Talk:Classical guitar technique

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I merged this article with the article Classical guitar techniques

Vibrato[edit]

"Vibrato is possible with a classical guitar by pushing the left hand finger back and forth along the string axis (not across it as for a "bend" in rock or blues music) producing a subtle variation in pitch, both sharper and flatter than the starting note..."

How is this possible on a fretted instrument? As long as the note is being stopped by the fret and not your finger, and you aren't changing the tension by bending it, I can't imagine how this would be, particularly when it's claimed that this actually lowers the note. Could someone please explain this?

The motion of the finger on the fretboard makes subtle changes in the strings length, creating variations in pitch. Try it, it works.

You might be very slightly bending the string laterally, or pushing the string farther downwards towards the fretboard (in either case, only bending the note upwards). The string can only be stopped by frets, so no movement parallel to the string can change the length of the string. I think this part of the article should be deleted, because it makes no sense in terms of physics.

These last two comments are both mistaken. The vibrating length of a string is indeed fixed by the fret, but the pitch of a note depends also on the tension (stretching force) in the string. The tension is determined primarily by the tuning peg, stretching the string round the roller; but a finger placed firmly on the string behind a fret is able to modulate the tension up and down slightly. Pulling towards the nut will raise the tension slightly, making the pitch go up - and conversely, pushing towards the bridge will lower the tension slightly, making the pitch go down. An effective vibrato therefore depends on getting a good grip on the string, and rapidly alternating between a 'stretching' and a 'squeezing' force along the string, usually involving a movement of the whole forearm. Some players will occasionally use more than one finger on the same string, for a more intense vibrato: this is analogous to a two-handed tennis grip. An interesting point here is that, as well as altering the tension in the vibrating portion of the string, we inevitably have to work on the non-vibrating segment of the string between the nut and the fret, at the same time. In the case of a note at the twelfth fret, about half of the effort of vibrato is wasted on the non-vibrating half of the string, but lower down towards the first position, a higher and higher proportion of the vibrato force is taken up, uselessly, in stretching and squeezing the non-vibrating portion. This is why it's always easier to get the vibrato effect in the higher positions on any string, whereas you have to work very hard to get vibrato to work at frets 1 and 2. These remarks all refer to the 'normal' (longitudinal) type of vibrato, as opposed to lateral vibrato which can only bend the pitch upwards, by stretching the string sideways.Hjohntaylor 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The pitch is not changing because the string is pulled or pushed. The tension is changed by how close the finger is to the fret. When the finger is closer to the fret, the string is pressed in at a sharper angle just before the fret. This causes the string to be slightly lengthened, resulting in higher tension, raising the frequency. This can be tested out by gently "rolling" your finger towards and away from a fret. The pitch will increase slightly as the finger rolls toward the fret, and lower as the finger rolls away.

Yamex5 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC) yamex5[reply]

Misleading sentences[edit]

As a left hander I seriously doubt the validation the following statement (found in the article in late 2006):

however this may not be necessary in many cases (for left-handed players to play the guitar reversed), especially if the student is learning the guitar from scratch. This is because the left hand is actually more active in many cases than the right hand, which would naturally benefit a left-handed player playing in a right-handed position.

First of all, in normal way of playing the guitar, the right hand usually perform the most important function of the instrument, creation of sound, by plucking the string(s). It require a very good timing and sensitivity from the hand thus most people choose to do it with their dominant hand - right hand. No matter how busy the left hand is ( although in reality right hand is usually the busy one, e.g. Etude No1 by Villa-Lobos), a classical guitar does not produce much sound until right hand pluck the string. In the order word, right hand has a more crucial role than the left.

Many right-handed players may have the misconception, especially when their left hand needs training on the fretboard, that left-handers (who play guitar the normal way)could be benefited from using their dominant hand on the fretboard and hence could progress quicker. In short term, the benefit may be true, in long term however, left-handers who play guitar the normal way may greatly disadvantaged since they must use their non-dominant hand (right hand) to perform the most crucial job - plucking the strings, which requires the sensitivity and precision that a non-dominant does not possess.

Therefore, it is most beneficial for a left-handed guitarist to play the guitar left-handed ( the reversed way). Davilaser 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a lefthander too I have to agree, the section could easily be modified to state that "which would naturally benefit a left-handed player while learning to play in a right-handed position but would limit them has their level of skill progressed".

You are both dead right, I've supplied the historical reasoning in the article trying not to get into argument as to its merit. Interestingly, string players always use the right hand to bow with. I've often wondered if this is for safety or aesthetic reason - if they mixed it up for left-handers then they might run the risk of poking each other in the eye with their bows in the confines of an orchestra pit (hey, just kidding).RichardJ Christie 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the hands are doing something significantly different from one another, you can be pretty sure that the conventional way of playing an instrument favors right-handed persons overall. In general, there is still far too little tolerance for left-handedness--in music and elsewhere. I was forbidden in conducting class to conduct left-handed. I was told it's just as easy for a left-handed person to conduct right-handed as it is for a right-handed person. Obviously this is not true, and only a right-handed person or someone who has never conducted could possibly think it. Moreover, it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the musicians being conducted. Nevertheless, as far as I've so far determined, the proscription remains in place. TheScotch (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither hand has to contend with a moving target but while the right hand has mainly minor changes in position the left hand has some major changes in position. The right hand has a very small range-of-motion, generally along one axis (across the strings), just enough distance to allow the tip of each finger to reach the relevant strings. The right hand has just as small, actually smaller, range-of-motion across the strings but also has to travel in a second axis, along the strings, for several inches, often very rapidly.

