Page 8 of 9

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:20 pm
by DomitianX
FRETPICK wrote:
notavirtuoso wrote:
FRETPICK wrote:I think guitar players can be the most argumentative types at times. It's sad because it can over shadow the grace of the instrument & what it means to people.

A world of a world within a world, in another world.

Not good if your just a beginner.
I think it's like that with any group of people that are passionate about something. I've seen/experienced the same thing in forums dedicated to aquarium fish. If you really love something, then more than likely you have some pretty strong opinions about it.
No they don't. :lol: All jokes aside.

One thing that seems to be common in the professional people I respect is their ability of humblness, what ever the subject matter. Has had a great impact on me.
I completely agree which is why I made a point to avoid the "tooting my horn" by going into detail about what techniques I know or dont know. Once you start comparing what each other knows to try and "win" the argument it gets even dumber.

The only point I was trying to make in all of it is that there are no requirements in guitar. Lots of tips and tricks, but no requirements. I used to be one of those guys that used strict technique, only did things certain ways, arched my hands the right way, blah, blah, blah. It did nothing for my creative side other than give me good chops. Once I got over the whole chops thing and just started to enjoy playing it all made sense. Seriously it was like a light went off.

Now my only advice is to enjoy what you are doing. If you enjoy strict technique go for it. If you dont, dont worry about it. Just play what you want to play, how you want to play and enjoy music.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:07 pm
by KayeM
DomitianX wrote:Now my only advice is to enjoy what you are doing. If you enjoy strict technique go for it. If you dont, dont worry about it. Just play what you want to play, how you want to play and enjoy music.
Couldn't have put it better myself.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:55 am
by boswell
Truth is, there is no right or wrong............it's all guitar playing.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:31 am
by Big Bad Bill
boswell wrote:Truth is, there is no right or wrong............it's all guitar playing.
Well....I suppose you could say that because classical technique has been around a long time, and people have taught it for a long time, they may of refined it, and the better methods and techniques may have survived in a Darwinian manner-the poor techniques having been discarded. Violins are played in one manner because its the most efficient, I assume. But I think classical guitar and contemporary electric guitar are such different beasts that what one learns from one is only applicable to the other in a superficial manner.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:41 am
by DomitianX
Big Bad Bill wrote:Violins are played in one manner because its the most efficient, I assume. But I think classical guitar and contemporary electric guitar are such different beasts that what one learns from one is only applicable to the other in a superficial manner.
Changes in construction of the instrument make a big difference as well. I cant remember if it was Paganini or someone else who changed the construction of the fingerboard on their violin a bit and made the radius flatter enabling him to play sweeping style arpeggios easier, cleaner and faster. You didnt have to be so extreme with the bow and arch your hand as much so you sway from traditional technique and still play faster and cleaner.

For the life of me I cant remember where I read that.

Similar to flatter guitar fret boards aiding "shredders" to play faster and cleaner.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:31 am
by boswell
Both Classical and Electric players can learn from one another but as with many things in life they tend to let petty prejudices and bigotry get in the way.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:18 pm
by Stephen Brown
At the end of the day if you don't start on a nylon you will be a poor player. It's a written law. :P :D :D

It is funny because the next person who ask me the same question, I'm going to be like....err "Where shall we begin. (thinking upon this thread)."lol

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:31 am
by guitarmanK1982
DomitianX wrote:We dont have to say what they are because it seems most of us dont put rules on it. You can use any technique. Pool cue's, spatulas, small dogs, tire irons, rubber bands, whatever we want to play the guitar.

Use whatever technique can possibly think of to convey what you want using the guitar.

Simple. Who cares what they use. Point out ways they can do thing better, dont put ANY limits on what the student should do. Let them explore however they want, but with some guidance.

The worst thing you can do to stifle someone is to tell them they have to do things a certain way otherwise they will never be any good.


You know this sounds appealing, but at the end of the day, is just hippy nonsense. And every way of technically doing something on the guitar will have a name.

When the child does anything on the instrument - even something such as fretting a note - some form of technique has to be used.

