(Log in to disable ads.)

  • Guitar
  • Classical guitarists are the most technically skilled guitarists

  • [deleted]

Can someone post a video of some exceptional classical guitar work?

Like Keira?, you should know some of the finest classical players on earth... ?

I know none sadly :-[
    PbZepplin wrote: I spotted an article recently. Rolling Stone has compiled a list of who they consider the top 100 guitarists of all time.
    I was rather pissed off about it. My reasons:

    By guitarists, one must assume this includes guitarists of all genres and guitar types:
    electric, acoustic, base and classical (& any others that I may have left out). First of all, all their 'experts' who compiled the
    list are knowledgeable on Rock music, and not necessarily on other Genres. I think Rolling Stone should define what they mean as
    'top guitarists' as being primarily rock guitarists. I would argue that classical guitarists are the most technically correct and skilled guitarists. My reasons:
    With which I shall take issue, though that doesn't imply disrespect of the classical guitar or classical players.
    1. The history behind formal classical guitar technique is hundreds of years old.
    Well... sort of. Probably not as many hundreds as you may think. All current forms of guitar have evolved from earlier instruments like the ud and the lute (the lute having evolved from the ud) and the current form and number of strings is comparatively recent. If you're ever in Oxford (UK) then go the Ashmolean museum and have a look at some of the "guitars" they have there. One in particular - made by Stradivarii and nothing like a modern guitar - smaller bodied, shorter scale, gut strings, gut frets, 5 courses of paired strings....

    Last year Richard Thompson teamed up with some musicians from the globe theatre in London to do a short tour in which they played renaissance songs. He played with a guitar pattened on surviving guitars from that era. Here it is....

    Tuned differently than a modern guitar (and the whole ensemble tuned to a different pitch, the reference "A" note was pitched at 392 Hz, about a tone below the current 440 Hz)

    Also a lot of the technique and theory of the 6 string guitar would apply across styles of guitar and styles of music.

    Though there's no one universal set. Segovia didn't know much about playing in DADGAD, two-handed hammers and pulls, hybrid picking or whammy bars.
    2. Classical guitar technique has evolved to be the most efficient use of movement for guitar, both on the right hand (for plucking the strings) and the left hand (which works the fret board).
    Some truth in that, but see above.... there are things that classical guitarists never have to do.
    Classical guitar technique limits extraneous movement of either hand. The left hand forms a claw, with fingers spaced to be over individual frets, which then act to 'hammer on' to the frets. The technique for the right hand emphasises that each finger is reserved for a particular string, fingers are thrown back, and the thumb does not buckle. Classical guitarists also learn to 'prepare' on the right hand, with fingers being placed on the strings before being played in anticipation. These techniques emphasise an absolute minimum of extraneous movement, which results in experienced classical guitarists being able to play very fast, confidently, and with the minimum of mistakes.
    Well who says jazz or rock or bluegrass or flamenco or whatever players can't play like that?

    Think of the techniques that have evolved around the plectrum (another thing classical players don't have to bother themselves with).

    There are many players outside of the classical world who have taken classical lessons, or who seek to make their movements economical in order that they may play fast and accurately.

    Heard of Martin Simpson? Not a classical player. Brent and I have both seen him playing live, and he's a fantastically accurate and exact player.

    Look, it's an argument worth having, but it's not one that anybody is going to emphatically win. For every technique of Segovia's you can point at I can propose something from other genres. I could show you the famous video of Jerry Donahue demonstrating his array of string-bending techniques, including behind-the-nut bends and another technique he has where he simultaneously bends one string a tone and another a tone-and-a-half.

    It seems to me that it's better to take in as much as you can of the world of guitar techniques and absorb all of those that will help you fulfill your musical vision.
      There are plenty of great Classical Players

      Google Narsisco Yepes, he even plays more strings than CAB , he helped design the 10 string nylon guitar.

