Posting the little finger (NOT)
Caroline Usher
and other previous threads in this newsgroup is based upon a complete
misunderstanding of lute technique.
Lute players do NOT "post" or "plant" or "anchor" <shudder> the little
finger of the right hand on the soundboard.
The little finger is NOT held away from the ring finger by abduction.
The little finger is placed gently on the fingerboard. It is not planted
firmly in one place and never moved. It can move away from the top string
when playing on the upper strings (in pitch) and it glides toward the top
string when playing on the lower strings. [Note: I'm talking about
Renaissance lute technique here. I don't play Baroque lute, but I do play
theorbo with my pinkie on the soundboard and thumb out.]
When playing p-i runs, the little finger functions as a hinge and is
basically held in place by the friction of the fingertip against the
soundboard. It is not held out away from the hand with tension, nor are
the hand and arm moved by rapid adduction/abduction of the little finger
"anchored" on the soundboard. The hand and arm are moved up and down by
the large muscles of the arm and gravity, helped by a rebound or bounce
from the joint of the little finger at the bottom of the stroke.
Attempting to test a technique based on a minimal description on the
internet is laudable, but hardly fair or thorough. One person who has had
some up-close-and-personal experience with a talented exponent sees
possibilities in this technique. Somebody else has thought about it and
can't visualize how it could work, based on some faulty assumptions about
what "must" be happening inside the hand. Another person says he tried it
after reading the first person's comments and couldn't get it to work.
I appreciate the participants' willingness to discuss technique in a
generally respectful and temperate way. But this debate has been
basically a waste of time because the critics don't know enough about what
they are talking about to make reasonable criticisms.
As I said before, a lute is not a guitar. Lute technique is not guitar
technique. You cannot extrapolate good information about lute technique
from knowledge of classical guitar technique (or banjo technique, or . . .
.) If you really want to give this technique a fair shake, go to a master
class or a workshop or get a private lesson with a lutenist who knows
what's what. Ronn McFarlane has a videotape out now on lute technique; I
haven't seen it but have known him for years as an excellent performer and
teacher.
Don't knock it until you've really tried it.
--
Caroline Usher
Lute Society of America
"I brake for theorboes."
Fourpieces
Caroline,
I guess I'll be the first to thank you for the comments contained above.
Since you seem to be much more knowledgeable in the lute area (I'm a
guitarist).
Would you mind expanding on the topic of "gently placing the little finger
on the fingerboard"? What are the advantages to doing this for a guitarist? If
there are advantages, how would they differ from standard guitar technique --
the pro's & con's?
Thanks,
Matthew
Caroline Usher
fourp...@aol.com (Fourpieces) wrote:
> I guess I'll be the first to thank you for the comments contained above.
You're welcome.
> Since you seem to be much more knowledgeable in the lute area (I'm a
> guitarist).
> Would you mind expanding on the topic of "gently placing the little
finger
> on the fingerboard"? What are the advantages to doing this for a guitarist? If
> there are advantages, how would they differ from standard guitar technique --
> the pro's & con's?
Well, I don't play the classical guitar and never have. I took up the
lute after playing the cello. So I have to follow my own advice and not
hypothesize about what the advantages of this would be to a guitarist.
My opinion is that the technique and the instrument and the musical style
are a total system. The little finger on the soundboard is just one part
of that system. One should be cautious in grafting it onto a completely
different system and expecting it to work. However, in another post John
Sloan quotes Paul O'Dette as saying that it does, or may be I should say
it CAN work on the guitar. John's own experience bears that out. But I
have no idea how exactly he's combining this with the other aspects of his
guitar technique to make it work.
Fourpieces
>
>As I mentioned before, I hardly ever use this technique,
>as it is quite outside of normal CG technique and the
>only application that I know of at the moment is for runs,
>and the only context in which I'd use it would be for
>Renaissance runs, in which I want to stress the strong beats
>or where I might want a slightly "muted" sound. That's
>an entirely personal bias, so, please, don't anyone start
>arguing with me about that! (Okay, Matt? :)
>
John,
I have not intent on arguing with you over a personal bias!! Recently I have
found another topic to take issue with. But I'm still waiting for Kent to
explain the metronome thing to me!!
;)
Cudos
Matthew
Lutemann
In article <cpu-240998...@lute.botany.duke.edu>, c...@acpub.duke.edu
(Caroline Usher) writes:
>If you really want to give this technique a fair shake, go to a master
>class or a workshop or get a private lesson with a lutenist who knows
>what's what. Ronn McFarlane has a videotape out now on lute technique; I
>haven't seen it but have known him for years as an excellent performer and
>teacher.
>
>Don't knock it until you've really tried it.
>
I have a question. I heard Paul O'Dette on radio a few days ago and he
sounded, IMO, exactly like Julian Bream. The only difference was that he was
less musical. He tended to wack the chords too loudly and not blend them into
the phrase like Bream does. Since Bream uses guitar technique to play the
lute, and the best historical technique sounds like guitar techniqe, why use
historical technique? Perhaps a trained listener could tell the difference,
but I can't.
Kent
Tom Poore
> Attempting to test a technique based on a minimal descrip-
> tion on the internet is laudable, but hardly fair or thorough.
> One person who has had some up-close-and-personal experience
> with a talented exponent sees possibilities in this technique.
> Somebody else has thought about it and can't visualize how it
> could work, based on some faulty assumptions about what "must"
> be happening inside the hand.
...and:
> If you really want to give this technique a fair shake, go
> to a master class or a workshop or get a private lesson
> with a lutenist who knows what's what.]
I've performed in a masterclass for Paul O'Dette, and I've also seen him
in concert. Thus, I've been able to observe him demonstrate this
technique at close range. Over the years, I've also had the pleasure of
meeting, hearing, and talking with a number of lute players. Although I
can't claim to have read every historical treatise on lute playing, I've
read the better known ones. (I know, for example that the oft made
claims that lutenists never used nails or rest stroke are false.) I
don't claim to be an expert on lute playing for the obvious reason that
I don't play the lute. But to say I really don't understand how the
technique works is a bit of an overstatement.
I also remind you that I've consistently debated the merits of this
technique only for guitarists. Indeed, my only extended discussion of
lute playing on this thread was to highlight the differences between the
lute and guitar. My point was that the lute makes unique demands on the
player that aren't duplicated by the guitar. Thus, lutenists may have
good reasons--reasons unique to the lute and not applicable to the
guitar--for posting the right hand finger. If you found any of my
statements regarding lute playing to be incorrect, I'm interested in
your comments. I should point out, however, that most of my assertions
are based on statements made by lutenists, including Mr. O'Dette.
> When playing p-i runs, the little finger functions as
> a hinge and is basically held in place by the friction
> of the fingertip against the soundboard. It is not held
> out away from the hand with tension, nor are the hand
> and arm moved by rapid adduction/abduction of the little
> finger "anchored" on the soundboard. The hand and arm
> are moved up and down by the large muscles of the arm
> and gravity, helped by a rebound or bounce from the joint
> of the little finger at the bottom of the stroke.
I've discussed this point in my 9-25 response to John Sloan. External
restraint doesn't eliminate tension.
> As I said before, a lute is not a guitar. Lute technique is
> not guitar technique. You cannot extrapolate good information
> about lute technique from knowledge of classical guitar tech-
> nique (or banjo technique, or . . . .)
Exactly the point I've repeatedly made throughout my discussion with Mr.
Sloan. I would add that the reverse is also true: one can't always
extrapolate good information about guitar technique from lute technique.
Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Caroline Usher
[several snips]
> I
> don't claim to be an expert on lute playing for the obvious reason that
> I don't play the lute. But to say I really don't understand how the
> technique works is a bit of an overstatement.
Sorry, Tom, and I don't mean to be offensive. But the objections you
raised were clearly not relevant to the technique as I have known it and
used it for about 20 years. I am glad that you have had the opportunity
to observe Paul O'Dette in concert and have a master class with him. But
I still have to say that your discussion of "posting the little finger"
did not demonstrate an understanding of how it works.
> I also remind you that I've consistently debated the merits of this
> technique only for guitarists.
Yes, but your objections were generic. Putting the little finger down
_must_ cause excess/undesirable tension. You also presented the notion
that since guitarists used to do it but don't any more, this proves it is
a poorer technique than the current method of playing. I've already said
that I don't accept this "progressive" view of history in the arts, or
many other areas.