You can't say to the kid 'just hold it in whatever way works for you' - they could end up holding a note in without keeping the finger arched, and if they didn't keep their finger arched, they could potentially damage their finger etc etc



Some form of technique will be used for everything that is done at the guitar. As such, the teacher will always use some form of technique when teaching anything on the guitar.

And the most developed form of techniue is classical. If the teacher understands how to teach classical technique, their and the child's life is made much easier.



Boswell - you said there is no right or wrong - i'd say the very opposite - there most definitely is a right or wrong.


Like I said - the ideas presented here are appealing in theory - let the kid do pretty much what they want, and teach them the music they want to learn - but this is just a fantasy.




Bill - you have also stated that contemporary electric and classical guitar have vastly different techniques - i'd like to know the difference. And I don't mean eight finger tapping/bends etc etc, as the child who is just beginning to learn guitar won't learn these techniques anyway.


The distinction keeps being made here with classical technique as opposed to some other form of technique, and still no-one is saying what 'classical technique' is, and why it is not the correct way for a child to learn guitar.



I'll staunchly defend my opinion on this one - no matter how many people roll on the bandwagon against me - no one has yet given any decent reason why, as domitianX says, it is better to 'just play what you want to play, how you want to play and enjoy music'. Why is this preferred to learning classical technique? And what makes the people here think that a decent grounding in classical technique won't actually enable one to 'play what they want' faster?



It's nonsense. People here are directly opposed to my statement regarding the child learning classical technique, but no-one can explain why.

The best we've had so far is opinions along the lines of 'classical technique is too strict' (PS this shows a complete misunderstanding of classical technique, and how to teach it), and other opinions such as 'classical technique is too different from electric technique'. Well, if it is, then explain why.



PS regarding the Paganini/flat fingerboard comment, and playing fast - ironically, learning on an actual classical guitar would be the best way to help this, since the classical fingercoard is flat.

This would actually make the transition to playing fast on an electric much easier.



I think there is a lot of spouting of information here, yet not a lot of insight e.g. the flat fingerboard comment.

Why does a flat fingerboard enable one to play faster? Or are people just saying things again without understanding them?

If a flat neck is best for enabling playing fast, then, by this reasoning, the classical guitar should be the guitar to learn on, since the fingerboard is completely flat.

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:54 am
by boswell
guitarmanK1982 wrote:


Boswell - you said there is no right or wrong - i'd say the very opposite - there most definitely is a right or wrong.
Your way right eveyone else wrong.............yeah weve been getting the message loud and clear. 8)

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:42 am
by guitarmanK1982
No. My way = having years of experience teaching both classical and electric at all levels, from infants to postgrad level. I used to work in this field for a living.

Most others here - opinion based on assumption.

My opinion based on experience.


Big difference.



Call it arrogance. I call it speaking from experience.

And don't think I didn't used to think the same way as every other opinion put here. I have. I considered the ways mentioned to be the best ways, but only through experience learned that the ways mentioned - in my direct experience - don't work.


What I find arrogant are people expressing their opinion on classical guitar teaching methods when it is very obvious by what they say that they don't have the slightest understanding of it.

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:00 am
by DomitianX
guitarmanK1982 wrote:No. My way = having years of experience teaching both classical and electric at all levels, from infants to postgrad level. I used to work in this field for a living.

Most others here - opinion based on assumption.

My opinion based on experience.


Big difference.



Call it arrogance. I call it speaking from experience.

And don't think I didn't used to think the same way as every other opinion put here. I have. I considered the ways mentioned to be the best ways, but only through experience learned that the ways mentioned - in my direct experience - don't work.


What I find arrogant are people expressing their opinion on classical guitar teaching methods when it is very obvious by what they say that they don't have the slightest understanding of it.
You're right! Thanks for making me see the light. Have a nice day.

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:51 am
by Desert_Runner
DomitianX wrote:
guitarmanK1982 wrote:No. My way = having years of experience teaching both classical and electric at all levels, from infants to postgrad level. I used to work in this field for a living.

Most others here - opinion based on assumption.

My opinion based on experience.


Big difference.



Call it arrogance. I call it speaking from experience.

