Electric Guitar for a Child

The name says it all! Discuss Steve's studios, your studios and gear set-ups, amps and effects here. This is not for discussing guitars (Steve's or otherwise).
Locked
User avatar
notavirtuoso
Member
Member
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:56 pm

I wish I had classical training when I started out. I spent years discovering by myself what someone else could have shown me in a few months. I also developed some pretty horrible habits. Of course if I had taken lessons of any kind I would have been better off, but I think starting out classical would have been the most beneficial. It's more fun to break the rules when you know what the rules are.
Stephen Brown
Member
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:04 am

guitarmanK1982 wrote: I'm talking from a technical standpoint, and you have admitted yourself that many electric player's technique isn't anywhere near perfect.
I'm not sure I can agree there though.

Some electric players can do things that classical players can only dream about.

The classical world & the electric world can both be divided into subdivisions of styles.
Last edited by Stephen Brown on Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

FRETPICK wrote:
guitarmanK1982 wrote: I'm talking from a technical standpoint, and you have admitted yourself that many electric player's technique isn't anywhere near perfect.
I'm not sure I can agree there though.

Some electric players can do things that classical players can only dream about.
I agree that electric players can do some things that classical players can't (the opposite is also true, though).

But that doesn't make their technique better - all it means is that they can do some things that the classical player can't.

Tachnique isn't necessarily about how much you can do - it is more about how well you can do whatever you do. Being able to eight-finger tap doesn't mean you can keep your wrist straight - it just means that you can eight-finger tap.
Stephen Brown
Member
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:04 am

guitarmanK1982 wrote:
FRETPICK wrote:
guitarmanK1982 wrote: I'm talking from a technical standpoint, and you have admitted yourself that many electric player's technique isn't anywhere near perfect.
I'm not sure I can agree there though.

Some electric players can do things that classical players can only dream about.
I agree that electric players can do some things that classical players can't (the opposite is also true, though).

But that doesn't make their technique better - all it means is that they can do some things that the classical player can't.

Tachnique isn't necessarily about how much you can do - it is more about how well you can do whatever you do. Being able to eight-finger tap doesn't mean you can keep your wrist straight - it just means that you can eight-finger tap.
The disciplines are different.
User avatar
notavirtuoso
Member
Member
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:56 pm

Something else about learning classical from the start. It seems a very logical place to learn your basics at and then go in whatever direction you want thereafter. If you start out playing country/bluegrass, it may be a bit of a jump to go to punk. Start with metal head palm muted power chords (like me) and moving over to flamenco would seem an insurmountable task. But start out with classical and I would think you could go to any style and pick it up quickly. Classical covers so many basic techniques of so many different styles of music (with some variations of course) that it isn't a quantum leap to learn anything else.
Stephen Brown
Member
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:04 am

There are so many variables over history & how different players have gone about their craft. From one person on a porch to high end music schools. Hendrix started on a one-stringed ukulele.

So interesting. The more I learn, the more I know nothing.
DomitianX
Member
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:18 am

guitarmanK1982 wrote:
DomitianX wrote:Actually you did and thats my whole point. You literally said that if they dont learn classical technique they will never be technically competent on their instrument.
Yes - and I stand by this.

I'm talking from a technical standpoint, and you have admitted yourself that many electric player's technique isn't anywhere near perfect.

Them being musical isn't the issue. We are discussing technique here.

The full purpose of my posts has been to state the technical benefits of learning classical guitar.


Satch doesn't have perfect technique. His wrist throws out when he does his legato runs.

But he can write good music, and to listen to him, it sounds great. However, it is uncomfortable to watch him play, due to the form his wrist takes.




DomitianX wrote:So you are saying that in order to be technically competent you *need* to use classical technique and "unlearn" any other techniques. My whole point is you dont. Its not required. I am not dismissing anything. I am just saying that it isnt required. I wont force it on anyone and I wont dismiss it as not relevant. I will point how technique may help if they are struggling with something but I will never ever tell any student that in order to be proficient they must learn classical technique because its a flat out lie and doing a disservice to the student. There are thousands of guitar players out there that are proficient on their instrument and they rarely ever use classical techniques if at all.
I'm not talking about enabling 'proficiency'. I'm talking about setting the foundations for someone in such a way that they could reach the top levels with their playing.



DomitianX wrote:So get off the soap box about it already. You obviously are dragging this on just to beat a dead horse. Twice now people have agreed with you to shut you up but you just need to drive another nail in the coffin and not letting it go.

You're superior? Is that good? You are a god among us lowly mortals!!! Is that good? I will sell my guitar and clean you feet with my tongue? Is that good? Will you get off it already. You can never ever say any technique is better for everyone because music has no limits, no boundaries and you can whatever you want, however you want and there are thousands, possibly millions, of people that have become proficient on the guitar without learning classical techniques or using nylon string guitars.