> If you found any of my
> statements regarding lute playing to be incorrect, I'm interested in
> your comments. I should point out, however, that most of my assertions
> are based on statements made by lutenists, including Mr. O'Dette.
We are up against the problem of describing a complex three-dimensional
process in text, without even still photographs or diagrams. I think the
history of the debate has shown that this simply leads to an impasse.
John's descriptions were regognizable to me, but clearly didn't make sense
to you. I already posted the things that I think of as key elements.
Beyond that, I would point you to more master classes or lessons or at
least Ronn McFarlane's video.
>
> > When playing p-i runs, the little finger functions as
> > a hinge and is basically held in place by the friction
> > of the fingertip against the soundboard. It is not held
> > out away from the hand with tension, nor are the hand
> > and arm moved by rapid adduction/abduction of the little
> > finger "anchored" on the soundboard. The hand and arm
> > are moved up and down by the large muscles of the arm
> > and gravity, helped by a rebound or bounce from the joint
> > of the little finger at the bottom of the stroke.
>
> I've discussed this point in my 9-25 response to John Sloan. External
> restraint doesn't eliminate tension.
I think the problem here is that you are assuming that this tension must
be bad. All tension is not bad. You have to tense your flexor muscles to
pluck a string. What is bad is isometric tension or tension in muscles
that are not necessary for the movement desired. When using the little
finger as a spring or hinge, the "external restraint" tension is what
creates the useful, functional rebound.
Here's a perfect of example of how it seems clear (to me) that you can't
visualize what I'm talking about, because you really don't understand how
the technique works. I don't mean to be critical; you just haven't had
enough empirical experience with it to "get it." Here's another example:
when John described how his fingers overlap on top of each other when the
hand goes down towards the little finger, you were baffled and couldn't
understand how this could be other than a train wreck as far as producing
music is concerned. Whereas I understood exactly what he was trying to
describe.
Hence I conclude that you have a clear picture of guitar technique and are
trying to understand what John and I are saying in terms of that picture,
but you are assuming things that are not applicable to this technique. I
appreciate your interest, but I think that you and John and you and I are
just talking past each other.
Caroline Usher
lute...@aol.com (Lutemann) wrote:
> I have a question. I heard Paul O'Dette on radio a few days ago and he
> sounded, IMO, exactly like Julian Bream. The only difference was that he was
> less musical.
I know that Paul O'Dette has a great admiration for Julian Bream's
musicianship. However I don't think that he sounds like Bream and I
certainly don't think that he is less musical.
Tom Poore
> Sorry, Tom, and I don't mean to be offensive.
I've never found your posts to RMCG to be offensive. You express your
views in an unfailingly civil way, which I appreciate. Further, I don't
expect others to always agree with me, nor do I assume that everyone who
disagrees with me is my enemy.
> But the objections you raised were clearly not relevant
> to the technique as I have known it and used it for about
> 20 years. I am glad that you have had the opportunity to
> observe Paul O'Dette in concert and have a master class
> with him. But I still have to say that your discussion of
> "posting the little finger" did not demonstrate an under-
> standing of how it works. You also presented the notion
> that since guitarists used to do it but don't any more, this
> proves it is a poorer technique than the current method of
> playing. I've already said that I don't accept this "progres-
> sive" view of history in the arts, or many other areas.
I sympathize with your critical view of the progressive history of art.
(Has any current composer surpassed J. S. Bach?) But I don't think
instrumental technique qualifies as art. Technique is the means by which
we make music audible, so I don't minimize its importance. Further,
technique ultimately must bow to musical goals. But technique also has a
physical component, and this is where we have an advantage over our
predecessors. We may not know more about art than they did, but we
certainly know more about how the human body works.
> I think the problem here is that you are assuming that this
> tension must be bad. All tension is not bad. You have to tense
> your flexor muscles to pluck a string. What is bad is isometric
> tension or tension in muscles that are not necessary for the
> movement desired. When using the little finger as a spring or
> hinge, the "external restraint" tension is what creates the useful,
> functional rebound.
> Here's a perfect of example of how it seems clear (to me) that
> you can't visualize what I'm talking about, because you really don't
> understand how the technique works. I don't mean to be critical; you
> just haven't had enough empirical experience with it to "get it."
Here's
> another example: when John described how his fingers overlap on top
> of each other when the hand goes down towards the little finger, you
> were baffled and couldn't understand how this could be other than a
> train wreck as far as producing music is concerned. Whereas I under-
> stood exactly what he was trying to describe.
Our disagreement can be traced to a basic difference of opinion on what
defines biomechanically good technique. It's telling that neither you
nor Mr. Sloan have shown how posting the little finger is in any way
superior to not posting. (Remember, we're talking about the guitar.
Posting may have some advantages for lute playing.) Nor have you argued
that it gives a musical result that can't be duplicated by not posting.
(Mr. Sloan offered one peripheral musical argument, which I'll address
in a moment.) You both focus only on posting the little finger per se,
and you both persuasively argue that it works. Of course it works. I've
never argued otherwise.
But does it work better than standard technique? Mr. Sloan has already
acknowledged that it impedes the movement of A. He's acknowledged that
it restricts string crossing, to the point where he offered a
modification to overcome this flaw. Posting also restricts the hand
movements required for artificial harmonics and tone color changes.
Further, Richard Yates pointed out that guitarists who keep a long nail
on their little finger will find posting a problem. He mentioned the
danger of damaging the soundboard--he might also have added that posting
the nail on a polished surface is very unstable, which defeats the whole
point of posting.
In light of these drawbacks, what advantage does posting have over
standard technique? Mr. Sloan has specified only one situation in which
he defends posting the little finger: playing P-I scale passages in
renaissance music, where he wants a strong/weak accent pattern. But this
is a non sequitur. The strong/weak accents come from alternating the
thumb and finger, not from posting the little finger. So posting offers
no musical advantage in even the narrow circumstance for which Mr. Sloan
defends it.
The only possible advantage offered by posting the little finger is
stability. Indeed, this is its raison d'etre. In almost all situations,
however, this same benefit can be had by resting the thumb on an unused
string. Indeed, this is less restrictive, since the thumb is more
independent from the fingers than are the fingers from each other. Of
course, the thumb can't be posted during P-I alternation. So one could
argue that here is where posting the little finger comes into it own. I
would reply that posting the little finger during P-I alternation is
unnecessary to an accomplished player. An analogy: when first learning
how to ride a bicycle, training wheels may be helpful, but learning to
ride without them opens up a whole new level of riding.
This is the crux of the matter, and it bears repeating. To defend
posting the little finger, one must show that it offers physical or
musical advantages over standard right hand technique. Evaluating any
technique without comparing it to the alternatives is meaningless.
Caroline Usher
>
> I sympathize with your critical view of the progressive history of art.
> (Has any current composer surpassed J. S. Bach?) But I don't think
> instrumental technique qualifies as art. Technique is the means by which
> we make music audible, so I don't minimize its importance. Further,
> technique ultimately must bow to musical goals. But technique also has a
> physical component, and this is where we have an advantage over our
> predecessors. We may not know more about art than they did, but we
> certainly know more about how the human body works.
While physicians and specialists in anatomy know a lot more about how the
hand works, I question whether 99.99% of musicians do. Otherwise why are
there so many musicians who injure themselves?
But my main point concerning "advances" in technique is:
The technique/s you use depend entirely on the musical style and effects
you are trying to achieve! This is why it makes no sense to talk about
"advances" in technique! Technique changes because musical style changes,
not because players learn more about the hand.
In the Middle Ages, the lute was played with a plectrum. It was
constructed to work and sound well with a plectrum. For example, from
iconographic evidence the strings were spaced very widely at the bridge.
Then sometime in the fifteenth century people started playing with their
fingers. Presumably because they liked the sound and the musical
effect--taste was changing. They started playing intabulations of vocal
music. As Ray Nurse once put it, players went to their builders and said
something like, "I'm playing with my fingers now and I'm playing a lot of
vocal music, can you make it sound more like a choir?" Builders scratched
their heads, said, "hmmm" and started making some pretty radical changes.
One simple, clearly visible change is that the strings are closer together
at the bridge (although still not parallel as on a guitar). Undoubtedly
there were many other changes as well.
