Finger Muscles

[ChainsawGuitar]

This is in reply to a couple of things that have been said in different threads. I wrote this article today:

http://www.chainsawguitartuition.net/articles/HandExercises.html

I will be adding more on this topic, as its kinda been requested of me by various different people. This first article is a list of different exercises for your hands (some on the guitar, some away from it) that will help finger independance and dexterity.

As I said, I plan to add more- specifically about Ecomony of Motion and how to locate and reduce muscle tension created by dodgy technique.

Anyway, I hope this helps for now, and I suggest you keep coming back to the site as I update it.

Also, I feel I should add some sort of disclaimer- the whole reason I started this thread and posted a link to my own website was because it came up in other threads and it was requested that I explain. Thats all I'm attempting to do with this, please dont take it as spam!

[fingerpikingood]

personally i find the best exercises are the ones where you're holding the guitar because that way you can be sure you're using the exact right muscles, and the right way, interms of strength/speed for the right muscles.

[bluesking]

Yep, I agree with you finger.

Also, it seems a little harsh to suggest that people are doing covert damage to their hands or muscles. If you feel pain, yes you are practicing incorrectly, but frankly you don't need a background in physiology to play guitar very well (and safely). Just listen to your body, it will tell you what is right or wrong. We do damage to ourselves when we fail to heed our own bodies.

Maybe its a shredders plague though. They are probably the only people likely to "play through the pain". Most other people try not to get locked into technique to the exclusion of pain or musicality. If this is the case I am clearly the wrong person to trust as I don't shred.

Just my 2 cents of course.

[ChainsawGuitar]

Sometimes by the time we've felt the pain, its too late.

...and no, this isn't about shred, its about guitar playing...

[fingerpikingood]

i'm not sure about that. the purpose of pain is so that you do not do harm to yourself.

if pain kicked in too late, then somehow evolution messed up.

but actually with knowledge there are certain types of pain that are fine, for example if you need to be operated upon by a surgeon then you need pain, although to save you from it they will nowadays anesthetize it.

pain is kind of a general term also. i think i've borne some pain when learning new chord shapes. i think the older you get the more pain you might get because your bones and stuff have solidified in a way not conducive to guitar playing.

you can reshape these things once you're older but basically it requires breaking what you already have, which probably isn't very comfortable.

and the muscle burn you get could be identified as pain too, so idk about the whole pain thing.

just be reasonable and don't hurt yourself. it's not going to be easy and ultra comfortable though because you're trying to get yourself to be able to do something you currently can't do. something's gotta give.

[JonR]

Just thought I'd point out: strictly speaking, there are no muscles in the fingers. There are tendons, operated by muscles in the palm and forearm.

The main points above are correct, of course. Pain is a warning, and should not be "played through".
The exception (IMO) is the pain in the fingertips you get as a beginner, from pressure and friction on the strings. This is inevitable while the skin is growing tougher - but still should not be played through too much. (Contrary to popular belief, the development of obvious callouses is not necessary. You may go through a blister stage - and they will heal - but over time fingertip skin just gets a little thicker and less sensitive.)

Any pain in muscles or tendons, OTOH, is a serious warning. It's a sign you're either practising wrong (eg, the same thing over and over, or using bad position), or just simply practising too much. Play though it and you can do serious damage. Not necessarily permanent, but enough to stop you playing for weeks or months while the hand recovers.

[Crossroads]

Although it's obviously right to say that pain is usually a warning to stop & take things a bit easier, for once I have to agree with fingerpicking when he says that the word "pain" is somewhat relative, and each of us may have quite different ideas of what we'd actually describe as "pain".

I also have to agree with the post above which drew particular attention to practicing shred styles, with fast alternate picking and wide legato stretches - in my experience that is far more likely to cause pain and discomfort. And I suppose the reason is simply that you are asking your hands to do much more extreme things compared to most if not all other styles of playing.

If it doesn't sound like snipping at Chainsaw's web page - I'd also be a little concerned about giving what appears to be advice bordering on medical opinion (unless guys are qualified medics specialising in hand injuries).