You are avoiding answering my question about hand positions. It is best just to be honest and say if you know what you are talking about, or if you don't.

I'd still like to know if you actually do have the slightest clue about hand positions and if so, then add to the thread why you think the classical approach to left hand positions is not of importance to the electric guitarist.

And what 'classical techniques' are.
I am not avoiding any questions. My point is classical technique is not required. It doesnt matter if I know the positions or not, which I do, but I am not going to turn this discussion into whether or not I know hand positions because its not about the different hand positions. Its about your inane quest to prove yourself right even though there is mountains of evidence proving that it isnt required. Does it help? Sure. Is it required? No.

To say that you need to know classical technique in order to be proficient is snobbish and elitist and hyperbole in the face of thousands of guitar players that have mastered their instrument even without knowing classical technique.

Get over the trolling.
Stephen Brown
Member
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:04 am

This thread is still cool. :D
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

DomitianX wrote:I am not avoiding any questions. My point is classical technique is not required. Does it help? Sure. Is it required? No.
I agree. However, a good technical grounding in classical playing saves years of relearning.

Your original point with regards to this issue was that technique isn't required. I'm glad you have given this some more thought.



DomitianX wrote:To say that you need to know classical technique in order to be proficient is snobbish and elitist and hyperbole in the face of thousands of guitar players that have mastered their instrument even without knowing classical technique.

Get over the trolling.
Call it snobbish and elitist if you wish. Thousands of players haven't 'mastered' the guitar. Thousands of players have mastered doing their own thing on the guitar - this is differrent from mastering the instrument per se.

The easiest way to master the technical difficulties of playing guitar is to learn classical guitar. A good grounding in classical technique allows one to easily play in other styles (as notavirtuoso has stated).

There is no trolling - i'm contributing to a thread that could be of importance/relevance to some people.



If anything, I have given the argument from my side some weight through factual accounts of playing. You haven't given weight to your side of the discussion - you have only continuously stated that my view is wrong.




The question of correct technique is very important to the issue, as issues such as this act to show the technical benefits of one style over another, therefore validating that particular style.

The question remains - what are the benefits of each school, and which is best to use to help the average 8 year old?

Do you prefer the turned hand school to provide ease with fretting on the lower strings, or do you use another method?




And you keep talking about classical technique as distinct from electric technique. What, in your mnd, is classical technique? This issue is very important to the nature of this discussion. You need to state what you mean by electric/classical technique.
DomitianX
Member
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:18 am

So now you agree that classical techinique is not required but your dozen posts before this say its required? And oyu have posts that say "Yes and I stand by that" but now you dont? Troll alert!

OK, for the very last time.

My point is classical technique isnt required to become technically proficient at the guitar. Thats the only point, again, only point that I am countering. I am not going down the river of troll with you.

There is nothing about "mastering" in your comments before this one. You keep swinging things trying to twist the argument so you can continue trolling. You also want to keep sucking me into an argument about hand position. I am not talking about hand position. I am merely saying that classical technique is not a requirement for technical proficiency.

Get it now? Is that clear? Do I need it in 35 point bold type so your elitist snobbish incredibly virtuosic world renowned teaching skilled brain understands?
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

DomitianX wrote:So now you agree that classical techinique is not required but your dozen posts before this say its required? And oyu have posts that say "Yes and I stand by that" but now you dont? Troll alert!

OK, for the very last time.

My point is classical technique isnt required to become technically proficient at the guitar. Thats the only point, again, only point that I am countering. I am not going down the river of troll with you.

There is nothing about "mastering" in your comments before this one. You keep swinging things trying to twist the argument so you can continue trolling. You also want to keep sucking me into an argument about hand position. I am not talking about hand position. I am merely saying that classical technique is not a requirement for technical proficiency.

Get it now? Is that clear? Do I need it in 35 point bold type so your elitist snobbish incredibly virtuosic world renowned teaching skilled brain understands?
That's just being rude

I haven't once been rude in this thread

If a kid is going to learn guitar, they may as well learn the classical technique. What is the point of them only half learning a technique when they could just as easily learn it fully, and save themselves a lot of trouble?



I still don't know what you mean when you say 'classical' technique. You need to define this.




And I do still believe that in order for a player to be of a competent level on the guitar, that they will have, at the very least, studied some of the basics of classical guitar technique. They will be aware of the principles of classical guitar playing.

I personally don't care if someone can play semiquavers at 200bpm. If their technique isn't correct, then I don't consider them competent - irrespective of how their playing may sound to the average listener.
DomitianX
Member
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:18 am

guitarmanK1982 wrote:
DomitianX wrote:So now you agree that classical techinique is not required but your dozen posts before this say its required? And oyu have posts that say "Yes and I stand by that" but now you dont? Troll alert!

OK, for the very last time.

My point is classical technique isnt required to become technically proficient at the guitar. Thats the only point, again, only point that I am countering. I am not going down the river of troll with you.

