Three Finger Guitar Technique

[christianm77]

I guess my question is..."who's favoring it? jazz school?"

People who describe one technique as 'self taught' and the other as 'legit'

[mr. beaumont]

Like I said...who are these people?

I feel like we are manufacturing problems.

[gmek]

It's an interesting topic to me.

Several years ago I was learning the electric bass, and spent a lot of focus on left hand technique. One of the rules was if you were fretting with the third finger, the others (first and second finger) had to pressed behind it; on the fretboard ready to go.

In first position the pinky and third finger were to operate as one. This is something I believe helped strengthen my pinky. I can even get a pretty decent vibrato on guitar with it if I want. And I sometimes will do this on the 1st string above the 12th fret.

The other rule for my bass technique was to use the most economical positions. Essentially: use the least amount of position shifts possible.

I find the first rule still very useful on guitar, but the second one needs to be abandoned sometimes to get a more fluid articulation. A lot of times shifting more actually makes for better sounding lines.

When playing lines I use the pinky less than the other three. However, I think the pinky is plenty strong and should definitely be used. It's more so about when and where to use the pinky. Over time it becomes an intuitive process.

Ultimately, and as always, whatever works and sounds best for you.

[goldenwave77]

So many things are involved here.

Consider: strict 4-finger, "in position" playing with strict alternate picking....probably efficient but could become mechanical sounding, "machine gun" 8th and 16th notes

intermediate possibility: 3 finger mostly, some legato, and some departure from strict alternate picking...maybe more fluidity and rhythmic accent

more extreme: 3 finger mostly...thumb use mostly....LOTS of slides and rhythmic grooves....this is Wes M.

In sports, very unorthodox technique can become an attribute...the pitcher with a crazy delivery, the boxer who nobody knows how to deal with....Wes. M. I think had a unique thing going on and he developed it, and it became great...and yet, when you listen to him I kind of feel it predisposes him to play a certain way.

I get less of a sense of this with Joe Pass' playing. His single line stuff is so good, and you get the feeling he could vary his approach a lot more...also true with Johnny Smith.

I think George Benson has a lot of Wes M. in his playing. I think its part of the reason he seems to favor guitars with more upper-range clarity than the heavy Gibson sound: I think he wanted to get away from being compared to Wes M.

Jack Z. had a really pungent phrase in one of his recent posts...he talked about a certain type of picking being "rhythmically agnostic" I think...this is a very good, and telling description, and his sense of being aware of these stylistic predispositions is very good advice. Jerry Garcia kind of said the same thing when he talked about not always starting a phrase with down strokes of the pick, and practicing the opposite so as not to fall into a certain playing rut.

[christianm77]

Citing someone's name is not really a reason. It's more of a put-down, an attempt at bullying. Do you think i don't know about Jimmy Raney after listening to this music for 30 years and trying my best to play it?

Gosh I meant no disrespect to anyone, especially not to any great player. As one who is self-taught not only in guitar, but Egyptian Hieroglyphic, certain ancient cuneiform dialects, ancient Latin, archaeology and a few other things that I promise are more complicated than the guitar, I have no disdain of the self-taught. In fact, I have learned so much by the self-taught method that I can promise you, the self-taught often miss enormous tracts of important knowledge about their chosen subject, however brilliant they might become at it.

I think humans naturally look for the easiest way to get from Point A to point B and don't do more unless they are compelled. When compelled, their first move is to try a variant on what already works.

I admire Jimmy Raney a great deal, but again likely he brought his cello training to the guitar. That does not make it the best or most universal approach to the guitar. It's no disrespect to say that.

I personally love Wes Montgomery's music but I don't engage in these pissing contests about who is "the best." I prefer Joe Pass to Wes Montgomery and Jimmy Raney, without claiming he is "better." He was an inveterate pinky-user and periodically threw down a pretty decent bop line.

And simply saying a great player did something doesn't make it a universally applicable system. Otherwise all gypsy guitarists would be sticking their left hands into fires or duct-taping their fingers back.

You gotta use a little logic folks when you make an argument. Generalizing from individual cases requires a number of conditions to be met. And it never proves that other means are not also equally useful, even if not tried by a majority of practitioners.

So I still don't think the actual "player-ly" answer to my questions was given in your post. You know I respect you Chris, and i guess I hoped for a better reply than this from you.