I can only really describe my own experience re. hand pain. However, I already did describe that in some detail (in replies on older threads), so here I'll just say that I was fairly reckless and for about 2 years of really intense practice 6 hours or more a day, I played through quite shocking pain levels, which actually carried on into the night and kept me awake with fairly dramatic hand pains most nights of the week.

Obviously it would be very reckless of me to suggest that anyone should follow my example. Though as it happened, those pains eventually disappeared, and I don't seem to have inflicted any lasting damage. Perhaps I should add that all of that period of hand-pain was from long sessions of shred picking.

At one time I might have dismissed ideas of playing exercises specifically designed to strengthen the playing action of the left hand.

However, a couple of years ago I had a student who was asking about shred playing, and amongst other things I decided to check the excercise in a well known book called Speed Mechanics. As it happened I'd had that book for some years, but never really practiced much from it. But when we played through some of the basic exercises, I was surprised to find a very obvious benefit in control and strength of the left hand fingers. Of course it's necessary to practice the exercises seriously for at least a few weeks, but the improvement was/is really very obvious.

So if other peoples experience is anything like mine, then that would be my advice - try practicing the first 30 or 40 exercises in Speed Mechanics, and make sure you are doing that with classically correct technique for left and right hand. I think you will find that improves the strength and control quite markedly, & quite quickly too.

2:cents.

Ian.

[ChainsawGuitar]

If it doesn't sound like snipping at Chainsaw's web page - I'd also be a little concerned about giving what appears to be advice bordering on medical opinion (unless guys are qualified medics specialising in hand injuries).



I'm not too sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that I'm giving advice bordering on medical opinion? Or that others are? I never claimed to be coming from an entirely medical perspective- I've always said that my opinion comes from a Guitar Technique perspective. I mean, its not like my website is talking about the anatomy of the hand or even about hand injuries. My website, of at least the article in question, is talking specifically about guitar exercises and hand exercises.

Also, I agree with the Speed Mechanics thing, but I dont really understand whats so different about this book suggesting exercises and my website suggesting exercises? Is it because I happen to mention that incorrect practice causes pain and possible damage?

I think that the way to achieve whatever you want to play on guitar without hurting yourself is to develop hand strength and use the correct technique.

[Crossroads]

I'm not too sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that I'm giving advice bordering on medical opinion?
Yes.

I just re-read your link, and actually you are quite clearly giving medical opinion (not simply bordering on it). But please don't turn this into an argument, because it's not.

I'm just a making a general point which all of us should be aware of. Namely - if any of us create internet web pages with specific advice which includes opinions about medical conditions, then we have to be very careful unless we are doing that in a professional capacity as a qualified medic specialising in the relevant area.

To a lesser extent we also have to be careful what any of us say on a public forum like this. And I particularly include myself in that, because as I say - in the past I've been quite reckless about playing through obvious pain levels, without lasting injury ... so I have to be careful to avoid suggesting that it's OK for others to follow my example, because they might not be so lucky (and I'm not medically qualified to give such advice).

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

qualified medic specialising in the relevant area.



not saying i disagree with you, but really. what does qualified mean? you need documentation? at the end of the day everyone who achieves diplomas got them from information other people wrote in books and anyone can access that information for free, and in a given specific or possibly even general subject be as qualified as a "qualified medic".

don't you find?

[Crossroads]

not saying i disagree with you, but really. what does qualified mean? you need documentation? at the end of the day everyone who achieves diplomas got them from information other people wrote in books and anyone can access that information for free, and in a given specific or possibly even general subject be as qualified as a "qualified medic".

don't you find?

No. Obviously not! :rolleyes:

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

why?

all the knowledge of mankind is at our fingertips.

you seem to me kind of back in the middle ages when you had to find a monastery to find any sort of litterature.

be tested or not, be certified or not, this has no bearing on your knowledge, only that a licensed someone has acknowledged it.

a frivolous unnecessary thing, apart from acquiring a job that doesn't want to waste money gambling on whether you know your stuff or not.