Then around the beginning of the seventeenth century tastes changed
again. Disparaging comments can be read about the old-fashioned way of
playing (thumb under) and the poor tone it produces. All the major
players started to play thumb-out. A new style had come in. They liked
that tone better than the tone of thumb-under technique. The musical
structure was changing too.
Was the new technique objectively better? The new sound objectively more
musical? No. It was just a change in taste.
Same with changes between the way the guitar was played in the nineteenth
century, with pinkie down, and modern technique. Musicians and composers
are doing different things. Not better, not more knowledgeable.
> Our disagreement can be traced to a basic difference of opinion on what
> defines biomechanically good technique. It's telling that neither you
> nor Mr. Sloan have shown how posting the little finger is in any way
> superior to not posting.
Because I don't think it is superior. I think it's different.
[snip]
> The only possible advantage offered by posting the little finger is
> stability.
Well, I find it telling that you continue to talk about "posting" the
little finger and stability after I've tried to explain that that is not
what it's about (in Renaissance technique). Again, what you perceive to
be the main point is not what I think is the main point. So we are
talking past each other.
[snip]
>
> This is the crux of the matter, and it bears repeating. To defend
> posting the little finger, one must show that it offers physical or
> musical advantages over standard right hand technique. Evaluating any
> technique without comparing it to the alternatives is meaningless.
Evaluating any technique independent of the musical style for which it is
being employed is meaningless.
Joachim
essayist, Frederic V. Grunfeld, explains the mystery surrounding the use of
the little finger of the right hand in lute and guitar playing as follows:
. . .It was not just a nineteenth -century affectation, however, modeled on
the Victorian way of holding a teacup; early instances can be found in
paintings of the sixteenth century, and lutenists have cultivated the same
rigid habit. Thomas Mace, in Musick's Monument (1676), advises players to
set your Little Finger down upon the Belly of the Lute, just under the
Bridge. . . .It steadies the Hand and gives a Certainty to the Grasp."
According to Grunfeld, lute and guitar composers and teachers continued
using and teaching this technique until nearly eighty years after the
invention of the Aguado Machine: . . .the so-called tripodion. . .a
three-legged stand with several attached clamps, which supported the guitar
so that this would eliminate the dampening effects of the conventional
body-hold, so that "the whole instrument can vibrate without interference."
It also left him free to use the physical strength of both hands to draw
from the guitar all of its tonal resources." That meant that he could break
away from the tradition of playing with the pinky of the right hand stiffly
braced against the top, or the bridge --a very awkward position, considered
very good form at the time, which
most guitar teachers did not discard for another eighty years.
. . .It is this static hand position, with the little finger fairly glued to
the top, that can be seen on most of the great French guitar paintings as
far as Manet, and in the dozens of popular lithographs and steel engravings
that document the course of la guitaromanie in France. . .
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the topic.
Best Regards,
Joachim
*******
Notes:
The Art and Times of the Guitar, Frederick V. Grunfeld, The Macmillan
Company (New York, 1969), p.190
*******
Caroline Usher wrote in message ...
>I'd just like to point out that much of the discussion in "Pinkie Wars"
>and other previous threads in this newsgroup is based upon a complete
>misunderstanding of lute technique.
>
>Lute players do NOT "post" or "plant" or "anchor" <shudder> the little
>finger of the right hand on the soundboard.
>
>The little finger is NOT held away from the ring finger by abduction.
>
>The little finger is placed gently on the fingerboard. It is not planted
>firmly in one place and never moved. It can move away from the top string
>when playing on the upper strings (in pitch) and it glides toward the top
>string when playing on the lower strings. [Note: I'm talking about
>Renaissance lute technique here. I don't play Baroque lute, but I do play
>theorbo with my pinkie on the soundboard and thumb out.]
>
>When playing p-i runs, the little finger functions as a hinge and is
>basically held in place by the friction of the fingertip against the
>soundboard. It is not held out away from the hand with tension, nor are
>the hand and arm moved by rapid adduction/abduction of the little finger
>"anchored" on the soundboard. The hand and arm are moved up and down by
>the large muscles of the arm and gravity, helped by a rebound or bounce
>from the joint of the little finger at the bottom of the stroke.
>
>Attempting to test a technique based on a minimal description on the
>internet is laudable, but hardly fair or thorough. One person who has had
>some up-close-and-personal experience with a talented exponent sees
>possibilities in this technique. Somebody else has thought about it and
>can't visualize how it could work, based on some faulty assumptions about
>what "must" be happening inside the hand. Another person says he tried it
>after reading the first person's comments and couldn't get it to work.
>
>I appreciate the participants' willingness to discuss technique in a
>generally respectful and temperate way. But this debate has been
>basically a waste of time because the critics don't know enough about what
>they are talking about to make reasonable criticisms.
>
>As I said before, a lute is not a guitar. Lute technique is not guitar
>technique. You cannot extrapolate good information about lute technique
>from knowledge of classical guitar technique (or banjo technique, or . . .
>.) If you really want to give this technique a fair shake, go to a master
>class or a workshop or get a private lesson with a lutenist who knows
>what's what. Ronn McFarlane has a videotape out now on lute technique; I
>haven't seen it but have known him for years as an excellent performer and
>teacher.
>
>Don't knock it until you've really tried it.
>
Laux-Yates
players to
>set your Little Finger down upon the Belly of the Lute, just under the
>Bridge. . . .It steadies the Hand and gives a Certainty to the Grasp."
>
awkward and unstable. Undoubtedly some of this was simply due to my
unfamiliarity. Is it also possible that, if the shape is inherently less
stable to hold than the guitar, a significant reason for the Planted Pinky
technique is to steady the whole instrument and its relationship to the
hand?
Richard Yates
Lutemann
In article <cpu-290998...@lute.botany.duke.edu>, c...@acpub.duke.edu
(Caroline Usher) writes:
>Then around the beginning of the seventeenth century tastes changed
>again. Disparaging comments can be read about the old-fashioned way of
>playing (thumb under) and the poor tone it produces. All the major
>players started to play thumb-out. A new style had come in. They liked
>that tone better than the tone of thumb-under technique. The musical
>structure was changing too.
>
>Was the new technique objectively better? The new sound objectively more
>musical? No. It was just a change in taste.
>
Not necessarily. We don't really know if it would have been considered an
improvement or not. My suspicion is that it would have.
Kent
Lutemann
In article <cpu-280998...@lute.botany.duke.edu>, c...@acpub.duke.edu
(Caroline Usher) writes:
>I know that Paul O'Dette has a great admiration for Julian Bream's
>musicianship. However I don't think that he sounds like Bream and I
>certainly don't think that he is less musical.
>--
>Caroline Usher
In fairness, I only heard one piece. I thought his tone quality was exactly
like Bream's.
Kent
Caroline Usher
<Please@reply_to_group> wrote:
> In the Art and Times of the Guitar, musician, historian, author, and
> essayist, Frederic V. Grunfeld, explains the mystery surrounding the use of
> the little finger of the right hand in lute and guitar playing as follows:
[snip]
> lutenists have cultivated the same
> rigid habit.
[snip]
> the tradition of playing with the pinky of the right hand stiffly
> braced against the top
[snip]
> . . .It is this static hand position, with the little finger fairly glued to
> the top,
[snip]
Did you read any of my post (which you quoted below)? I've been trying to
make the point that the pinkie is not stiff, rigid, fixed in one spot,
anchored. . . .
It might have occurred to Mr. Grunfeld that it looked "static" because he
had only *still* images available.
Joachim
The article was submitted in response to the notion that there was never any
precedent in Lute playing or guitar technique that supported the practice of
anchoring the little finger on the bridge or belly of either of the two
instruments.
I don't support this practice, I am just showing a historical precedent and
basis for its origins. I never implied that Mr. Grunfeld advocates this
practice either.
Seventeenth Century and Nineteenth Century paintings may not attest clearly
to this fact in your mind, but Mr. Grunfeld also submits the testimony of
Thomas Mace, lutenist, in Musick's Monument (1676), who wholeheartedly
recommends it.
Best Regards,
Joachim
*********
Caroline Usher wrote in message ...
