to be a lot more fun. It may well be that I will never be the player I aspire to become. I must make peace with that, and enjoy the day to day reality of being a musician, otherwise what's the point? If I stop enjoying the process I may as well do something else.

This is true whether you earn money from it or not.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-01-2016, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Wasn't Jimmy Raney a keen painter too, IIRC?

I believe he was.

And Tal was a sign painter

**lawson-stone** · 03-01-2016, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

I'm just teasing - sorry!

Would a bebop head do?

Look, seriously, the biggest bit advice (judging from the tenor of your posts) I would give you is this (and I give this because it is also the advice I give myself every day.) Stop second guessing. Stop aiming for results. Immerse yourself in music that you love. Trust the process. Be patient. Listen. Walk the path.

One classic way of doing this is learning solos by ear - this makes you a better musician, of course. It trains you ears and develops your musical imagination. It mirrors the process of improvising by teaching you to pre-hear phrases - eventually whole solos - in the entireity and then translate them onto your instrument. It's not about trying to imitate someone else.

I also believe it makes you a better technician. It's amazing the solutions you can come up with when you know what a phrase is going to sound like rather than reading notes off a page. If you are able to look at a page and hear what it sounds like right away (like a lot of classically trained string players can) - great - but if not you will not get the same experience from notation.

But that's not even the important thing. It's not about becoming 'good' or 'learning to play jazz' because these aims are highly relative. There is only the process.

The important thing, I think is that it teaches you to listen really hard and close, and you get more detailed as you get better. Photographers talk about 'ways of seeing' - I think listening closely and learning and studying solos by ear (however you choose to do so) teaches you 'ways of listening.'

This isn't to have a go or anything else. There is no end point. There is only the process - and this as far as I can see is the process. As Miles said - you listen - then you play. The implication being, you don't just play.

And I find this way of working a lot more enjoyable. It can be slow going, but people need to be patience. The result isn't the thing. It's the process. Trust the process, and the results will take care of themselves.

I say this not because I believe you want to become a professional player, but because I find this way of going about it to be a lot more fun. It may well be that I will never be the player I aspire to become. I must make peace with that, and enjoy the day to day reality of being a musician, otherwise what's the point? If I stop enjoying the process I may as well do something else.

This is true whether you earn money from it or not.

Please realize I'm not second-guessing anything. I have not a particle of angst about 3 vs. 4 fingers. I have no plan t change my finger-employment. I'd use a 5th and 6th finger if I had them ;-)

I had never, ever, in 30+ years of jazz guitar playing, heard anyone ever say it might be a bad idea to develop the pinky and use it as fully as possible. Naturally, fingers 1-3 bear the burden of anyone's playing because of the nature of the hand itself. Still, I never heard non-use of the pinky described as somehow a key to greatness or bebop-ness.

So I got into this thread out of pure puzzled curiosity, nothing else.

SO... even though I'm no exemplar of bebop god-head, here's a clip of me hacking through Jimmy Raney's solo "Like Somebody" from the Vol. 20 Aebersold set. it's based on "Like Someone In Love."

Note also--and nobody has mentioned this-- of WAAAAYY more importance than 3 vs. 4 finger technique is the absolute fact that you will NEVER Play like Jimmy Raney unless you have a largely unsmoked cigarette stuck to your lower lip during the entire length of your solo. If at any time the cigarette falls out, you stop playing bop and suddenly it sounds like dentists office music.

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Please realize I'm not second-guessing anything. I have not a particle of angst about 3 vs. 4 fingers. I have no plan t change my finger-employment. I'd use a 5th and 6th finger if I had them ;-)

I had never, ever, in 30+ years of jazz guitar playing, heard anyone ever say it might be a bad idea to develop the pinky and use it as fully as possible. Naturally, fingers 1-3 bear the burden of anyone's playing because of the nature of the hand itself. Still, I never heard non-use of the pinky described as somehow a key to greatness or bebop-ness.