[Crossroads]

why?

all the knowledge of mankind is at our fingertips.

you seem to me kind of back in the middle ages when you had to find a monastery to find any sort of litterature.

be tested or not, be certified or not, this has no bearing on your knowledge, only that a licensed someone has acknowledged it.

a frivolous unnecessary thing, apart from acquiring a job that doesn't want to waste money gambling on whether you know your stuff or not.

This is not a philosophical discussion. I'm not going to engage you in another argument of that sort.

In general (not referring to Chainsaw's particular example) - simply because you read a medical book, that certainly does not justify you publishing what may appear to be medical advice about physical injuries.

That's clearly irresponsible, dangerous, and may even end up in legal action.

That should be obvious to everyone here.

Ian.

[ChainsawGuitar]

In general (not referring to Chainsaw's particular example) - simply because you read a medical book, that certainly does not justify you publishing what may appear to be medical advice about physical injuries.

If you are not refering to my site as an example, then I can understand what you're saying.

All I actually say on my website about it is "This is because if we use our muscles incorrectly, it will strain the muscles in a way that they are not designed for. Too much of this, and it becomes known as RSI or repetitive strain injury"

Thats the only time that I even mention medical conditions in the article, and I dont believe I have to be a doctor to say that repetitivly straining your muscles gives you repetitive strain injury.

I'm not trying to argue either, but you should understand why I defend what I said in the context that I said it- especially given what you said about being careful what we say.

[bluesking]

Spurious medical advice is all around us. When I used to go to the gym, the staff there used elaborate medical and physiological terms. They were selling a product though and I took it all with a pinch of salt. Talking to my doctor about the various exercises and approaches they proposed quickly showed a disparity between her and them.

If I am asked to place my trust in gym staff who are trying to sell a membership versus a qualified medical proffessional who, thanks to the UK's public health service, has no vested financial interest in the issue, I know who to trust.

Intriguingly, the gym staff seemed to be giving advice which was much more cautious than my doc. You might say they were hedging their bets (because they obviously are not properly qualified) but their tone belied this. They would use the tack: "Most other gyms will tell you this is an OK exercise, but we know better! Also, you as an individual are clearly not able to decide what is safe and what is not, but we can decide on your behalf. So if you want to get fit and you do anything but join our gym, you will probably cripple yourself for life. So now, how about that membership..."

My doctor was much more forgiving and said: "If you don't feel pain or discomfort you are almost certainly fine. In fact, some discomfort is perfectly normal, but given that you are not exercising for a proffessional reason, you will certainly be fine".

Now, perhaps we are all playing guitar at a "proffessional level", maybe practicing 6 hours+ a day. If you have ever practiced this much, you know what you can expect to feel in your hands and fingers. I used to do this, and it got me almost nowhere compared to my current, more relaxed attitutde.

Most proffesional guitarists do not actually practice for 6 hours a day if you hadn't noticed. They might play for 12 hours a day, but thats not exactly the same as practicing.

Also, it's hard for someone who is locked away for 6 hours in the woodshed to have much of a story to tell. It's equivallently hard to keep focused on what matters. 6 hours of bad practice is worth much less than 1 of good practice. When you do in fact spend 6 hours practicing each and every day you have no energy left to actually reflect on what you are practicing and why.

I still maintain that concerns of physical safety in guitar playing need to be approached with reason. Going overboard on safety is tantamount to saying: "You need to be really worried about your back when getting around by car, because you could hurt yourself whilst trying to push it up the motorway". Well, this statement assumes the best way to get around in a car is to push it instead of filling it up with petrol and driving it.

Don't forget, it's not like there are some exercises which will cause your hand to fall off and others which you can repeat indeffinitely. Even the safest exercise, when taken to an extreme becomes unsafe. I can play the same note over and over again for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year and I will die of sleep deprivation.

It is my belief that you cannot significantly accelerate learning an instrument. If you practice really hard for 1 year, it is not physically possible to play as well as someone who has been steadily (and a bit lazily) plodding along for 3. Impatience, not "the will to succeed" is the cause of damage to your hands.