Caroline Usher
<Please@reply_to_group> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The article was submitted in response to the notion that there was never any
> precedent in Lute playing or guitar technique that supported the practice of
> anchoring the little finger on the bridge or belly of either of the two
> instruments.
I think you misunderstood my comments. I have specifically objected to
the word "anchored" when applied to the lute technique of playing with the
little finger touching the soundboard because it gives a false impression
of how the technique works. As reconstructed from careful study of
documentary and iconographic evidence, the technique does not involve
gluing the finger down, rigidity, stiffness, etc. etc.
Joachim
I have no quarrel with your disapproval of the word anchored, glued, posted,
ect.. or any other word that describes the ancient practice I quoted in Mr.
Grunfeld's article (specifically, that of the *setting down* of the little
finger of the right hand down on top or near the bridge of the instrument
to steady it).
The contribution of Mr. Grunfeld's article was solely intended for
historical
clarification. It is your prerogative to disagree with it and anything else
that was stated.
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the topic.
Best Regards,
Joachim
Caroline Usher wrote in message ...
Tom Poore
> While physicians and specialists in anatomy know a
> lot more about how the hand works, I question whether
> 99.99% of musicians do. Otherwise why are there so
> many musicians who injure themselves?
While I question your specific percentage, I would agree. But this
doesn't refute my assertion that we know more about how the human body
works. It suggests only that this knowledge hasn't universally
established itself among musicians. Most musicians injure themselves
through ignorance. This will change only when more of them understand
what biomechanically sound technique is.
> But my main point concerning "advances" in technique is:
> The technique/s you use depend entirely on the musical
> style and effects you are trying to achieve! This is why
> it makes no sense to talk about "advances" in technique!
> Technique changes because musical style changes, not
> because players learn more about the hand.
I agree that changes in musical style influence technique. But to say
this is the only reason for technical change is simply false. For
example, the major advances in piano technique during the 19th and early
20th centuries weren't driven solely by musical changes. They were also
driven by the realization that many players were being crippled by the
old school of technical pedagogy. (For those who haven't read it, I
recommend George Kochevitsky's "The Art of Piano Playing.") The old
school produced many fine players, so if we evaluate it solely on
musical terms, the old school was successful. But it also caused
permanent and debilitating injury to many other players. Thus, a full
evaluation of any technical concept must address both musical and
physical concerns.
Consider the current stricture in guitar pedagogy against sharply
deviating the right hand wrist. There's no purely musical reason for
this--the stricture is based on physical factors. (Although gross
physical deficiencies in technique almost always result in musical
deficiencies, either immediate or eventual.)
I wrote:
> Our disagreement can be traced to a basic difference
> of opinion on what defines biomechanically good tech-
> nique. It's telling that neither you nor Mr. Sloan have
> shown how posting the little finger is in any way
> superior to not posting.
Caroline Usher wrote:
> Because I don't think it is superior. I think it's different.
"Different" isn't a qualitative judgment. It tells us nothing regarding
the relative merits of two technical concepts. To defend resting the
little finger, one must show either that it's better than standard
technique or that it's equal. At the very least, one must show it has
specific advantages--either physical or musical--that outweigh its
drawbacks.
> Well, I find it telling that you continue to talk about
> "posting" the little finger and stability after I've tried
> to explain that that is not what it's about (in Renais-
> sance technique).
Then I'll no longer use the terms "posting" or "anchoring." Instead,
I'll refer to the technique under discussion as "resting" the little
finger against the soundboard. But I don't see how this changes
anything. Whether you're posting, anchoring, or resting, you're still
restricting the free movement of your right hand, which is entirely
avoided by standard technique.
Since you've suggested I still don't understand the technique, let's
examine your own description:
> When playing p-i runs, the little finger functions
> as a hinge and is basically held in place by the fric-
> tion of the fingertip against the soundboard. It is
> not held out away from the hand with tension, nor
> are the hand and arm moved by rapid adduction/ab-
> duction of the little finger "anchored" on the sound-
> board. The hand and arm are moved up and down by
> the large muscles of the arm and gravity, helped by
> a rebound or bounce from the joint of the little finger
> at the bottom of the stroke. (9-24 post)
Your description calls into question John Sloan's assertion that this
technique causes no additional tension over standard technique. The term
"rebound" implies tension. There's no feeling of rebound unless there's
resistance to rebound against. Something is pulling your hand in the
direction of the rebound. That something is the tension caused by
resting the little finger.
One might argue this tension is necessary to the technique and thus
isn't excessive. This is true only if there's no better alternative. But
if another technique gets the same musical result and avoids the tension
caused by resting the finger, then the additional tension is excessive.
It's excessive because it can be avoided with another technique. The
only way to refute this argument is to show that standard technique
causes a problem that's avoided by resting the finger. No one has yet
done this.
> Evaluating any technique independent of the musical style
> for which it is being employed is meaningless.
Exactly the point made in my previous post when I said: "To defend
posting the little finger, one must show that it offers physical or
MUSICAL advantages over standard right hand technique." (Emphasis
added.)
In my last post, I pointed out specific drawbacks of resting the little
finger. No one has refuted them. I also asked for any musical benefit of
resting the little finger that can't be duplicated with standard
technique. No one has offered anything. Until someone compellingly
demonstrates a real advantage that resting the little finger has over
standard technique, I see no reason for classical guitarists to revive
it.
David G. Brown
thread with interest (not to mention bemusement) I would like to offer a few
comments.
It seems to me that a definitive proof that posting the little finger in the
manner that is used on the lute is biomechanically unsound, has yet to be
satisfactorily offered. At best, it would be safe to say that it is not
particularly useful when applied to the classical guitar. But what about the
lute? Are not the many players who have used this technique, either
historically or in the modern era, without harm or foul, and with musical
finesse; ample proof of the viability and biomechanical soundness of this
technique?
I think if we turned the whole debate around and examined what might happen
if a guitarist directly applied their modern technique to the lute, we may
very well discover that there are certain aspects of that technique that are
biomechanically unsound. It would be interesting to hear from guitarists who
have done this, and if they had to make any "compromises" in their technique
to accommodate the lute. I would be very surprised if anyone has been able
to do this without some drastic accommodations. Has anyone considered
abandoning their guitar assumptions wholeheartedly to start from scratch?
My point here is that each instrument has it's own demands. It goes beyond a
discussion of tension which in some ways is irrelevant( does it really truly
matter that x technique uses 10% more energy and creates 2% more tension
than y), and goes to the element of style and the technique that best
produces the desired musical effect.
To me their is a drastic difference in the sound of a lute played with
guitar technique, to that using more traditional means. I, like many
guitarists adored Julian Bream's lute recordings, but the first time I ever
heard Paul O'Dette I was in heaven. As far as I can tell there is nothing
biomechanically deficient in his playing.
BTW I have never played lute. I'm also a personal friend of John Sloan's.
I hope I haven't muddled the issue.
David G. Brown
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Lutemann
In article <6v1otg$1...@priv-sys04-le0.telusplanet.net>, "David G. Brown"
<grai...@planet.eon.net> writes:
>I think if we turned the whole debate around and examined what might happen
>if a guitarist directly applied their modern technique to the lute, we may
>very well discover that there are certain aspects of that technique that are
>biomechanically unsound. It would be interesting to hear from guitarists who
>have done this, and if they had to make any "compromises" in their technique
If Julian Bream had lived in the 16th century, he would have had no problem
getting a gig in some royal court. In fact, he'd probably be one of the most
famous musicians alive.
Kent
Tom Poore
> does it really truly matter that x technique uses 10%
> more energy and creates 2% more tension than y
I realize you're not claiming to have accurately measured the figures
you're quoting here. But your question is a serious one.
Consider that guitar technique isn't one thing. It's a group of things,
comprising many strategies for coping with all the musical demands a
guitarist faces. Seating position, right hand position, left hand
position, free stroke, rest stroke, string crossing, etc.--these are all
crucial factors in putting across the music. Each of them can be done in
many different ways: some equal to each other, some better than others,
some worse.
A guitarist's level of accomplishment is directly related to the quality
of the many decisions he or she makes regarding technique. Each bad
decision chips away at a guitarist's ability to make good music. One
decision that yields two percent less efficiency may seem trivial, but a
series of such bad decisions adds up. Two percent here, two percent
there--pretty soon we're talking about a whole lotta bad.
