Demostration of how NOT to use the right hand.

[Lutemann]

This is a very good example of a non-ballistic approach.

[gitarist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

In article

Post by Lutemann
http://youtu.be/ul4BPT2ZleQ

There's a technical term for this: Sour grapes.

[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

[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.

[JPD]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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? Isn't this the RMCG Cash
Cab? :-)

[Tommy Grand]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

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

[socrates]

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]

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