In terms of impact on our lives guitar playing probably causes more problems in our social and interpersonal development. Even if our hands are perfectly healthy, despite constant woodshedding, we may have no band; no friends; no partner: no fun. I think if you are doing enough practice to worry about damage to your hands you are already doing too much practice. Listen to your body.

CAVEAT: The above is my opinion only and taking it too seriously could lead to severe and irreperable hand damage.:rolleyes: If you are affected by any of the issues covered in this thread, please consult a medical proffessional and stop trying to find answers on the internet.

[Crossroads]

First thing - Fingerpicking was making a general point, saying " you seem to be back in the middle ages ...." etc., and he's actually saying none of us need to do more than read a medical book before setting up a web page offering medical advice.

That is clearly wrong, and clearly very dangerous advice to offer anyone.

On the specific & separate point of what you actually said - your web page starts with this as your opening sentence -

" So did you realise that if you spend hours practicing incorrectly, you can actually waste hours doing damage to your hands and limiting your potential? Its true. This is because if we use our muscles incorrectly, it will strain the muscles in a way that they are not designed for. Too much of this, and it becomes known as RSI or repetitive strain injury- a condition that could end your musical career! This is why I've compiled this list of exercises and techniques to help strengthen the muscles of the hand and prevent injury- in no particular order. "

That sentence clearly is giving medical advice. And although you obviously don't want my opinion, if I were you, at the very least I'd add an initial sentence stating that you are not a doctor & that if people are concerned in any way then they should seek qualified medical advice. Better still - rewrite it to make it quite clear you offering a non-medical opinion.

However, I don't want to spend time here arguing about. But by all means send me a PM if you disagree with what I say, and I'll happily discuss it in more detail there.

Ian.

[metaljustice83]

I think this topic is getting a bit out of hand and should be diverted back to the original topic. There are many resources out there where one can make their own diagnosis or decide if it is time to seek professional help. This is a personal choice and everyone is able to make that choice for themselves. Unless someone is an MD their opinion is just as good as the next persons. Which can vary in results. So for your safety you should seek medical attention if you feel it is necessary, otherwise speculation from sources found anywhere is at your own discretion.


This is from a classical guitar book:

Economy of Movement

Economy of movement is a concept which receives a great deal of attention
in guitar instruction. Simply stated, it holds that guitarists should use the least
movement possible when playing. Misinterpretation of this concept has spawned the
following harmful technical approaches:

• To gain speed and fluency in scales, arpeggios, and the tremolo, the
right-hand fingers should be trained to move the shortest distance possible.

• Inactive left-hand fingers should be held as close to the fingerboard
as possible.

[bluesking]

Economy of movement is a concept which receives a great deal of attention
in guitar instruction. Simply stated, it holds that guitarists should use the least
movement possible when playing. Misinterpretation of this concept has spawned the
following harmful technical approaches:


Thats quite interesting. I must admit I have never thought about economy of movement. I have generally taken an approach based on economy of effort. This is purely personal and involves subjective judgement, but then so must economy of movement: for example, is it more economical movement-wise to stretch your pinky out 3 frets or to move your whole hand down a fret? The only way to say is to try it, and different people may give different answers.

Because I play almost everything in an improvised fashion it is often hard to find the most economical fingerings. When you learn a full piece by rote you can find the most economical way quite easily. However, when you learn a new arpeggio shape it is hard to say which way of playing it is most economical because you might play it in a number of different contexts, with each context having a different optimum fingering.

I've actually been taking a new tack to improving my speed. I try to play any given shape I learn in lots of different ways. For example, I have been trying to speed up this Maj7th shape over the last few days:

|.|.| | |
| |.| | |
| | |.| |
| | |.|.|
|.| | |.|
| |.| | |


So instead of the usual grind with the metronome (you know: play it cleanly so each note rings out, never go faster than you can articulate). I have tried the following steps:

1.) Play with very gentle left hand touch (causes stoccato)
2.) Very firm left hand touch (see if you can actually make the notes sharp by pressing in)
3.) Very gentle right hand picking (I always do alternate picking)
4.) Very firm right hand picking
5.) Start with the metronome way too slow, then work up to your max speed.
6.) Start with the metronome way too fast, then work down to your max speed. (This is really bad apparently, but I find it works very well for me.)
7.) Try not to think about what you are playing at all (watch TV as attentively as possible, talk to the girlie etc.... [she hates that])
8.) Try to concentrate on each note and stroke as attentively as possible, preffereable watch your hands in a mirror.