Incidently, there's something I've never understood throughout this
thread. Why do people so passionately defend a technical concept that
has no unique musical justification? Such a concept is merely an
alternative approach to finger wiggling, and should be evaluated as
such. If another technique causes even a little less tension, then why
defend the technique that causes more? We're not talking about a litter
of puppies--we don't have to preserve a lesser technical concept because
it has an intrinsic right to exist.
To answer your question, if someone can show me a technique that uses
two percent less tension than the alternatives, then that's the
technique I'll advocate and teach to my students. It may be too late for
me to improve my own playing, but shouldn't I offer the best to the next
generation of players?
David G. Brown
Lutemann wrote in message >
>>I think if we turned the whole debate around and examined what might
happen
>>if a guitarist directly applied their modern technique to the lute, we may
>>very well discover that there are certain aspects of that technique that
are
>>biomechanically unsound. It would be interesting to hear from guitarists
who
>>have done this, and if they had to make any "compromises" in their
technique
>
>If Julian Bream had lived in the 16th century, he would have had no problem
>getting a gig in some royal court. In fact, he'd probably be one of the
most
>famous musicians alive.
>
>Kent
Julian Bream would probably have been a great musician in any era, even in
the age when the bow and arrow was the closest thing there was to a stringed
instrument. I'm not sure what technique he'd be using though.
David G. Brown
Bob Ashley
> David G. Brown wrote:
>
> > does it really truly matter that x technique uses 10%
> > more energy and creates 2% more tension than y
> Consider that guitar technique isn't one thing. It's a group of things,
> comprising many strategies for coping with all the musical demands a
> guitarist faces. Seating position, right hand position, left hand
> position, free stroke, rest stroke, string crossing, etc.--these are all
> crucial factors in putting across the music. Each of them can be done in
> many different ways: some equal to each other, some better than others,
> some worse.
>
> A guitarist's level of accomplishment is directly related to the quality
> of the many decisions he or she makes regarding technique. Each bad
> decision chips away at a guitarist's ability to make good music. One
> decision that yields two percent less efficiency may seem trivial, but a
> series of such bad decisions adds up. Two percent here, two percent
> there--pretty soon we're talking about a whole lotta bad.
I shouldn't be surprised, given Tom's penchant for analytic order and
scientistic rigour that he might derive a 'calculus' for 'solving' "[a]
guitarist's level of accomplishment". Naturally, given my 'dis'-ease with
such things I am wondering about a thing or two.
Tom's first paragraph describes a 'constellation' or 'mosaic' of guitar
techniques that make for the complete guitarist--given that she makes the
best decisions about each technique. "Each bad decision chips away at a
guitarists ability..." This seems to make some sense, especially if we can
imagine a constellation or mosaic still somehow holding together,
remaining more or less intact, appearing intelligible, as we 'chip' off
this piece (bad decision) or that star (bad decision).
There are some strengths in Tom's perspective. After all, he could listen
to me and be heard to say, "Bob, your technique falters here and there for
the reason of some bad decisions you've made about x and y".
Another way to look at technique is not a static constellation of parts
but rather as a dynamic of gears and belts.Parts that move together
interdependently, not parts that plug into a static structure. My model
may appear overly mechanistic, but what it does do well, I think, is to
cast a scrutinous light on the 'stasis' of Tom's model. All the
'sub-techniques' in Tom's mosaic are not the mere sum of one's decisions
on that or this technique alone.
My model is more dramatic (it's weakness) for it asks us to imagine how
the 'guitar machine' seizes up, fails, dies, whatever you want to call,
when any one of the 'subparts' (you pick 'em) falters. That is, if
right-hand technique is primitive, no amount of brilliant decision-making
all the sum total of all other technique is going to save you from
sounding like 'Koko' the gorilla-guitarist. My destination with this line
of thinking is this tenet, one as basic as Tom's: the 'level of
accomplishment' is only so secure as the least secure technique in one's
kit bag. This is so because techniques are both interdependent and
dynamic, not discrete and static.
Bob Ashley
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
David G. Brown
Tom Poore wrote in message <36151E55...@po.cwru.edu>...
>David G. Brown wrote:
>
>> does it really truly matter that x technique uses 10%
>> more energy and creates 2% more tension than y
>
>you're quoting here. But your question is a serious one.
>
>comprising many strategies for coping with all the musical demands a
>guitarist faces. Seating position, right hand position, left hand
>position, free stroke, rest stroke, string crossing, etc.--these are all
>crucial factors in putting across the music. Each of them can be done in
>many different ways: some equal to each other, some better than others,
>some worse.
>
>A guitarist's level of accomplishment is directly related to the quality
>of the many decisions he or she makes regarding technique. Each bad
>decision chips away at a guitarist's ability to make good music. One
>decision that yields two percent less efficiency may seem trivial, but a
>series of such bad decisions adds up. Two percent here, two percent
>there--pretty soon we're talking about a whole lotta bad
I certainly cannot quibble with your assertions here if we are are talking
about a fixed set of assumptions concerning instrumenal technique. I am sure
that within the realm of the playing principles that you hold dear, there
can not be any room for bad decisions. This does not mean that one cannot
take a different path to succesful technique. If one does, then there may be
certain aspects of that technique that are directly comparable in your
preferred method. In these cases it may be that you could find minor or even
significant differences in tension created. The comparison on it's own may
on first glance deem one way superior to the other, but would it have any
true validity? Would it not be better do weigh the merits of any technical
decision within the parameters of it's greater whole, and compare any
methodologies on the basis of their complete end product.
In comparing what amounts to a lute technique to practical considerations
for the guitar, I'm afraid that you could never arrive at any conclusive
answers. The way this thread seems to have gone in circles appears to be
evidence of that.
>Incidently, there's something I've never understood throughout this
>thread. Why do people so passionately defend a technical concept that
>has no unique musical justification? Such a concept is merely an
>alternative approach to finger wiggling, and should be evaluated as
>such. If another technique causes even a little less tension, then why
>defend the technique that causes more? We're not talking about a litter
>of puppies--we don't have to preserve a lesser technical concept because
>it has an intrinsic right to exist.
I cannot be certain that the technique as described by John Sloan and
Caroline Usher would produce the same musical result as p-i scales produced
by standard classical guitar technique. The juxtaposition of fingers to
string seem to me, to be entirely different. If this is true, then an
argument could be made for it's occasional use. Of course, if it is not
true, then I would completely agree with your statement above.
However, the original issue of whether or not the technique is
biomechanically unsound remains unsolved.
>
>To answer your question, if someone can show me a technique that uses
>two percent less tension than the alternatives, then that's the
>technique I'll advocate and teach to my students. It may be too late for
>me to improve my own playing, but shouldn't I offer the best to the next
>generation of players?
The mark of a good teacher
David G. Brown
Lutemann
In article <6v3s51$7...@priv-sys04-le0.telusplanet.net>, "David G. Brown"
<grai...@planet.eon.net> writes:
>ulian Bream would probably have been a great musician in any era, even in
>the age when the bow and arrow was the closest thing there was to a stringed
>instrument. I'm not sure what technique he'd be using though.
>
>David G. Brown
I saying that his guitar technique would have been very much appreciated in the
16th century. The implication by the historical people is that the technique
changed because of musical tastes. I question this.
Kent
Lutemann
In article <6v5gtg$3mj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jsl...@telusplanet.net writes:
>MacDuff has met his match, and the opponent all along
>was nothing more than his own dogmatic, a priori approach
>to technique. MacDuff defeated himself by placing more
>value on definitions than on evidence.
>
>John Sloan
I think he has on this one. Watch Ronn McFarlane some time and you will see
some pretty interesting technique. It's too bad Christopher Berg is out of the
country or I'd invite his comments. He switched from a successful guitar
career to historical technique and playing the lute. He has some interesting
things to say on this subject.
Kent
David G. Brown
Lutemann wrote in message <19981004145657...@ngol06.aol.com>...
>
>I saying that his guitar technique would have been very much appreciated in
the
>16th century. The implication by the historical people is that the
technique
>changed because of musical tastes. I question this.
>
>Kent
Of course this is pure conjecture. Transplanting any excellent modern player
to an earlier time would be an interesting experiment. My own personal
feeling is that the success or failure of that musician would depend on how
closely their interpretations conformed to the usual practices of the day.