        Warren wrote: TL;DR: mastery of the guitar in any genre, be it metal or classical, acoustic or electric, takes years of practice and dedication to that particular genre's technical demands (and sometimes the technical demands of multiple genres). To propose that any single area requires a player to be the "most technically skilled" (or the "most anything", really) is a little ignorant IMO.
        This! +1
        Brentcgp wrote: Can someone post a video of some exceptional classical guitar work?
        =

        =

        =
          • [deleted]

          Squonk wrote: There are plenty of great Classical Players

          Google Narsisco Yepes, he even plays more strings than CAB , he helped design the 10 string nylon guitar.

          Thanks Squonk.
          Actually very cool..
          right hand brilliant...
          but yeah, not my cuppa tea ?

          =

            I would hazard a guess that anyone in the Rolling Stone top 10 has sold more albums than all the classical guys put together. Does that mean the Rock guys are better/worse technically? Who knows, but it would explain why Rolling Stone knows about them.
              Considering the magazine is loosely named after an extremely popular rock band I'm not surprised.

              besides, a magazine named "Charlie Byrd" wouldn't sell as well, even with half naked women on the cover.
                Wow, you guys took the troll bait well ?

                This thread is retarded. Best classical guitarists vs best electric guitarists, Guthrie and friends are king.
                  PbZepplin wrote: I spotted an article recently. Rolling Stone has compiled a list of who they consider the top 100 guitarists of all time.
                  I was rather pissed off about it. My reasons:

                  By guitarists, one must assume this includes guitarists of all genres and guitar types:
                  electric, acoustic, base and classical (& any others that I may have left out). First of all, all their 'experts' who compiled the
                  list are knowledgeable on Rock music, and not necessarily on other Genres. I think Rolling Stone should define what they mean as
                  'top guitarists' as being primarily rock guitarists. I would argue that classical guitarists are the most technically correct and skilled guitarists. My reasons:
                  1. The history behind formal classical guitar technique is hundreds of years old.
                  2. Classical guitar technique has evolved to be the most efficient use of movement for guitar, both on the right hand (for plucking the strings) and the left hand (which works the fret board).
                  Classical guitar technique limits extraneous movement of either hand. The left hand forms a claw, with fingers spaced to be over individual frets, which then act to 'hammer on' to the frets. The technique for the right hand emphasises that each finger is reserved for a particular string, fingers are thrown back, and the thumb does not buckle. Classical guitarists also learn to 'prepare' on the right hand, with fingers being placed on the strings before being played in anticipation. These techniques emphasise an absolute minimum of extraneous movement, which results in experienced classical guitarists being able to play very fast, confidently, and with the minimum of mistakes.
                  Rock guitarists may be the most popular in mainstream culture, but classical guitarists are the most technically skilled, and Rolling Stone's list should acknowledge this.
                  Those "who is best" lists are best compared to the funny pages...you look at it and smile...sort of...it really means nothing. ?
                  While classical players are technically veeeery good, my question is: Can they SING while playing at the same time ? ?
                    Donovan Banks wrote: Considering the magazine is loosely named after an extremely popular rock band I'm not surprised.
                    Bollocks it is! It's named after a song by Dr Hook and The Medicine show.
                      OK granted this post was rather 'trolly' and as a newby I have over-stepped my mark ?
                      Yeah all the arguments here are good ones. I suppose many guitarists start off learning classical and then progress
                      to other genres anyway, so those technical points are carried through. Looking forward to posting on this forum. It looks like a cool community :-[
                        At least you have a cool nick ? Great not so classical band ?
                          Figured I may as well post this ? Not great quality, but thought this was pretty cool...

