Discussion:
Demostration of how NOT to use the right hand.
(too old to reply)
Lutemann
2009-04-10 19:25:07 UTC
Permalink
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.


gitarist
2009-04-10 19:48:56 UTC
Permalink
i would give my right foot to play like her

ballistic or not

who cares
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Tommy Grand
2009-04-10 19:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by gitarist
i would give my right foot to play like her
ballistic or not
who cares
Kent sometimes says it causes injury and sometimes says it gives a
poor sound, depending on what the argument at hand requires. I think
at heart he doesn't really give a shit about all that RSI stuff.
d***@gmail.com
2009-04-10 19:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
That's the least of her problems.
h***@verizon.net
2009-04-10 19:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
It must be frustrating to you to see a person who has what you
consider to be an illegitimate approach to guitar technique be
embraced by great musicians like R. Tureck and Leo Brouwer! And then
to have her be one of the most succesful (commercially) classical
players in the world makes is worse, and the topper is to have her as
the head of guitar at the USA's most prestigious conservatory.

Maybe there is more to guitar than exactly how you pluck the string!

Seth
Steve Perry
2009-04-10 21:04:42 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
There's a technical term for this: Sour grapes.
--
Steve
Richard Spross
2009-04-10 20:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Kent,

I see what your complaint is, however these days it is a free for all,
and there are many many fine guitarists who play in all manner of
technique and still get a great sound.

In my teaching I try to alert my students to all the variables that i
know of so that they can decide for themselves which path to follow.

One might question that approach, and I should qualify it by saying this
mostly applies to those who come with a prior background. Furthermore
there can be physical anomalies that force a student to play in ways
that i wouldn't ordinarily advocate.

As for your demonstration it would appear that she doesn't follow through
with her free stroke, but lifts up and under to create her tone.

Notice her fingernails are fairly long and by using the longer underside
of the nail upon which the string slides before releasing, may contribute
directly to the quality of the timbre she wishes to produce.

It would be interesting to see a video of her playing HVL Prelude nr.4
to see if she uses the same motion. Then you would be more able to
assess her string manipulation.

Richard Spross
g***@gmail.com
2009-04-12 19:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Spross
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Kent,
I see what your complaint is, however these days it is a free for all,
and there are many many fine guitarists who play in all manner of
technique and still get a great sound.
In my teaching I try to alert my students to all the variables that i
know of so that they can decide for themselves which path to follow.
One might question that approach, and I should qualify it by saying this
mostly applies to those who come with a prior background. Furthermore
there can be physical anomalies that force a student to play in ways
that i wouldn't ordinarily advocate.
As for your demonstration it would appear that she doesn't follow through
with her free stroke, but lifts up and under to create her tone.
Notice her fingernails are fairly long and by using the longer underside
of the nail upon which the string slides before releasing, may contribute
directly to the quality of the timbre she wishes to produce.
It would be interesting to see a video of her playing HVL Prelude nr.4
to see if she uses the same motion. Then you would be more able to
assess her string manipulation.
Richard Spross
Richard says, "I see what your complaint is, however these days it is
a free for all,
and there are many many fine guitarists who play in all manner of
technique and still get a great sound."

