Is there really a "best" way to...

[Li Shenron]

(light-hearted thread)

 

Often a teacher, book, instuctional video, or just someone giving advice, when talking about a specific technique or aspect of playing, will firmly state that there is one correct way of doing it.

 

For example, one correct way of making a downstroke with the pick, or at least a universally "best" way to grip the neck. Exceptionally successful guitarists who instead do it "the wrong way" are said to be able to afford doing the mistake just because they are exceptional, and they can overcome it with immense talent in other aspects. So when a young student points out "but Jimi Hendrix keeps his thumb over the neck all the time" the reply is often "well, he's Jimi Hendrix and you're not!". Another common reply was "just force yourself to do it, you'll reap the benefits later".

 

OTOH, I think that in the last decade I've instead heard more and more about the idea of finding YOUR best way, out of trying out and experimenting as many variants as you can think about, rather than thinking that there is one true way.

 

I just wonder what you guys think about these different views...

[Li Shenron]

By the way, if you're a guitar teacher, please post what approach you use with your students with regard to this!!

[bardsley]

Our bodies are different enough in shape that the way we hold an instrument that requires such a physical connection as the guitar is going to have to differ from person to person.
The problem with just saying "do whatever feels comfortable" is that most of us are completely out of tune with the messages our bodies are giving us, and what feels comfortable is often quite bad for us. One of the things that Alexandra technique teaches is that there is no one correct posture for something, but a correct approach. As soon as you think that you need to rigidly mantain a particular posture, you become inflexible, and lack of flexibility is what causes injury.
So, from a physical standpoint, I try to teach students to hold the guitar and play it in a way that, from my perspective, keeps them in a relatively good position. I also teach them to always try to be aware of how their body is feeling, and to listen to those messages (something I need to do more often too).
Mirrors are very useful, because often they reveal something we think of as comfortable as being a contortion. A lot of the time, unconventional techniques like using the thumb to fret the bass strings are often the best way of playing something while keeping the hand in a relatively good shape.
As a student, I think it pays to know when to question, and when to follow. My teacher will often give me suggestions about how to play something to make it work better. It tends to be best for me to really get stuck into that approach and try to get really good at it, before then asking "why?" However, it is very good for us to investigate our methods, and those of people around us and to really question why something is the accepted norm, rather than another approach.
It's that sort of questioning that probably led someone to ask "why do I have to pluck the string with my right hand? If I can hammer the string hard enough I can make a sound, so maybe I could just do that with my right hand instead."

[Knottyhed]

I think ideally you should try the 'right way' before finding a 'wrong way' that might or might not work better.

Besides Jimmy had mutant large hands, he was also very sloppy as a player - i don't think he compares to alot of modern guitarists technique wise (and I'm a big fan)... he just had alot to say with his instrument and a great way of phrasing things. Probably the same is true with other great players who have what might be considered poor technique.

I started off as self taught and didn't do all the right things regarding playing technique - i played for 10 years like that and made reasonable progress, but after taking a few lessons working on correcting 'bad' technique I broke through alot of plateaus in terms of my speed and accuracy.

[1001gear]

Jimi and other 'natural formations' develop(ed) whatever they need(ed) to get it coming out the speakers. I would bet though that Jimi woulda been hard pressed to come up with even the most rudimentary of standard repertoires. So while there probably are fanatic method terrorists out there, those that tout the virtues of particular methods over others are offering their take on proven, pre-centered, widest zoned approaches to the genre in question and probably musical performance in general. Take those rigidly 'correct' classical techniques everyone seems to fudge on, they (the techniques of course) facilitate some of the most flexible, refined and articulate playing there is!
I think it's more about the patience and priorities of the player.

[UnderTheGroove]

I explain to my students that there are conventional ways to do most techniques (picking, strumming, left hand positioning). I ask them to try it the way I suggest first, and then they can change it if they find a way that works better for them. If they make a choice (as apposed to just not knowing any better) to do something in an unconventional way, that is fine.

