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.