People in general do not like to hear their music played in unfamiliar ways,
and I don't think they give a hoot about techniques employed in creating
it.
There is the possibility that Bream, being the great musician that he is,
would be a quick study and say "hmmm... thats how I should play this", and
get it "right" in short order. Of course, he might wow them right away with
his "historically accurate" twentieth century approach. Who knows. Who
cares.
Anyhow, it is my understanding that the great court musicians of the
sixteenth century were those that composed and improvised. Although Mr.
Bream has been known to do both of these things, and very well , it
certainly is not what we know him best for.
I think we have to give musicians of an earlier time credit for their
ability to think clearly, and intelligently in the development of their
instrumental technique. We also should dispel this ridiculous notion that
modern guitar technique is the panacea for all string instrument styles
whether past, present, or future.
David G. Brown
Caroline Usher
> > It's telling that neither you nor Mr. Sloan have
> > shown how posting the little finger is in any way
> > superior to not posting.
>
> Caroline Usher wrote:
>
> > Because I don't think it is superior. I think it's different.
>
> "Different" isn't a qualitative judgment. It tells us nothing regarding
> the relative merits of two technical concepts. To defend resting the
> little finger, one must show either that it's better than standard
> technique or that it's equal. At the very least, one must show it has
> specific advantages--either physical or musical--that outweigh its
> drawbacks.
[snip]
> In my last post, I pointed out specific drawbacks of resting the little
> finger. No one has refuted them. I also asked for any musical benefit of
> resting the little finger that can't be duplicated with standard
> technique. No one has offered anything. Until someone compellingly
> demonstrates a real advantage that resting the little finger has over
> standard technique, I see no reason for classical guitarists to revive
> it.
I feel like a watercolorist trying to explain myself to someone who has
painted with oils all his life and is totally engaged in what oil paints
can do. Tom is looking at resting the pinkie in isolation and demanding
an isolated "advantage" to justify using it. It's like saying, "But with
oils you can build up the paint so that the surface of the picture has a
texture. Why should I give that up to paint with flat water colors."
Earlier, Tom wrote that he agreed with me that the history of the arts is
not progressive, and cited Bach's music as an example of unsurpassed
artistry. However, he has also argued that the technique used to
re-create the music can be completely divorced from the music itself.
To me, this is like claiming that you can reproduce the effects of
watercolors with oils or acrylics. It's like saying that artists long ago
gave up painting on wood panels for canvas, so we can now draw the
conclusion that canvas must be superior in all situations. It's like
trying to use Mondriaan's palette and brushes to recreate portraits by
Rembrandt. Gee, a lot of important colors seem to be missing. Or trying
to use the impressionists' brush techniques, paints and canvas to
reproduce a fresco by Giotto. Ya know, I'm just not succeeding in getting
those nice clean edges, even though my modern paints and brushes are
undoubtedly technically superior to medieval ones. . . .
I wholeheartedly agree with David Brown's comment that modern classical
guitar technique is not a panacea for all styles of plucked stringed
instruments from all ages.
Tom Poore
> Earlier, Tom wrote that he agreed with me that
> the history of the arts is not progressive, and cited
> Bach's music as an example of unsurpassed artistry.
> However, he has also argued that the technique used
> to re-create the music can be completely divorced
> from the music itself.
I've never said this. Here's what I've said:
"I agree that changes in musical style influence technique. But to say
this is the only reason for technical change is simply false." (10-1
response to Usher)
...and:
"Thus, a full evaluation of any technical concept must address both
musical and physical concerns." (ibid.)
> I feel like a watercolorist trying to explain myself
> to someone who has painted with oils all his life and
> is totally engaged in what oil paints can do. Tom is
> looking at resting the pinkie in isolation and demanding
> an isolated "advantage" to justify using it. It's like saying,
> "But with oils you can build up the paint so that the sur-
> face of the picture has a texture. Why should I give that
> up to paint with flat water colors."
Because there are things that can be done with water colors that can't
be done with oils. Any reasonably articulate water color painter can
describe these things. A diehard oil painter may not care about these
things, but he can't refute them. At best, he can only say that he
doesn't want to paint that way. That, of course, doesn't refute the
unique possibilities of water colors.
If a water color artist can cite the unique visual characteristics of
his chosen medium, why haven't you cited the unique musical
characteristics to resting the little finger?
For example, if you wanted to defend the use of gut strings, you could
argue that they offer a unique sound that can't be duplicated by nylon.
This difference is clearly audible, and can be described in concrete
language. If someone remains stubbornly obtuse in the face of your
verbal description, you can point him toward recordings or, if possible,
a live performance. He might say he doesn't like the sound of gut
strings. He might say that gut strings have more intonation problems. He
might say that gut strings don't offer the bright overtones that nylon
strings offer. But none of these objections refute the obvious fact that
nylon doesn't sound like gut. Anyone with a good ear can hear the
difference. That's all the justification you need to defend the use of
gut strings.
So what sound is offered by resting the little finger that can't be
duplicated with standard technique? I've repeatedly asked for someone to
cite ANY musical consideration unique to resting the little finger.
You've implied they exist, but you haven't cited any. Why the secrecy?
If there's a musical result that can be had only by resting the little
finger, then please describe it.
> I wholeheartedly agree with David Brown's comment that
> modern classical guitar technique is not a panacea for all
> styles of plucked stringed instruments from all ages.
With all due respect to Mr. Brown, I've never made such a claim. Here
are some relevant excerpts from previous posts of mine:
"As I pointed out in an earlier post, the lute is very different from
the guitar. Techniques that work on the lute don't necessarily work well
on the guitar." (9-18 response to Sloan)
"I agree with Caroline Usher--the guitar and lute are two very different
instruments, and the technique for one isn't necessarily valid for the
other." (9-25 response to Sloan)
"I also remind you that I've consistently debated the merits of this
technique only for guitarists. Indeed, my only extended discussion of
lute playing on this thread was to highlight the differences between the
lute and guitar. My point was that the lute makes unique demands on the
player that aren't duplicated by the guitar. Thus, lutenists may have
good reasons--reasons unique to the lute and not applicable to the
guitar--for posting the right hand finger." (9-27 response to Usher)
"Remember, we're talking about the guitar. Posting may have some
advantages for lute playing." (9-28 response to Usher)
I apologize to both you and Mr. Brown if I sound testy, but I'm getting
tired of being accused of attacking early music players. I've repeatedly
said that the lute is a different instrument, so what works on it
doesn't necessarily work on the modern guitar. In my 9-13 post, I listed
reasons why resting the little finger might be useful for lute players.
I've also repeatedly said that I'm discussing modern guitar technique.
So can we please drop the spurious charge that I think modern guitar
technique is applicable to other instruments?
Tom Poore
> That's because, Tom, you apparently haven't understood
> that the sole focus of this thread is about whether or
> not YOU could prove your dogmatic assertion that playing
> p-i runs in the lute position on the classical guitar is
> biomechanically unsound. PERIOD! This thread has never
> been about my defending the technique. I don't know why
> you keep ignoring that fact.
You keep challenging me to prove a technique is biomechanically unsound
without comparing it to any other technique. This is absurd. Consider
the following example:
Fret the F major seventh chord from measure 15 of BWV 999. (You can pick
up the top three notes by barring with the fourth finger, or by stopping
the notes individually with your second, third, and fourth fingers.
Either way will do for this example.) Assuming you have an average sized
hand, this is a bit of a stretch, so you'll feel some tension. Does this
mean the technique is biomechanically unsound? Of course not. It's sound
because there's no better way to play this specific combination of
notes.
Tension alone doesn't make a technique biomechanically unsound. Only if
the tension can be avoided with an alternative technique does it become
unsound. Thus, no technique can be evaluated without comparing it to
possible alternatives.
An analogy: A man is about to enter a 100 meter dash. "Which is the
better technique to win the dash," he asks, "walking or running?" You
reply that running is better. "What's wrong with walking?" asks the man.
You reply that walking is slower than running. "Don't change the
subject!" he demands. "We're not talking about running. We're talking
about walking. Prove there's something wrong with walking." Every time
you try to say that running is faster than walking, the man repeats his
objection: don't compare walking to running, just prove that walking is
bad. PERIOD!