It is possible to play extended passages using only the left hand. Hammer-on and pluck-off work extremely well. However, it is not very practical to do so and it takes a lot of practice. JimCubb (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New technique[edit]

I have seen a guitarist implement his chin into the playing of classical guitar. I can't recall who this man is, or how to find his website (I just googled it, and can't find anything), but the technique still exists, so should it be included on this page? He taps his chin on the desired note (most often bass notes on the low E-string) and I believe the mere tapping is what produces the sound, although plucking the string thereafter can produce further chin-tones. Input?

The guitarist is Alexander Vynograd. A discussion of his technique can be found, e.g., here. https://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=13809 However, I think this it too 'outlandish' to be discussed in this article. To my knowledge he is the only professional guitarist who uses this technique (of course, I know very little about guitarists in, say, Central Africa, Middle Asia, Siberia and other places). If anything, the technique should be mentioned/explained in an article about this guitarist. 2003:C1:BF0C:9D30:2C61:D51E:2587:D26C (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated fingerboards and high frets[edit]

I question the validity of the inclusion of the material that appears under the above headings. I suggest it has more to do with guitar construction c/f technique and so belongs in another article. Also the claim that the raised fingerboard is advantageous to right hand is subjective and no justification has been provided. The inclusion of manufacturer's names is a little redolent of marketing.RichardJ Christie 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Additionally, the same text appears on Classical guitar making. So I removed that (and the accessories section), and put in a link to Portal:Classical guitar. -- TimNelson 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernails[edit]

When I was first figuring out how to file my nails correctly and design the shape and contour so as to best facilitate good tone-production and projection, I think it would have helped me tremendously to have one consolidated location to consult for that information. Does anyone else think there should be a larger section, or possibly a separate page, on classical guitar fingernail shaping and setup? Forgive me if there already is one and I just couldn't find it. Tanque 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already pretty heavy on technique, probably because there are lots and lots of guitarists among Wikipedia editors. I don't use my nails at all, by the way. At first this was merely a practical compromise because I also play piano where nails are impossible, but eventually I decided I prefer the sound of flesh on the guitar. That's just me, but I've heard that at one point virtually all classical guitarists played without (long) nails and that the introduction of nail-playing was very controversial in its day. TheScotch (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many guitarists recommend (and practice) a different way to file the nails -- i.e. filing a 'ramp'. Yet, any detailed discussion cannot but go astray. It would be better simply to state that there are different ways to file the nails and that this is one of the most tricky issues for most guitarists.2003:C1:BF0C:9D30:2C61:D51E:2587:D26C (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Substance please[edit]

The ridiculous bibliography of real low quality texts on guitar technique (as well as links to real low quality bibliography on the subject) has been removed.

You want to know about technique? Start with expression, instead of today's ridiculous trends of focusing on technique, fingers and outer useless stuff as the be-all and end-all of music. Simply disgusting. Virtuosa julie (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a restrictive view of "articulation"...[edit]

Come on! Whoever ([1] - Richard Provost????? or Kevicoll (Kevin Collins)???? or someone else????) edited the text to this version [2], wrote: "articulation, or slurring (commonly known as 'hammer-ons and 'pull-offs')"

Articulation is NOT SLURRING !!!!! Articulation has in fact got more to do with the plucking hand (usually right hand) under most circumstances. (Of course left-hand hammer-on's etc. are also a part of articulation).

Luckily wikipedia allows edits and revisions etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtuosa julie (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a windy, waffly article.[edit]

It sounds like a conversation between a bunch of people have no idea what they want to say, but are determined to say it in no less than 10,000 words. The p-i-m-a notation is casually introduced somewhere in the middle. The fact that classical guitar is reliant on explicit notation is not noted explicitly at all. It's obvious to some but not to all. The appoyando/tirando distinction is introduced, dropped and then brought up again. Large chunks of the article are editorial on the subject of how everybody except the writer is doing it wrong. Yeuch.

And the lede has got to be a piss-take "The classical guitar technique is a fingerstyle technique used by classical guitarists to play classical guitar music on a classical guitar."

As of August 2011. 1Z (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing perspective[edit]

I think imperative style writing is inappropriate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive. Sentences like "Care should be taken to unlock 1 & 2." are not encyclopedic. That is just direct advice. The whole article needs to be revised to avoid this sort of thing (and generally needs lots of revision anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backfromquadrangle (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

All links with the exception of 4 and 6 are either broken or the content is gone. Can the author either replace them or remove the links please? Yamex5 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC) yamex5[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Classical guitar technique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right and left hand names[edit]

Wouldn't it be more inclusive for left-handed people to write "plucking hand" and "fretting hand" instead? You can see these names in use more and more often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.17 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. These expressions are understood by all guitarists.2003:C1:BF0C:9D30:2C61:D51E:2587:D26C (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great article[edit]

I just wanted to say that, despite not being up to "Wikipedia standards" and all that jazz, this article is nonetheless a great resource for anyone looking to read about classical guitar technique. 185.69.145.118 (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide[edit]

Recent additions to this article appear to be in violation of the policies at WP:NOTHOWTO. Here is one line from that policy:

Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.

I have boldly removed what I think is the worst of the violations. It's certainly possible that more could be removed or that some of what I removed should stay. This talk page is where that discussion can take place. But, please remember, we still have to follow Wikipedia policies on these issues. SQGibbon (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]