 

I don't see using the thumb over the top of the neck as "bad" technique. It enables me to mute the low E string and occasionally finger some notes. I explain to new players that it will be much easier to finger chords correctly with their thumb behind the neck. As they get more comfortable, they can start moving the thumb over the neck.

[vince89]

I love playing with my thumb over the neck, it allows me to play cleanly but also to attack the strings hard without having to worry too much about accuracy. I think it adds a certain raw and funky element to your playing too. I dont like guitar players who sound all tidy and perfect.

[bardsley]

I would bet though that Jimi woulda been hard pressed to come up with even the most rudimentary of standard repertoires.

 

 

What kind of repertoires do you mean by "standard"? I would bet he'd suck as a classical guitarist, sure. But I bet that most classical guitarists would suck at what he did. It's called idiomatic technique.

[1001gear]

What kind of repertoires do you mean by "standard"? I would bet he'd suck as a classical guitarist, sure. But I bet that most classical guitarists would suck at what he did. It's called idiomatic technique.

 

Understood, but the subject suggested 'correct' technique. And good formal technique is requisite to any quality performance of traditional music whether it be classical, jazz, country, or what have you.

Nuthin' wrong with Jimi's guitar universe per se. Just Jimi wasn't (I don't think ) very proficient in the traditional musical sense. Bad intonation, crudely articulated tone... Fender coils and amps not withstanding, I still get the impression even an intermediate Mel Bay performance was beyond his scope.

As far as the reverse, I consider that less of an issue since Jimi IS the genre. Not much point to a struggling musician trying to master that!

[red|dragon]

If there was a "best way" and we all went by the "best way" we would all sound the same.

Go to gennation's website. It's the best way.

[Knottyhed]

Understood, but the subject suggested 'correct' technique. And good formal technique is requisite to any quality performance of traditional music whether it be classical, jazz, country, or what have you. Nuthin' wrong with Jimi's guitar universe per se. Just Jimi wasn't (I don't think ) very proficient in the traditional musical sense. Bad intonation, crudely articulated tone... Fender coils and amps not withstanding, I still get the impression even an intermediate Mel Bay performance was beyond his scope. As far as the reverse, I consider that less of an issue since Jimi IS the genre. Not much point to a struggling musician trying to master that!

I'm pretty sure hendrix played as a touring and studio session musician for Isley Brothers, Little Richard and Tina Turner before he became famous. Seems to me he wasn't as one dimensional as you suggest.

In fact listening to songs songs such as All Along the Watch Tower, Little wing and Hey Joe would suggest his rythmn playing was certainly up to banging out chordal arrangements from a mel bay book!!

[1001gear]

Just an impression and of course not one dimensional; Hey Joe, Little Wing - phenomenal. Still there's a big difference between I IV V - ii V I in an R&B band and say solo coffee house playing. And back to the argument, the formal technique is so you can tackle the main body of music... musically.

[bardsley]

Yeah, but didn't we get beyond all this about a hundred years ago? I mean, it's like saying that Ornette can't play jazz properly. Can anybody play Ornette properly (ther are a few of course, including many past and present band members, like Charlie Haden, Jack DeJohnette, and Pat Metheny to name a couple of the best guys who really get him)?
Why do we try to kill music? Considering pretty much all Mel Bay music (and all that stuff in the awful Berklee book) is almost fundamentally umusical, why the {censored} would you want to be able to play it "properly"? If we ask of our artists that they be able to conform to the standards set by that which isn't art, how do we expect any great art to happen?
I'm rambling, I know, but the thing about technique is that if someone like Jimi doesn't use it, it suggests that the codified version of good technique is at fault, not the artist who is wrong.

[rm100tubehead]

Sure there is no one best way. I have my students start with the pad of the thumb at the back of the neck pointing up and positioned so that it opposes the 1st and 2nd fingers. Eventually you must keep the hand moving through all positions to accomidate what your playing.

[1001gear]

^
^
Mel Bay properly? Nah. Just musically. It takes formidable (? ) abilities to bring out the depth and colors of simple music. There'll always be the trailblazers willing to risk it all at the edge. I think most of us would rather just plug along at the craft of musicianship.