So I got into this thread out of pure puzzled curiosity, nothing else.

SO... even though I'm no exemplar of bebop god-head, here's a clip of me hacking through Jimmy Raney's solo "Like Somebody" from the Vol. 20 Aebersold set. it's based on "Like Someone In Love."

Note also--and nobody has mentioned this-- of WAAAAYY more importance than 3 vs. 4 finger technique is the absolute fact that you will NEVER Play like Jimmy Raney unless you have a largely unsmoked cigarette stuck to your lower lip during the entire length of your solo. If at any time the cigarette falls out, you stop playing bop and suddenly it sounds like dentists office music.

It's the look!

Sorry - I come across as a pompous know it all, I'm sure... It's a danger of the internet.

Great job in any case... I would actually describe your right hand position as quite Jimmy Raney-esque, funnily enough. Your thumb position is decidedly non classical.

Have you tried playing it along with the original recording? I know that youtube can be a pain about this type of thing...

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 03:12 PM

Listening to it now getting ready to get it down. Man that first phrase goes on for ever...

**christianm77** · 03-01-2016, 03:19 PM

OK I've had a quick knock through the first 8 bars or so, and I don't think it would be a big deal to get at least some of this solo down with the type of technique we've been talking about in the next day or two (much easier to transcribe than Bird). It might be fun to swap ideas about fingerings. But - presumably I should do so on the relevant thread?

dortmundjazzguitar · 03-01-2016, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Still, I never heard non-use of the pinky described as somehow a key to greatness or bebop-ness.

neither have i. this is a show about nothing...

**mr. beaumont** · 03-01-2016, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by dortmundjazzguitar

neither have i. this is a show about nothing...

Exactly....

All it is, is a little "insight." Sometimes things sound a certain way, or are played a certain way, because of choices like fingering.

A lot of folks who get into gypsy jazz spend some time learning some of Django's licks/solos, and going at them "two fingered." It's like a quick step into the mind of a player who's no longer around to tell us how it's done.

In the end it doesn't matter how many fingers you play with.But for study, sometimes it's fun to get inside the head of the masters we so badly want to emulate.

But the nitpicking about "he's not a real three finger player" and all that? Distraction. If you find yourself discussing meaningless stuff like this--go play your guitar.

**Vladan** · 03-01-2016, 03:52 PM

They say: "Jump!", you say "How high?" ...

**MarkRhodes** · 03-01-2016, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

All it is, is a little "insight." Sometimes things sound a certain way, or are played a certain way, because of choices like fingering.

I think this whole discussion should start from a different point: the way the left hand grips the guitar. I think that's mainly what we're talking about. Watching Raney play, the way he holds his left hand, it appears to me his ring finger can reach further than his pinky would reach if the palm maintained a more classical position. If that is so---and as my dad used to say, "I've been wrong before"---this is not about how many fingers one uses but how one, er, holds one's hand. ("I wanna hold my hand.....")

**lawson-stone** · 03-01-2016, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

It's the look!

Sorry - I come across as a pompous know it all, I'm sure... It's a danger of the internet.

Great job in any case... I would actually describe your right hand position as quite Jimmy Raney-esque, funnily enough. Your thumb position is decidedly non classical.

Have you tried playing it along with the original recording? I know that youtube can be a pain about this type of thing...

Sure, during the whole process where a group of us did this 4 measures per week, about twice a week I played it along with Raney's recording just to double-check the notation-reality gap. It was really fun to hear all that bebop coming out of MY amplifier. In fact, my guitar and amp thought they'd been sold to a real musician for a while there.