I was at pains to not say your intention was to cause offence or give disrespect of any kind. I know you wouldn't do that (which is why I reworded my reply a bit on reflection.)

Did you not feel it was a good reply, because it was in disagreement to your post, or do you feel it is lacking in terms of argument? Personally, I think I gave a compellingly argued reply.

What I feel is present is a cultural assumption here, that one thing is 'correct' and the other thing 'incorrect'.

This kind of thing makes me very angry, but aside from my own feeling, I feel it is damaging from pedagogical perspective.

The interesting fact is both Wes and Segovia (to pick two examples) were musicians who played an outsider's instrument, the guitar. Both were equally brilliant as musicians and both played very different music. Both were 'self taught.'

Segovia founded a school of guitar technique, which I feel I should point out, is his approach. Earlier approaches to guitar are not the same as Segovia's. This approach to playing is now called 'Modern Guitar technique.' Nothing is random or accidental about it and it has served as fantastic and dependable framework for the playing of the Spanish and 20th Century guitar repertoire (although I know some early plucked string professors who regard it as a poor choice of technique for pre Romantic repertoire. ;-) So YYMV.)

Now, the question is why do we think of the great jazz players of 1930s-1950s, the majority of whom shared a similar left hand technique are somehow less considered or intelligent in their approach? Poor education, maybe, because many of the great players of this era were black and didn't have access to music college etc, so therefore didn't receive advanced musical training.*

Even if I felt this would affect someone's artistic sensibilities (which we cannot possibly believe if we enjoy the music of Charlie Parker, Louis, Ella etc) I don't think that affects physical learning in the slightest which is what technique is.

I think the waters of jazz guitar technique have been muddied by a type of academic social climbing (no really) and we should look at what our heroes play rather than impose our own limited ideas of what technique should be on to them.

And I feel have learned an immense amount by doing this. That's my 'playerly' response. Watch closely the masters of your art and follow their brushstrokes. See what you can learn.

*whatever that is supposed to be. You are no doubt aware that some classical musicians have their technique ruined through poor teaching at conservatories. Many more are put off music for life by the experience, but that's another story.

[christianm77]

So many things are involved here.

Consider: strict 4-finger, "in position" playing with strict alternate picking....probably efficient but could become mechanical sounding, "machine gun" 8th and 16th notes

intermediate possibility: 3 finger mostly, some legato, and some departure from strict alternate picking...maybe more fluidity and rhythmic accent

more extreme: 3 finger mostly...thumb use mostly....LOTS of slides and rhythmic grooves....this is Wes M.

In sports, very unorthodox technique can become an attribute...the pitcher with a crazy delivery, the boxer who nobody knows how to deal with....Wes. M. I think had a unique thing going on and he developed it, and it became great...and yet, when you listen to him I kind of feel it predisposes him to play a certain way.

I get less of a sense of this with Joe Pass' playing. His single line stuff is so good, and you get the feeling he could vary his approach a lot more...also true with Johnny Smith.

I think George Benson has a lot of Wes M. in his playing. I think its part of the reason he seems to favor guitars with more upper-range clarity than the heavy Gibson sound: I think he wanted to get away from being compared to Wes M.

Jack Z. had a really pungent phrase in one of his recent posts...he talked about a certain type of picking being "rhythmically agnostic" I think...this is a very good, and telling description, and his sense of being aware of these stylistic predispositions is very good advice. Jerry Garcia kind of said the same thing when he talked about not always starting a phrase with down strokes of the pick, and practicing the opposite so as not to fall into a certain playing rut.

Great post. My only question is something 'unorthodox' if a large number, perhaps a majority, of great people in the field do something the same way?

Let's not get onto the right hand. That's another can of worms haha...

[christianm77]

Like I said...who are these people?

I feel like we are manufacturing problems.

Perhaps you are right.

I feel people on this forum have said exactly this. Perhaps I am wrong.

But no-one, however innocently, or unwittingly, belittles the titanic achievement of my heroes and gets away without a pedantic and strongly worded wall of text.*

You have been warned.

*with footnotes.

[christianm77]

BTW - has anyone noticed I am avoiding work? I have the world's most boring form to fill in. I better go do that.