She does get a nice mellow sound through a mike, and considering she
has chosen a very inefficient right hand technique, she has come a
long way. I understand she practice like hell. I have never heard her
live, but I'll bet she does not have much projectition, and she
certainly has no facility as can be seen when she plays RDLA.
JPD
2009-04-12 21:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Richard Spross
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Kent,
I see what your complaint is, however these days it is a free for all,
and there are many many fine guitarists who play in all manner of
technique and still get a great sound.
In my teaching I try to alert my students to all the variables that i
know of so that they can decide for themselves which path to follow.
One might question that approach, and I should qualify it by saying this
mostly applies to those who come with a prior background. Furthermore
there can be physical anomalies that force a student to play in ways
that i wouldn't ordinarily advocate.
As for your demonstration it would appear that she doesn't follow through
with her free stroke, but lifts up and under to create her tone.
Notice her fingernails are fairly long and by using the longer underside
of the nail upon which the string slides before releasing, may contribute
directly to the quality of the timbre she wishes to produce.
It would be interesting to see a video of her playing HVL Prelude nr.4
to see if she uses the same motion. Then you would be more able to
assess her string manipulation.
Richard Spross
Richard says, "I see what your complaint is, however these days it is
a free for all,
and there are many many fine guitarists who play in all manner of
technique and still get a great sound."
She does get a nice mellow sound through a mike, and considering she
has chosen a very inefficient right hand technique, she has come a
long way.  I understand she practice like hell. I have never heard her
live, but I'll bet she does not have much projectition, and she
certainly has no facility as can be seen when she plays RDLA.
"GC"? Guitar Coach?
Steve Freides
2009-04-10 21:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Well, even though your comment on the YouTube clip - someone observed
that she has a "really interesting right hand technique" and you
replied, "It's called not having a right hand technique" - is pitiful,
really, because you must be such a strange, sad person to make this sort
of observation, I want to thank you for taking the time to share the
link to the clip with us. It's the first time I've heard Rosalyn Tureck
play a piano and not a harpsichord, and the mention of Glen Gould was
fascinating - you can really hear the influence if you're familiar with
his recording(s) of the Goldberg Variations (which she plays on this
video clip).

-S-
Robert Crim
2009-04-10 22:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Well, even though your comment on the YouTube clip - someone observed
that she has a "really interesting right hand technique" and you
replied, "It's called not having a right hand technique" - is pitiful,
really, because you must be such a strange, sad person to make this sort
of observation, I want to thank you for taking the time to share the
link to the clip with us. It's the first time I've heard Rosalyn Tureck
play a piano and not a harpsichord, and the mention of Glen Gould was
fascinating - you can really hear the influence if you're familiar with
his recording(s) of the Goldberg Variations (which she plays on this
video clip).
-S-
I wish my hands had ever worked that badly.

Robert
Niels P Sønderskov
2009-04-11 00:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
--
Niels
Slogoin
2009-04-11 00:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
From a vacuum cleaner.
Niels P Sønderskov
2009-04-11 00:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
From a vacuum cleaner.
Right, and it worked pretty well for him too.
--
Niels
Slogoin
2009-04-11 00:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Post by Slogoin
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
From a vacuum cleaner.
Right, and it worked pretty well for him too.
--
Niels
Do I get a prize for the right answer? Isn't this the RMCG Cash
Cab? :-)
Tommy Grand
2009-04-11 01:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Post by Slogoin
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
From a vacuum cleaner.
Right, and it worked pretty well for him too.
--
Niels
Do I get a prize for the right answer?
No, because he picked up his technique from his teacher Alberto
Guerrero. One of GG's talents was the ability to learn a piece
without ever touching the piano, relying only on score reading. He
could do this because he had excellent visualization abilities. GG
owed this largely to Guerrero's teaching, especially a practice
technique called 'tapping' which I leave you to investigate. The
vacuum cleaner anecdote missess the point entirely. GG did his best
to play down his teacher's influence after becoming famous, which is
why you've probably never heard of any of this. I understand that
Guerrero took it in stride and said "to the teacher goes the knife".
Slogoin
2009-04-11 01:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
No, because he picked up his technique from his teacher Alberto
Guerrero.  One of GG's talents was the ability to learn a piece
without ever touching the piano, relying only on score reading.  He
could do this because he had excellent visualization abilities.  GG
owed this largely to Guerrero's teaching, especially a practice
technique called 'tapping' which I leave you to investigate.  The
vacuum cleaner anecdote missess the point entirely.  GG did his best
to play down his teacher's influence after becoming famous, which is
why you've probably never heard of any of this.  I understand that
Guerrero took it in stride and said "to the teacher goes the knife".
http://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/articles/tapping.html

I like the vacuum cleaner story better.
Tommy Grand
2009-04-11 01:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
I like the vacuum cleaner story better.
Myth is usually allot more fun than the boring details. What the
hell, it's Easter!
Dicerous
2009-04-11 03:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Slogoin
I like the vacuum cleaner story better.
Myth is usually allot more fun than the boring details.  What the
hell, it's Easter!
Are you suggesting that Christ's death and resurrection is a myth?