John, in the past I've found you to be a reasonable man. So I trust
you'll soon recognize the inherent flaw in your challenge.
David G. Brown
Tom Poore wrote
>> I wholeheartedly agree with David Brown's comment that
>> modern classical guitar technique is not a panacea for all
>> styles of plucked stringed instruments from all ages.
>
>With all due respect to Mr. Brown, I've never made such a claim. <snip>
>I've also repeatedly said that I'm discussing modern guitar technique.
>So can we please drop the spurious charge that I think modern guitar
>technique is applicable to other instruments?
My apologies if I have inadvertantly mistated your position. I was merely
responding directly to Kent Murdick's fantasy of a twentieth century Julian
Bream transported to the sixteenth century. I never for a moment intended my
comment to be directed at you personally, although I can see where you might
get that impression. Your views are always clear and well written while
stated with conviction. I have been fully aware that you have been
discussing a specific technique, solely on it's merit (or lack thereof).
Again, my apologies.
I also realize that my statement was far too general to be useful. I much
prefer Caroline Usher's restatement.
David G. Brown
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
>
Fourpieces
>
>That you were unable to meet the challenge does not make
>it flawed, Tom. I trust that from now on you'll be more
>careful about asserting too boldly that this or that technique
>is inferior or biomechanically unsound, knowing you might
>be called upon to prove your case, and knowing how difficult
>it is to do so when you don't really understand the technique
>in question.
>
John,
I posted onto this thread very early on & then decided to stay out of it.
Since then I have been following the thread & I believe Tom has made some very
valid points as have you. The debate sparked my interest & I decided to contact
a accomplished lutenist I know & find out what he had to say on the issue. His
opinion was that it helped the lutenist 'find' there way on lutes with alot of
strings - arch lutes & such. I would think he meant because the fingerboard is
larger, it helps the player navigate position with more ease on these larger
fingerboards.Moreover, he added that it aided in using the thumb 'in the
style'. He also stated that guitarists don't use the approach because it
constricts the movement of the 'a' finger & that it cuts down on 'the color
palette'.
Going on this evidence from an accomplished player, I would say that Tom
does have a point, that for guitarists it is biomechanical unsound because it
constricts the use of the 'a' finger. Free movement of the 'a' finger is a
neccesity to the guitarist, as is a 'balanced' color palette. Moreover, if part
of the 'defintion' of biomechanically unsound is that there is an easier way to
accomplish the same musical end, there is another problem with your arguement.
Whereas, the guitar fingerboard is smaller than the lutes, so there is no
reason to 'post' (for lack of a better word), because there is no need to
'navigate' across it as one would a lute. Meaning standard guitar technique
will do because it encompasses the full width range of the neck & there is no
need to navigate across its neck as one would a lute. In these aspects the
technique is biomechically unsound as I see it.
Now this being the case & you have a better understanding of the technique
than I, that does not mean it cannot be applied to the guitar. Whereas, if you
want to use the thumb "in the style', you would be correct to do so. Moreover,
if you want to do p-i runs as such you can, because the technique does not
inhibit these fingers. So in this aspect it is not biomechanically unsound. But
I would add, the only reason to 'post' is to be more' in the style' Whereas,
there are no benefits to the guitarist for employing this method, because the
same results can be yielded from standard technique. Why? Because the
fingerboard is not as large as the lutes'.
So what I am trying to say is that as I 'the viewer' sees it... you are both
actually correct on your respective arguements. Depending on how you are
interpreting the term 'bio-mechanically unsound' & depending on how your apply
your interpretation to the issue under debate.
Best,
Matthew
Lutemann
In article <19981007023655...@ng149.aol.com>, fourp...@aol.com
(Fourpieces) writes:
> Going on this evidence from an accomplished player, I would say that Tom
>does have a point, that for guitarists it is biomechanical unsound because it
>constricts the use of the 'a' finger. Free movement of the 'a' finger is a
>neccesity to the guitarist, as is a 'balanced' color palette. Moreover, if
>part
>of the 'defintion' of biomechanically unsound is that there is an easier way
>to
>accomplish the same musical end, there is another problem with your
>arguement.
>Whereas, the guitar fingerboard is smaller than the lutes, so there is no
This is essentially the issue. The 'a' finger is not not normally use in lute
playing except in four note chords. If you think of thumb under technique as
deriving from pick style, you will see that it appears to be biomechanically
sound. Jazz guitarist usually rest the little finger somewhere and merely
rotate the wrist to get the down and up stroke. The same is true for pi in
thumb under technique. This technique is easy to learn (I'm told), very fast
and crosses the strings easily--perhaps easier than im. The only reason I use
guitar technique on the lute is that I don't have the time to learn a new
technique. Also, I can't hear any difference in the actual performance.
Kent
Tom Poore
> That you were unable to meet the challenge does not
> make it flawed, Tom. I trust that from now on you'll
> be more careful about asserting too boldly that this
> or that technique is inferior or biomechanically un-
> sound, knowing you might be called upon to prove your
> case, and knowing how difficult it is to do so when you
> don't really understand the technique in question.
Throughout the debate, you gradually defined away any meaningful
criteria for proving anything. First, you strictly limited the
application of resting the little finger:
> The original context for this discussion was for p-i runs
> in the lute position, and nothing else. That hasn't changed,
> so none of this other stuff is relevant. I have never con-
> sidered or mentioned posting the little finger in any other
> context and I'm not going to. (Sloan: 9-24)
The fact that guitar music seldom conforms to such a limited application
means nothing to you. At your insistence, we're to consider resting the
little finger only under the extremely narrow circumstance you describe.
Thus, versatility--an important biomechanical consideration for
technique--is defined out of the debate.
But there was more to come. At first, you identified only two musical
considerations for resting the little finger:
> I'm not sure there is an advantage. It's just another way of
> doing p-i runs, and some people might find it easier to accent
> the strong beats with p this way. Another possible advantage
> is that it is easier to do runs without the nails this way, so I
> would say it adds another tool to the guitarist's tonal palette.
> That's about it. (Sloan: 9-13)
Notice that these considerations are irrelevant to the technique we're
discussing. They're the result of P-I alternation, not resting the
little finger.
Surprisingly, you soon entirely excluded musical considerations from our
debate. In my 9-13 post, I pointed out that lutenists don't use color
changes as much as modern classical guitarists. Since color changes are
an important part of a guitarist's expressive arsenal, this argues
against resting the little finger in guitar playing. You replied:
> This point has merit as far as interpretation goes, but it
> doesn't say why playing p-i runs in the lute position on CG
> is biomechanically unsound. (Sloan: 9-13)
So now musical considerations are defined out of the debate. This flies
in the face of my repeated insistence that musical considerations must
be part of any discussion of biomechanically sound technique.
But there was still more to come. No technique can be evaluated in a
vacuum. For a meaningful evaluation, a technique must be compared to
possible alternatives. You at first appeared to understand this:
> I understand "biomechanically unsound" to mean two
> things: 1) the technique violates or goes against the
> natural anatomy of the hand and movements of the fin-
> gers and arm, thereby making it less effective than
> alternate techniques (Sloan: 9-24)
So in your own words, any consideration of biomechanical soundness
includes a comparison between alternative techniques. Yet as the debate
progressed, you discarded this criterion:
> Tom, I don't have to defend anything! Quit changing the subject.
> YOU have to prove your contention that playing p-i runs in the
> lute position with the little finger planted on the soundboard
> is biomechanically unsound, period. (Sloan: 9-24)
You thus defined away any consideration of alternative techniques. In
your view, we're to consider resting the little finger as though no
possible alternative exists.
So let's review. I'm to prove that resting the little finger is
biomechanically unsound, but I can't use any of the following criteria:
1) versatility
2) musical considerations
3) comparison to possible alternatives
Of course, I can't prove anything under these absurd stipulations. So
you accuse me of refusing to admit I'm wrong:
> Tom, why don't you just admit that your initial knee-jerk
> assertion that playing p-i runs in the lute position is
> biomechanically unsound is something you can't prove
> and leave it at that? (Sloan: 10-3)
...and you declare yourself the winner of our debate:
> MacDuff has met his match, and the opponent all along
> was nothing more than his own dogmatic, a priori approach
> to technique. MacDuff defeated himself by placing more
> value on definitions than on evidence. (Sloan: 10-3)
Okay, you beat me. If you can get Evander Holyfield to tie his arms
behind his back, you can probably beat him too.