[lawson-stone]

The argument from the example of great players takes basically the following form:

The great jazz players mainly used a 3-finger approach, therefore a 3 finger approach is essential to great jazz playing.

For this to be true, a good number of other things have to be true.

• The 3 finger approach must be the cause of the great playing and not a secondary attribute
• the impact of the 3 finger approach needs to be shown to be more important than the player's overall aesthetic, their command of the repertoire, their ear, their musical imagination, and the other variables affecting the making of music
• The players must be "Great" in a way that excludes other players. That is, you must refute the claim that "Player X uses 4 fingers and is a great player." This is to avoid what is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."
• It helps if it is true that all or nearly all of the "great players" attempted other methods and only teethe 3 finger method worked
• it must be shown that players knowing no jazz, when taught the 3 finger method, or when changing from a 4 finger to a 3 finger method, begin to play "great" jazz like the "great players"
• Etc.

These are simply the requirements of making an inductive argument, that is, an argument that appeals solely to "real" cases in the field and then generalizes from them. In making that kind of argument you have to control the variables for the generalization made to be valid.

This isn't saying not to learn from the example of the masters. The question is whether we are learning the right things from the examples of the masters.

It won't do either to make the "appeal to mystery" which his simply to praise the masters who use one's favorite method so highly that nobody feels permitted to disagree. That actually doesn't even work in religion and theology, and certainly doesn't work in music either. No player is so brilliant that all other players and methods are excluded.

Sorry for the pedantic style here!

[dortmundjazzguitar]

The argument from the example of great players takes basically the following form:

The great jazz players mainly used a 3-finger approach, therefore a 3 finger approach is essential to great jazz playing.

strawman. who ever claimed the above?

[mr. beaumont]

Perhaps you are right.

I feel people on this forum have said exactly this. Perhaps I am wrong.

Oh, people on an internet forum said it. Now I get it

[MarkRhodes]

Sorry for the pedantic style here!

I enjoyed it!

[grahambop]

Guys - I have discovered a brilliant technique for switching rapidly from the 3-finger method to the 4-finger method. What you do - bear with me on this - is to bring the 4th finger down until it rests on the string. Now here's the clever bit -keep going down until it presses the string onto the fret!

Now you can play a note employing the 4th finger. Amazing.

My next area of research is to figure out how to take it off again.

[christianm77]

OK I got to page 1 of the form, so I rewarding myself with a response. I am a very peculiar chap, needless to say.

The argument from the example of great players takes basically the following form:

The great jazz players mainly used a 3-finger approach, therefore a 3 finger approach is essential to great jazz playing.

For this to be true, a good number of other things have to be true.

• The 3 finger approach must be the cause of the great playing and not a secondary attribute

• the impact of the 3 finger approach needs to be shown to be more important than the player's overall aesthetic, their command of the repertoire, their ear, their musical imagination, and the other variables affecting the making of music
• The players must be "Great" in a way that excludes other players. That is, you must refute the claim that "Player X uses 4 fingers and is a great player." This is to avoid what is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."
• It helps if it is true that all or nearly all of the "great players" attempted other methods and only teethe 3 finger method worked
• it must be shown that players knowing no jazz, when taught the 3 finger method, or when changing from a 4 finger to a 3 finger method, begin to play "great" jazz like the "great players"
• Etc.

These are simply the requirements of making an inductive argument, that is, an argument that appeals solely to "real" cases in the field and then generalizes from them. In making that kind of argument you have to control the variables for the generalization made to be valid.

This isn't saying not to learn from the example of the masters. The question is whether we are learning the right things from the examples of the masters.

It won't do either to make the "appeal to mystery" which his simply to praise the masters who use one's favorite method so highly that nobody feels permitted to disagree. That actually doesn't even work in religion and theology, and certainly doesn't work in music either. No player is so brilliant that all other players and methods are excluded.

Sorry for the pedantic style here!

I love it! Argument! Real argument! Logic. Thanks for taking the time.

Not sure if this is in specific response to me, so I will treat it as if it is.

It's not that binary though. Few things in art are. Shades of grey...

I don't agree with the statement 'The great jazz players mainly used a 3-finger approach, therefore a 3 finger approach is essential to great jazz playing', because I love Jim Hall, I love Segovia, Bream, I love Allan Holdsworth, etc etc.