David
Tommy Grand
2009-04-11 03:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dicerous
Post by Slogoin
I like the vacuum cleaner story better.
Myth is usually allot more fun than the boring details.  What the
hell, it's Easter!
Are you suggesting that Christ's death and resurrection is a myth?
David
Yes. Also, 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy...because it never happened at
all.
Dicerous
2009-04-11 04:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dicerous
Post by Slogoin
I like the vacuum cleaner story better.
Myth is usually allot more fun than the boring details.  What the
hell, it's Easter!
Are you suggesting that Christ's death and resurrection is a myth?
David
Yes.  Also, 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy...because it never happened at
all.
I have to disagree. BTW per another thread, I'm *an idiot* for being
a believer. Why is *intellect* always in question when the non-
believers put down believers. There's lots of smart religious people
in the world.


David
Charlie
2009-04-11 11:42:05 UTC
Permalink
There are? hahaha. There's lotsa stupid ones too. Your point is....?

Charlie



I have to disagree. BTW per another thread, I'm *an idiot* for being
a believer. Why is *intellect* always in question when the non-
believers put down believers. There's lots of smart religious people
in the world.


David
Tommy Grand
2009-04-11 13:23:08 UTC
Permalink
I have to disagree.  BTW per another thread,  I'm *an idiot* for being
a believer.  Why is *intellect* always in question when the non-
believers put down believers.  There's lots of smart religious people
in the world.
I just said the Easter story is a myth, not that it's untrue. As for
smart believers, I completely agree! Lately I've been reading Raymond
Brown's "An Introduction to the New Testament" and I'm most impressed
with his intellectual rigor. He seems much wiser and more honest
than, say, JD Crossan.
g***@gmail.com
2009-04-12 20:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dicerous
Post by Slogoin
I like the vacuum cleaner story better.
Myth is usually allot more fun than the boring details.  What the
hell, it's Easter!
Are you suggesting that Christ's death and resurrection is a myth?
David
Yes.  Also, 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy...because it never happened at
all.
I have to disagree.  BTW per another thread,  I'm *an idiot* for being
a believer.  Why is *intellect* always in question when the non-
believers put down believers.  There's lots of smart religious people
in the world.
David- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Who was the biologist who said that no species can survive that
ignores deductive reasonling. You will never see a religious
cockroach (except for maybe Jackson)
socrates
2009-04-11 01:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
--
Niels
From Lutemann?
Niels P Sønderskov
2009-04-11 01:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by socrates
Post by Niels P Sønderskov
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Did you notice the reference to Glenn Gould? And do you know where he
picked up his technique?
--
Niels
From Lutemann?
Actually, I think it comes close to lute picking, which maybe isn't bad
for this piece.
--
Niels
David Raleigh Arnold
2009-04-11 14:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
I would not agree that it was in any way typical.
Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Generally, the amount the string is depressed (toward the top) determines
the volume and the longer the stroke (with the finger in contact with the
string), the more the string is depressed. Her stroke renders it
impossible for her to attain maximum volume and this is IMO a weakness in
her technique, but how not recovering or recovering in some other way
after the stroke is going to adversely affect her playing I cannot
fathom. If you use a ultra long stroke, as described on my site, there
is no follow-through because the finger is very close to the palm. An
appoggiato stroke obviously has no follow-through either. Attacking a
string ballistically can only shorten a stroke, and weaken and degrade
the tone. Why do you want to do that? daveA

