Classical guitarists are the most technically skilled guitarists

PbZepplin · 2011-11-24T15:04:26+00:00

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.

Averatu

X-rated Bob wrote
Averatu wrote
MIKA the better one wrote Ha, to bad being technically proficiant means nothing in the world of music...

Who cares if a classical guitarist has more technical skill... or if a jazz guitarist does, or a rock guitarist......

Silly thread
I sort of agree. To me, the music written by most 'technical' players does not engage me. Jeff Loomis's album case in point, I can appreciate the skills, its light speed, tight and slick, but I've listened to it once, dont really have a need to listen to it again, and that goes for all the virtuoso albums that have come my way. And who's buying those albums? Its us muso's mostly, a pretty small market. I've found that the general music listener gets irritated by chronic pointless fret wanking.
Technique is good, but it should be a means, not an end. It's the vocabulary that you use to express your ideas.

Too little technique is problematic too. Punk, in the UK, ran out of steam fairly quickly because it wasn't sufficiently articulate.

So there are the two dangers. Having nothing to say, and not having the means to say what you want to say.

But improving your playing is not going to REDUCE what you can express.

the problem is that some guys become so super technical and self important that all they end up 'expressing' is GAS. Being able so play your instrument is very important in my opinion, but being all technical for the sale of it is just retarded.
Who's this Bert Jansch?

Jack-Flash-Jr

BMU wrote Holy crud, a three page argument over a *Rolling Stone* list? Isn't it a given it's going to be clueless asshat troll fodder simply by virtue of it being in Rolling Stone??

Chewing the fat and arguing are two different things...

chrisbark

Bob-Dubery

Averatu wrote the problem is that some guys become so super technical and self important that all they end up 'expressing' is GAS. Being able so play your instrument is very important in my opinion, but being all technical for the sale of it is just retarded.
Who's this Bert Jansch?

One of the very best guitar players to emerge from 60s England. A key influence on Jimmy Page and Johnny Marr.

One of the useful things about these polls is that they tip you off to things you never even knew existed.

[deleted]

Well obviously I would love to agree with the title of the thread. I do agree with what Bob said though :

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.

I was talking to a belly dancer who had just started doing salsa. Although she is a professional in the one style, she feels inadequate in the other. The thing is, both require, it would seem, two different states of being, not just different technique. I doubt that the one style would enhance the other, but it certainly expands her repertoire. I think this applies to guitar styles as well.

I think the technique for classical guitar is mirrored in many styles, but the state of being one needs to be in to produce an amazing classical performance is very unique. While the notes can guide you to the feel of the song, at some point you have to abandon them, like training wheels, and focus on something "other". I think that's why classical guitar is hard, is because there is so much emphasis on the technique, which, once mastered, you need to let go of.

« Previous Page