Secondly - this is not my particular argument - my question was - why do you regard Wes as using a self-taught untutored technique in contrast to classical Segovian technique, which itself is based on the specific technique of a self taught guitarist?

It is, completely possible, and from anecdotal evidence, likely, that players influenced by Charlie Christian were consciously copying how he played as well as what he played. This is a school then, exactly like Segovia's - except it takes place outside of an academic environment. The fact that formal jazz education didn't exist in this era didn't mean that learners were working in isolation, although information may have been more closely guarded.

Furthermore it is unlikely that Segovia exhausted the possibilities of good ole Grab'n'Whack in the execution of Bach, before moving onto the present approach. This requirement is not important. Not everyone is mad like me and enjoys relearning their technique every five years.

Thirdly - not all players who are Great are Great in the same way. But - I do think most of the Really Swinging Cats used this technique. There are probably a few exceptions as always. But music isn't binary yes/no logic. It's a messy artform. It's great teachers contradicting each other all the time. As a science major this used to really bother me.

Subjectivity.

I perceive there is a particular quality, I believe that comes from adopting a certain type of left hand. I agree with Miles Okazaki on this (sorry for the repost) - it helps a certain type of feel. This is not something I could necessarily substantiate from the point of view of argument, but subjectively I hold it to be true.

If your aim is to play swinging single line jazz guitar, I believe you owe it to yourself to at least investigate the possibility that the three fingered approach might have something to offer you. You could at least give it a go and see if you get on with it. I may feel that this is the only way to really swing on the instrument, but I am not 100% sure... I just think it helps.

In terms of the subjective world of my music, I used to play positional four fingered technique, and have found it much more enjoyable, natural and swinging to play with a more slidey, thumb over the top approach. The joke is I had to practice this for several months exactly like it was a classical technique. It didn't come naturally because I had a pretty Segovian left hand.

[kevets]

To lump everything as "classical" is a mistake, too. I once asked on a classical guitar forum - do you use the Tenant "plant" or the Vidovic "lean".

Scott Tenant has a very straight on approach. Fingers 1 through 4 are coming straight down on the frets.

Ana Vidovic has an incredible pronation of her left wrist.

And then there's all sorts of RH approaches, nail shapes and attacks. Galbraith plays his guitar on an end pin, like a cello.

Vidovic trained under Barrueco and therefore has the Shearer pedagogy drilled into her.

So.. I'm with the "whatever works" school, within reason. For starters, our bodies are shaped differently. What works for a skinny Croatian girl may not work for a fat Californian with sausage fingers.

The only thing I'll say is that sometimes what is initially more natural becomes a limitation. That's where a teacher can come in handy.

One thing I can say for sure is the pinky is no good for bends. But heck, I usually have 1 and 2 behind 3 and bend with all 3 fingers.

I've never been a fast melody line player. I want to play chord melody. And so the pinky is used an awful lot. A key to playing fast is to quickly releasing tension. I can see how limited the use of 4 might help in keeping the hand as relaxed as possible.

[christianm77]

Oh, people on an internet forum said it. Now I get it

Oh come, come, where's the fun in pointing out the irrelevance of all this verbiage? ;-)

EDIT: I emailed the form. Now my need to argue the toss on the internet has strangely evaporated.

[mr. beaumont]

Oh come, come, where's the fun in pointing out the irrelevance of all this verbiage? ;-)

EDIT: I emailed the form. Now my need to argue the toss on the internet has strangely evaporated.

LOL, pardon me, I'm going to get back to this Kenny Burrell transcription. So far, I can play the whole thing with three fingers

[goldenwave77]

RE: Segovia

One of my golf buddies is a hard core classical guy, who has been spending 8 mos. re-tooling his classical technique. He tells me that state of the art in current classical is going away from Segovia technique. Specifically, no bent wrist and a lot less emphasis on the rest stroke.

Segovia, remember, developed his nail technique to allow the classical gtr. to be heard in larger halls. The "nail v. fingertips" approach literally spawned fights in the streets of Spain, when "older school" finger adherents thought Segovia was ruining the purity of the tone with his ugly fingernail-y tone.

I hope the discussion here doesn't produce a similar rumble between the Three Finger Troika and the Gang of Four.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Guys - I have discovered a brilliant technique for switching rapidly from the 3-finger method to the 4-finger method. What you do - bear with me on this - is to bring the 4th finger down until it rests on the string. Now here's the clever bit -keep going down until it presses the string onto the fret!