There is nothing about "mastering" in your comments before this one. You keep swinging things trying to twist the argument so you can continue trolling. You also want to keep sucking me into an argument about hand position. I am not talking about hand position. I am merely saying that classical technique is not a requirement for technical proficiency.

Get it now? Is that clear? Do I need it in 35 point bold type so your elitist snobbish incredibly virtuosic world renowned teaching skilled brain understands?
That's just being rude

I haven't once been rude in this thread

If a kid is going to learn guitar, they may as well learn the classical technique. What is the point of them only half learning a technique when they could just as easily learn it fully, and save themselves a lot of trouble?



I still don't know what you mean when you say 'classical' technique. You need to define this.




And I do still believe that in order for a player to be of a competent level on the guitar, that they will have, at the very least, studied some of the basics of classical guitar technique. They will be aware of the principles of classical guitar playing.

I personally don't care if someone can play semiquavers at 200bpm. If their technique isn't correct, then I don't consider them competent - irrespective of how their playing may sound to the average listener.
You were the one that said classical technique is required to be technically proficient so you need to define what you were talking about (actually you dont, because I dont really care, thats not my point). I am saying that nothing is a requirement to become technically proficient so I dont have to define anything because everything goes.

Anyone can become technically proficient on the guitar using any technique they so choose. There are thousands of examples out there playing everyday.

Anyways this is getting really dumb. Its the same thing over and over and you keep trying to drag this down the river of troll by trying to change the topic. Now if you want to start another topic about hand positions and all that, thats fine, but your point of requiring someone to use classical technique to become technically proficient is been debunked. It isnt required. Maybe in your mind it is, but there are plenty of people out there making a living and are very well respected that prove you do not.
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

DomitianX wrote:You were the one that said classical technique is required to be technically proficient so you need to define what you were talking about (actually you dont, because I dont really care, thats not my point). I am saying that nothing is a requirement to become technically proficient so I dont have to define anything because everything goes.

Anyone can become technically proficient on the guitar using any technique they so choose. There are thousands of examples out there playing everyday.

Anyways this is getting really dumb. Its the same thing over and over and you keep trying to drag this down the river of troll by trying to change the topic. Now if you want to start another topic about hand positions and all that, thats fine, but your point of requiring someone to use classical technique to become technically proficient is been debunked. It isnt required. Maybe in your mind it is, but there are plenty of people out there making a living and are very well respected that prove you do not.
You need to define 'technically proficient'.

In my mind, players such as the ones you yourself mentioned are great players to listen to, but that doesn't mean they are technically proficient.

They may have skills to do their thing (e.g. satch and legato), but that doesn't mean they are applying those skills correctly.

I think your definition of proficient and my definition are different. Yours seems to be 'having enough skill to play what is required'. My definition is 'having mastered the skills that allow one to play the music'.


It isn't about debunking. I'm trying to help Bill by showing him the discussion from the classical point of view.



I see your view of nothing being a requirement in order to become technically proficient as naive and dangerous. Classical guitar technique has hundreds of years of technique behind it - it is by far the easiest way to learn guitar - and it produces results the quickest.


Classical technique isn't necessary to play guitar, but it is (in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others) necessary in order to become technically proficient on the guitar.

Also, someone making a living from something doesn't validate that their approach is the best way to approach that thing. That does seem naive; 'oh, he must be good, because he is famous and makes a lot of money'.




You can't say that no technique is required. The minute you tell a kid to hold their guitar, you need to demonstrate to them some sort of technique. The same can be said for fretting a note, plucking etc etc

If you leave a kid to learn these things themselves, then they will more than likely hurt themselves, or learn the technique in such a way that they inhibit their playing.

And if you do show them how to, for example, hold the guitar, then you are employing some form of technique.

And my point is that whatever technique you employ will already have been covered in the classical methods, and the classical methods will even give alternatives.
Last edited by guitarmanK1982 on Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stephen Brown
Member
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:04 am

I'm bailing out...eject..eject. :D
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

..And to conclude, i'd like to quote myself, in the very first post I made in this thread:

guitarmanK1982 wrote:The main reason to start on a classical guitar is to develop dynamic control of the instrument (e.g. control over the volume produced).

This isn't such an issue on the electric, as the amp controls the volume more than the actual fingers (yes, you can still be dynamic on an electric, but the range is far less).

So, beginning on a classical is better as one develops a greater physical control of the sound produced from the instrument.





However, if the kid/parents want to begin with an electric, then it is up to them. If a classical was forced on a child who had no interest in classical, then it could actually put them off music, never mind putting them off guitar.



DomitianX I ask you to read the final part of that quote.

I think you'll see that it is you who has tried to drag me into some sort of internet fight.

I had stated from the first post that I wasn't insistent on classical being the only way. I stated that it was the preferred way.


I think you should read the posts first before replying to someone.
Locked