                            PbZepplin wrote: OK granted this post was rather 'trolly' and as a newby I have over-stepped my mark ?
                            Yeah all the arguments here are good ones. I suppose many guitarists start off learning classical and then progress
                            to other genres anyway, so those technical points are carried through. Looking forward to posting on this forum. It looks like a cool community :-[
                            PbZepplin, you forgot to introduce yourself... ?
                              There are several guitar disciplines that pride themselves in a great deal of technical prowess.
                              It is difficult to compare the work of David Russel with that Of John Petrucci or Frank Gambale.
                              These lists are meant for entertainment purposes only. Saying that Paco De Lucia is better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix is like saying that Klitschko is a better boxer than Mayweather or that Superman would beat up batman (he totally wouldn't).
                              These are all irrelevant questions because there is no objective comparison.
                                Perhaps by "guitarist", they emphasize the entertainer aspect ie the more popular guitarists are "better" because they entertain better.
                                  Brendon "BluJu" Neuhaus wrote: There are several guitar disciplines that pride themselves in a great deal of technical prowess.
                                  It is difficult to compare the work of David Russel with that Of John Petrucci or Frank Gambale.
                                  These lists are meant for entertainment purposes only. Saying that Paco De Lucia is better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix is like saying that Klitschko is a better boxer than Mayweather or that Superman would beat up batman (he totally wouldn't).
                                  These are all irrelevant questions because there is no objective comparison.
                                  +1
                                  These lists are for "entertainment" only.....and hopefully not to raise debate amongst learned folk such as us.... ?
                                    Rolling stone is kinda sorda mostly a rock magazine? Perhaps thats why the list has a bias? Should I get all peaved because some classical mag did not list my fave Death Metal guitarist on their top ten?
                                      Averatu wrote: Rolling stone is kinda sorda mostly a rock magazine? Perhaps thats why the list has a bias? Should I get all peaved because some classical mag did not list my fave Death Metal guitarist on their top ten?
                                      Maybe Rolling Stone should do some proper journalism and mention "Rock" guitartist
                                        and in answer to brets post ..yeah i could list a string of highly technical acoustic/flamenco/classical players

                                        mmmmmmmm but i'll rather throw a cat among the pigeons here and say .......everything depends on the ear of the beholder .....

                                        it depends what genre you admire............ and literally take me as an example ......... as you all know have a strong grounding in flamenco and world music, so to my ear paco reigns supreme , yet he can play as fast and as harmonically complex as any shred player but on a nylon .......... so i love paco ......... yet i didn't bother to go see the guthrie govan clinic (and i was available) simply because his playing however top class does not intruige me........ stuart of marshall music even gave me a guthrie govan cd when i went to start my sun city gig ........ and said listen to this it's the "sh1T " it was fabulous and of course he;s super talented but it did not grab me ....and thats no critisism on guthrie he's a monster player but after the 2nd track i was ..'yawn" yet i listen to the same paco cd or even jim campilongo( my electric guitar favourite) 20 times in a row and i'm enthrawled each listen , yet i played jim campilongo to another classical pianist at sun city and he did the yawn after 5 min to an artist i can't get enough of ........ so i do think music is in certain genre's that grab us...........at one point i was into all the acoustic players like justin king ect ..........but it was short lived cos no matter that they do all that awesome tapping and percussive style after a few listens i found it simply "unmusical" BUT that was me someone else will love that

                                        and yes technically some flamenco and classical players can definitely rival most if not all rock players ........... except steve vai ?

                                        but hey thats what makes music interesting is that we each see different things in the same music.......... one man's meat is anothers poison

                                        and the truth be told..... to be an aclaimed rock player or funk player or acoustic artist or classical or flamenco or even bulgarian folk music virtuosa takes immense skill and talent.........

                                        and all i can say "viva la difference"

                                        but only a fool will place any artist over another just cos theydon't appreciate the genre (which is very common unfortunately....and very sad cos often one could learn so much from certain artists but our preferences or bias's prevent that )

                                        and personally i've never believed in rating players ....just cos i love what jim cxampilongo does does not mean he's the best or top of any list ..it just means his art touch's me in a way that i'm influenced by him .........so for me no lists of who's "toppermost of the poppermost" ( a beatles saying the fans will recognise)

                                        BUT as a music appreciater i collect the artists that touch me and don't bother about the rest ......... cos this is not about what you like or what alan or bob likes but what touch's me .............