And don't think I didn't used to think the same way as every other opinion put here. I have. I considered the ways mentioned to be the best ways, but only through experience learned that the ways mentioned - in my direct experience - don't work.


What I find arrogant are people expressing their opinion on classical guitar teaching methods when it is very obvious by what they say that they don't have the slightest understanding of it.
You're right! Thanks for making me see the light. Have a nice day.
I wonder if that was sarcasm. That's the trouble with the internet. Most of the time you can't tell.

I'm very inclined to believe guitarmanK1982 on this one.

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:05 am
by DomitianX
Desert_Runner wrote:
DomitianX wrote:
guitarmanK1982 wrote:No. My way = having years of experience teaching both classical and electric at all levels, from infants to postgrad level. I used to work in this field for a living.

Most others here - opinion based on assumption.

My opinion based on experience.


Big difference.



Call it arrogance. I call it speaking from experience.

And don't think I didn't used to think the same way as every other opinion put here. I have. I considered the ways mentioned to be the best ways, but only through experience learned that the ways mentioned - in my direct experience - don't work.


What I find arrogant are people expressing their opinion on classical guitar teaching methods when it is very obvious by what they say that they don't have the slightest understanding of it.
You're right! Thanks for making me see the light. Have a nice day.
I wonder if that was sarcasm. That's the trouble with the internet. Most of the time you can't tell.

I'm very inclined to believe guitarmanK1982 on this one.
Yes, it was sarcasm. My problem with him is that he said "Classical Technique" is required to become proficient. Then his posts turn to not being required, then it turns to him standing by his post saying its required, and then it turns to everything is a technique.

The guy is just trolling and twisting things in little ways to be right.

Yes classical technique may help with chops/technique but none of it is required. Look at guys like Billy McLaughlin, Any McKee, Stanley Jordan, Eric Johnson, Steve Vai, etc. Those guys are absolutely technically proficient on the guitar. At least they use whatever techniques they need to create their music. Thats all that matters.

Eventually he will try to twist the definition of classical technique to be all encompassing, as he started to do in his last post, so that he has to be right.

And just to be clear again, I really dont care what anyone defines as classical technique. To me thats irrelevant to the point that *anything* is required to be proficient on the guitar. Nothing is required.

I was where this guys is about 10-15 years ago when I was really into giving lessons, technique and working my chops. I became friends with a classical instructor at the local college and I used to make all the comments about players that had horrible technique, sloppy playing, etc and he used to laugh and say who am I to determine what people should be doing to accomplish their goal of creating music.

Eventually I got his point that its one thing to say that it helps for certain styles of music, its another thing to say what I think is the correct technique is required of anyone else to create music.

I have a real problem with anyone telling anyone what is required or not required to create music. Music is personal and what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander. Like I said before, its one thing to give tips, hints, tricks, etc but its another thing completely to say certain techniques is required to be proficient.

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:37 pm
by Stephen Brown
guitarmanK1982 wrote:No. My way = having years of experience teaching both classical and electric at all levels, from infants to postgrad level. I used to work in this field for a living.

Most others here - opinion based on assumption.

My opinion based on experience.


Big difference.



Call it arrogance. I call it speaking from experience.

And don't think I didn't used to think the same way as every other opinion put here. I have. I considered the ways mentioned to be the best ways, but only through experience learned that the ways mentioned - in my direct experience - don't work.


What I find arrogant are people expressing their opinion on classical guitar teaching methods when it is very obvious by what they say that they don't have the slightest understanding of it.
Then as an experienced player you know that one person's interpretation & application under guidance varies?

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:45 pm
by Guitaruss
It doesnt matter how well schooled 'guitarmank1982' is, or how clever he thinks he is, I've had enough 'arguments' with him before to know that for one, in his mind he's never wrong (and the idea that he could be ridiculous)

He also makes absolutely ridiculous assumptions and carrys on dolling out unwanted advice in a manner that suggests we should be honoured by his mere presence here, the truth of course is the complete opposite.(and thats not just my view either)

He claims to be a film composer living in Monaco but has never once given a link to any thing hes written or played....I suspect he might actually be a failed composer that comes here only to pretend to be somebody else.

Either way I find him to be a completely nauseating creep.