None of my technique is classical. My earliest real "study" of guitar was when I was about 13, working with Frederick Noad's Playing the Guitar which is, of course a classical book. But I didn't read it carefully or follow it slavishly. Mainly I learned to read music for guitar and also developed a p-i-m-a right hand finger style. But I "prop" on my right pinky, which is a no-no for classical, I also don't do the "knuckles parallel to the strings" thing, nor do I do rest-strokes with any intentionality. Left hand is whatever works for what I'm playing, so hooking the thumb, sure, dropping the thumb low to get a better position, sure. I do it all. But from Noad I guess I did acquire an active left pinky!

I've sort of been the gamut of styles: blue-grass fingerpicking with the metal fingerpicks, Chet Atkins style with the thumbtack and bare fingers, Travis-picking, folk styles... I came to jazz when i was about 30 years old and decided there really must be life above the 5th fret, you know? I also heard Joe Pass on the radio and nearly wrecked my car I was so blown away. that was a tipping point moment, to be sure.

I don't smoke, but I really do think that rolled-up piece of paper in my mouth helped.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-01-2016, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by MarkRhodes

I think this whole discussion should start from a different point: the way the left hand grips the guitar. I think that's mainly what we're talking about. Watching Raney play, the way he holds his left hand, it appears to me his ring finger can reach further than his pinky would reach if the palm maintained a more classical position. If that is so---and as my dad used to say, "I've been wrong before"---this is not about how many fingers one uses but how one, er, holds one's hand. ("I wanna hold my hand.....")

You guys feel free...that one reeks of spending time on something that in the end, does not matter.

**paulkogut** · 03-01-2016, 04:09 PM

That's a good observation, Mark. Since this thread has been somewhat resurrected from an earlier discussion, I'll repeat what I said a few hundred posts back...

Here's an observation that might answer some of Mark's and Vladan's questions simultaneously. A lot of times, jazz musicians will refer to complex sets of concepts with deceptively simple terminology. Advice to 'transcribe' or 'learn tunes' is shorthand for some real in-depth studies, and the 'three fingers' concept is the same. In the context of Wes and Jimmy Raney, it's not enough to just not use the 4th finger, it's about taking a look at the entirety of how their left hands interface with the neck and fretboard. What's the angle of the arm, wrist and fingers? How are distances covered between notes; finger movement, wrist movement, arm movement? How does the right hand's role change in relation to the left hand playing more diagonally?

Although I can't quite understand why, it seems necessary to again point out that neither Monk nor I have said that this was the only way to play and everyone has to do it. It's a body of concept and technique like any other (say, Benson picking). If you like the results that certain players get, it's good to know the method behind it. If someone has another fingering approach that delivers results that they dig, that's cool, too. I will add this, though. One thing that I've noticed from years of teaching is that some folks use position playing as a crutch for not being able to independently locate notes. They get the pattern and memorize where the fingers go, but don't really know the names or degrees of the notes within. You have to be really solid on note location to get a handle on the Wes fingerings, I've seen lots of people not know the neck as well as they assumed they did.

PK

Share

**MarkRhodes** · 03-01-2016, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You guys feel free...that one reeks of spending time on something that in the end, does not matter.

It does not matter how one grips the guitar? How could it not? Not that I want to argue for some one way or another. I think much of this three-fingered talk is less about the fingers one uses than the way one grips the neck.

**lawson-stone** · 03-01-2016, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You guys feel free...that one reeks of spending time on something that in the end, does not matter.

it makes for fun conversation. I'd much rather talk about various technique issues for guitar than get in political arguments, deal with a student who doesn't like the grade I gave him, talk to the neighbor who for some reason doesn't like the fact that I shoot .45 caliber pistols in my back yard... kicking technique issues around is actually kinda fun compared to all that.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-01-2016, 04:39 PM

I dunno...to me it seems like another distraction from the actual playing...another thing to obsess over ("Is my hand at the right angle? How does my hand compare to so and so's?")

It certainly matters how one grips the guitar...but sometimes, I feel like we do a lot of talking about things that "manufacture" issues for us here at jazzguitar.be...at a certain point we have to ask ourselves "is this an issue for me?" instead of fixing things until they are broken.