Fourpieces
>Okay, let's leave it at that and go on to other topics.
>
>John Sloan
>
Sure.. why not.
Best,
Matthew
Caroline Usher
> Caroline Usher wrote:
>
> > I feel like a watercolorist trying to explain myself
> > to someone who has painted with oils all his life and
> > is totally engaged in what oil paints can do. [snip]
>
> Because there are things that can be done with water colors that can't
> be done with oils. Any reasonably articulate water color painter can
> describe these things. A diehard oil painter may not care about these
> things, but he can't refute them. At best, he can only say that he
> doesn't want to paint that way. That, of course, doesn't refute the
> unique possibilities of water colors.
>
[big snip]
I'm sorry if I misrepresented Tom's position, and I don't think he has
attacked players of early music. I haven't had time to archive and then
carefully backtrack this thread, and with my increasingly fallible memory
I have probably conflated remarks he made with attitudes expressed by
other people. I was thinking of statements like this, from an earlier
post,
> One might argue this tension is necessary to the technique and thus
> isn't excessive. This is true only if there's no better alternative. But
> if another technique gets the same musical result and avoids the tension
> caused by resting the finger, then the additional tension is excessive.
> It's excessive because it can be avoided with another technique. The
> only way to refute this argument is to show that standard technique
> causes a problem that's avoided by resting the finger. No one has yet
> done this.
Which, taken out of the context of all of Tom's posts, does seem to be
making an absolute statement about technique. I shouldn't have taken it
out of context.
I really wasn't trying to be snide with my watercolor analogy. By
referring to something that people are familiar with, I hope to give them
an appreciation of the differences I was trying to explain. Because
people are already familiar with watercolors, we can talk about their
characteristics in a way that is more difficult with lute music and
technique. (I also happen to find it easier to talk objectively about
things that are seen than things that are heard. How do you describe the
components of good tone?)
> So what sound is offered by resting the little finger that can't be
> duplicated with standard technique? I've repeatedly asked for someone to
> cite ANY musical consideration unique to resting the little finger.
> You've implied they exist, but you haven't cited any. Why the secrecy?
> If there's a musical result that can be had only by resting the little
> finger, then please describe it.
I guess my answer is that there is no musical result that comes directly
and only from resting the little finger. Resting the little finger is
just one component of a complex technique that involves how the notes are
stressed and articulated, the angle of the fingers across the strings
(thus affecting tone), accuracy in finding the strings, and probably a
bunch of other things that I could think of if I didn't have one foot out
the door to drive up to my dad's for his birthday. (Sorry about that!)
I do encourage people to get Ronn McFarlane's video, which I plan to do
myself so that I can make sensible comments on it. It's available from
Mel Bay.
Thanks for listening,
GGEG
Tom Poore <t...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in article
<3619EF2C...@po.cwru.edu>...
> Caroline Usher wrote:
>
> > Earlier, Tom wrote that he agreed with me that
> > the history of the arts is not progressive, and cited
> > Bach's music as an example of unsurpassed artistry.
> > However, he has also argued that the technique used
> > to re-create the music can be completely divorced
> > from the music itself.
>
> I've never said this. Here's what I've said:
>
> "I agree that changes in musical style influence technique. But to say
> this is the only reason for technical change is simply false." (10-1
> response to Usher)
>
> ...and:
>
> "Thus, a full evaluation of any technical concept must address both
> musical and physical concerns." (ibid.)
>
> > I feel like a watercolorist trying to explain myself
> > to someone who has painted with oils all his life and
> > is totally engaged in what oil paints can do. Tom is
> > looking at resting the pinkie in isolation and demanding
> > an isolated "advantage" to justify using it. It's like saying,
> > "But with oils you can build up the paint so that the sur-
> > face of the picture has a texture. Why should I give that
> > up to paint with flat water colors."
>
> Because there are things that can be done with water colors that can't
> be done with oils. Any reasonably articulate water color painter can
> describe these things. A diehard oil painter may not care about these
> things, but he can't refute them. At best, he can only say that he
> doesn't want to paint that way. That, of course, doesn't refute the
> unique possibilities of water colors.
>
> If a water color artist can cite the unique visual characteristics of
> his chosen medium, why haven't you cited the unique musical
> characteristics to resting the little finger?
>
> For example, if you wanted to defend the use of gut strings, you could
> argue that they offer a unique sound that can't be duplicated by nylon.
> This difference is clearly audible, and can be described in concrete
> language. If someone remains stubbornly obtuse in the face of your
> verbal description, you can point him toward recordings or, if possible,
> a live performance. He might say he doesn't like the sound of gut
> strings. He might say that gut strings have more intonation problems. He
> might say that gut strings don't offer the bright overtones that nylon
> strings offer. But none of these objections refute the obvious fact that
> nylon doesn't sound like gut. Anyone with a good ear can hear the
> difference. That's all the justification you need to defend the use of
> gut strings.
>
> So what sound is offered by resting the little finger that can't be
> duplicated with standard technique? I've repeatedly asked for someone to
> cite ANY musical consideration unique to resting the little finger.
> You've implied they exist, but you haven't cited any. Why the secrecy?
> If there's a musical result that can be had only by resting the little
> finger, then please describe it.
>
> > I wholeheartedly agree with David Brown's comment that
> > modern classical guitar technique is not a panacea for all
> > styles of plucked stringed instruments from all ages.
>
> With all due respect to Mr. Brown, I've never made such a claim. Here
> are some relevant excerpts from previous posts of mine:
>
> "As I pointed out in an earlier post, the lute is very different from
> the guitar. Techniques that work on the lute don't necessarily work well
> on the guitar." (9-18 response to Sloan)
>
> "I agree with Caroline Usher--the guitar and lute are two very different
> instruments, and the technique for one isn't necessarily valid for the
> other." (9-25 response to Sloan)
>
> "I also remind you that I've consistently debated the merits of this
> technique only for guitarists. Indeed, my only extended discussion of
> lute playing on this thread was to highlight the differences between the
> lute and guitar. My point was that the lute makes unique demands on the
> player that aren't duplicated by the guitar. Thus, lutenists may have
> good reasons--reasons unique to the lute and not applicable to the
> guitar--for posting the right hand finger." (9-27 response to Usher)
>
> "Remember, we're talking about the guitar. Posting may have some
> advantages for lute playing." (9-28 response to Usher)
>
> I apologize to both you and Mr. Brown if I sound testy, but I'm getting
> tired of being accused of attacking early music players. I've repeatedly
> said that the lute is a different instrument, so what works on it
> doesn't necessarily work on the modern guitar. In my 9-13 post, I listed
> reasons why resting the little finger might be useful for lute players.
> I've also repeatedly said that I'm discussing modern guitar technique.
> So can we please drop the spurious charge that I think modern guitar
> technique is applicable to other instruments?
>
Fourpieces
>shut up and practice
Well this seems to be the most highly intelligent answer I have come across on
this newsgroup in quite awhile!!! Shear genius. Simple & to the point. Thank
you for the enlightenment sir!
sarcastically yours,
Matthew
GGEG
incongruities that are pointed out here sometimes masquerading as
intelligent arguments I shall point out that that proper spellin would be
'sheer' not 'shear' unless you intend to cut my hair!
All in funnily yours
me
Fourpieces <fourp...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981010022301...@ng74.aol.com>...
Fourpieces
>I was just having fun. In keeping with some of the irrelevent personal
>incongruities that are pointed out here sometimes masquerading as
>intelligent arguments I shall point out that that proper spellin would be
>'sheer' not 'shear' unless you intend to cut my hair!
> All in funnily yours
>
I think proper spelling dictates we add a 'G' to the end of 'spellin', since we
are on the topic.
GGEG
Fourpieces <fourp...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981019134611...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
> >
>
> I think proper spelling dictates we add a 'G' to the end of 'spellin',
since we
> are on the topic.
>
GET IT???!!!
Thanks for having a sense of humor!
Fourpieces
>Thanks for having a sense of humor!
>
Of course I got the humor. My first post replying to your "shut up & practice"
was also tongue in cheek. But on a serious note the orginal thread was a
informative.
Best,
Matthew