-
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica. Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice. You can play the cards you're dealt, or
improve your hand with DGT. http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
g***@gmail.com
2009-04-12 20:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
I would not agree that it was in any way typical.
Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Generally, the amount the string is depressed (toward the top) determines
the volume and the longer the stroke (with the finger in contact with the
string), the more the string is depressed.  Her stroke renders it
impossible for her to attain maximum volume and this is IMO a weakness in
her technique, but how not recovering or recovering in some other way
after the stroke is going to adversely affect her playing I cannot
fathom.  If you use a ultra long stroke, as described on my site, there
is no follow-through because the finger is very close to the palm.  An
appoggiato stroke obviously has no follow-through either.  Attacking a
string ballistically can only shorten a stroke, and weaken and degrade
the tone.  Why do you want to do that?  daveA
-
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises.  Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica.  Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice.  You can play the cards you're dealt, or
improve your hand with DGT.  http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
No swing room means no projection and no endurance.
David Raleigh Arnold
2009-04-12 20:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
I would not agree that it was in any way typical.
Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Generally, the amount the string is depressed (toward the top)
determines the volume and the longer the stroke (with the finger in
contact with the string), the more the string is depressed.  Her stroke
renders it impossible for her to attain maximum volume and this is IMO
a weakness in her technique, but how not recovering or recovering in
some other way after the stroke is going to adversely affect her
playing I cannot fathom.  If you use a ultra long stroke, as described
on my site, there is no follow-through because the finger is very close
to the palm.  An appoggiato stroke obviously has no follow-through
either.  Attacking a string ballistically can only shorten a stroke,
and weaken and degrade the tone.  Why do you want to do that?  daveA
-
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises.  Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica.  Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice.  You can play the cards you're dealt, or
improve your hand with DGT.  http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
No swing room means no projection and no endurance.
LOL! daveA
--
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica. Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice. You can play the cards you're dealt, or
improve your hand with DGT. http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
socrates
2009-04-13 03:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
I would not agree that it was in any way typical.
Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Generally, the amount the string is depressed (toward the top) determines
the volume and the longer the stroke (with the finger in contact with the
string), the more the string is depressed.  Her stroke renders it
impossible for her to attain maximum volume and this is IMO a weakness in
her technique, but how not recovering or recovering in some other way
after the stroke is going to adversely affect her playing I cannot
fathom.  If you use a ultra long stroke, as described on my site, there
is no follow-through because the finger is very close to the palm.  An
appoggiato stroke obviously has no follow-through either.  Attacking a
string ballistically can only shorten a stroke, and weaken and degrade
the tone.  Why do you want to do that?  daveA
-
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises.  Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica.  Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice.  You can play the cards you're dealt, or
improve your hand with DGT.  http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
No swing room means no projection and no endurance.
You can get a loud projecting sound by displacing the string greatly
using less swing space.

socrates
2009-04-13 03:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Lutemann
This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.
I would not agree that it was in any way typical.
Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ
Generally, the amount the string is depressed (toward the top) determines
the volume and the longer the stroke (with the finger in contact with the
string), the more the string is depressed.  Her stroke renders it
impossible for her to attain maximum volume and this is IMO a weakness in
her technique, but how not recovering or recovering in some other way
after the stroke is going to adversely affect her playing I cannot
fathom.  If you use a ultra long stroke, as described on my site, there
is no follow-through because the finger is very close to the palm.  An
appoggiato stroke obviously has no follow-through either.  Attacking a
string ballistically can only shorten a stroke, and weaken and degrade
the tone.  Why do you want to do that?  daveA
-
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises.  Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica.  Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice.  You can play the cards you're dealt, or
improve your hand with DGT.  http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
Ballistic strokes are not monolithic with regards to follow through.
You can use a short or lonf follow through- the moment of release is
at the player's discretion
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...