Now you can play a note employing the 4th finger. Amazing.

My next area of research is to figure out how to take it off again.

Dude, have you written a book on this?

[christianm77]

RE: Segovia

One of my golf buddies is a hard core classical guy, who has been spending 8 mos. re-tooling his classical technique. He tells me that state of the art in current classical is going away from Segovia technique. Specifically, no bent wrist and a lot less emphasis on the rest stroke.

Segovia, remember, developed his nail technique to allow the classical gtr. to be heard in larger halls. The "nail v. fingertips" approach literally spawned fights in the streets of Spain, when "older school" finger adherents thought Segovia was ruining the purity of the tone with his ugly fingernail-y tone.

I hope the discussion here doesn't produce a similar rumble between the Three Finger Troika and the Gang of Four.

Haha you are on fire....

Yes, I did get the impression that classical guitar is moving away from this stuff now.... When you say 'no bent wrist' do you mean left or right BTW?

On the occasions over the past ten years when I had classical lessons rest strokes were certainly downplayed....

Now I have no nails due to gypsy picking wear and tear... :-( The lute is a nice alternative, although I've not been playing that for a while.

In lute technique there are similar movements back and forth I gather. Post early days (guitarists playing lutes like guitars with nails and Segovian right hand technique - see Julian Bream) there was a backlash...

So in the 70's used to be very anti-nails and anti-guitar. Now people are realising that it's a lot more complicated. Poulton is alternate picking to death, but in fact, a more guitaristic technique is quite accepted now, and nails are considered good for Baroque stuff....

[grahambop]

Dude, have you written a book on this?

Oh no, I've already moved on from this.

It struck me that the 4 finger guys are perhaps a bit 'note-y', over-complex sometimes. So then I considered the 3 finger guys like Wes - maybe they have a bit more bluesy feeling and power. That got me thinking about Django - only 2 fingers, yet he had dazzling speed and more power than anybody, even using an acoustic guitar.

So now I am preparing to take the next logical step - I am going to develop a one-finger technique!

I'll let you know how I get on.

[christianm77]

I think one finger is still too much TBH:

[grahambop]

Joking aside, it occurred to me that about a year ago I was directly inspired by seeing Peter Bernstein (with Larry Goldings and Bill Stewart) to do a version of 'Chant' by Duke Pearson. Here I am doing it with 'organ trio' backing, and I know I was trying to get a bit of a 'Bernstein/Blue Note' vibe. So it's interesting to see whether I used the 3 finger thing or not, as that is very much the feel I was trying to get here.

Looking at the video, the answer seems to be that I played the theme and some of the more 'bluesy' phrases with only 3 fingers, but I still used the 4th finger quite a bit whenever the phrase required it, or I was going for a longer line. So I really don't think the distinction matters very much, obviously I was mixing up both approaches without even thinking about it. I think you should just do whatever it takes to get the music out!

[Vladan]

i don't think it's open to question at all. the greats were no lazy guys who found an easy way to do things and "felt no need to go farther". as has been pointed out, all the answers are all in the music and, thanks to youtube, on video.

it's obvious that the kind of phrasing in video 1 demands a mainly-3-finger-approach, while vid 2 shows a classical 4-finger approach. it's clear why peter and pasquale play with the technique they use, namely for purely musical reasons

However, it is easily imaginable, with some effort, Pasquale could use his "4 finger technique" to play Peter's stuff, even if with less "feel", whatever the feel may be, as in the meaning of the word, while Peter, if what he showed of it in this clip was all the technique he had, could not do Pasquale's thing to save his life.

[christianm77]

However, it is easily imaginable, with some effort, Pasquale could use his "4 finger technique" to play Peter's stuff, even if with less "feel", whatever the feel may be, as in the meaning of the word, while Peter, if what he showed of it in this clip was all the technique he had, could not do Pasquale's thing to save his life.

I don't think that was dortmund's point at all...

It really is all about feel. Pasquale is just different to Peter. If he played what Peter played, it wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't have the same feel, not bad necessarily, just different.

(In fact he wouldn't in any case (unless for study) because that is not the way he expresses himself.)