I have found that mixing all of that stuff up has sped me up way more than the usual economic way of doing things.

[Crossroads]

I don't think we really need to discuss the semi-legal and pseudo medical aspects any further. And certainly we don't need any arguments about it.

I think I've been clear about why I first raised a note of caution re. the advice on Chainsaws new webpage.

Just re. the advice in books - publishers have insurance and legal teams as well as editors who check for any potential legal problems. So the authors themselves don't normally need to worry about that.

But just as a final word on this (hopefully) - further down Chainsaws web page he says this -

" The more ways you can stretch those fingers, the better the exercise because the more muscles you're working. .......... Now set the metronome as fast as you dare- or can play without sounding sloppy! ".

But be clear - I'm not saying that I personally would refuse to follow any such advice. On the contrary, I already pointed out that the exercises are similar to the ones I found helpful in Speed Mechanics.

What I'm saying is simply - be careful about the words you use when describing guitar exercises in terms of medical issues about hand injury, pain, and the need to develop various muscles etc. ... ie, just distance the guitar playing advice from the medical implications, and avoid anything which sounds like you are stating medical facts (however much you may think you know and understand the medical facts) ... unless of course, as I already said, you are in fact a medic specialising in this particular area.

Otherwsie - thanks to BluesKing for guiding the subject gently back to guitar playing :D .

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

not read A book, yet books.

that's where medical students get their information from also.

[bluesking]

FFS,

Anyone can read a book (or books) and misunderstand it (or them). You are only qualified when you have proved to someone's satisfaction that you have understood something.

If you had cancer would you go and buy a book or go and see a doctor? Would you listen to someone on a forum because they say they have read a book or go and see a doctor? What would you do after you've read your book? Stick your chest in a household microwave and hope for the best?

Don't you have anyone at home you can get a reaction from? Why bring it here?

[Crossroads]

not read A book, yet books.

that's where medical students get their information from also.

Jeepers :rolleyes: .

OK, that's more than enough ....

.... please, no more advice about reading books to give medical opinions on the internet ...

.... just stick to the music and guitar stuff, thanks :mad: .


Ian.

[Crossroads]

Right ... so just to show willing, and to pick up from where Bluesking was taking us re. focusing on guitar & music stuff ...



This is from a classical guitar book:

Economy of Movement

Economy of movement is a concept which receives a great deal of attention
in guitar instruction. Simply stated, it holds that guitarists should use the least movement possible when playing. Misinterpretation of this concept has spawned the following harmful technical approaches:

• To gain speed and fluency in scales, arpeggios, and the tremolo, the right-hand fingers should be trained to move the shortest distance possible.

• Inactive left-hand fingers should be held as close to the fingerboard as possible.

Thats quite interesting. I must admit I have never thought about economy of movement. I have generally taken an approach based on economy of effort. This is purely personal and involves subjective judgement, but then so must economy of movement: for example, is it more economical movement-wise to stretch your pinky out 3 frets or to move your whole hand down a fret? The only way to say is to try it, and different people may give different answers.

I think it's pretty common for shred tutorials (books and DVD's) to suggest great economy of finger movement. That is - keeping the fingers and pick very close to the strings, to avoid any time making unnecessary movements between pick strokes and/or between fretting successive notes.

It sounds like it makes sense in terms of time efficiency ... and the time clearly becomes much more significant when talking about speeds of say 1/16th's at 160bpm and faster. Though it always seemed to me pretty intensive to play/practice like that, so personally I'm not surprised if guys find that shred playing puts a lot of strain on their hands.

But just re playing very fast by alternate picking - what I found mattered most, was (a)being really strict about the alternating pick strokes (it's very easy to unintentionally play some notes by legato or by economy picking, especially as you speed up), so you have to watch that very carefully, because the licks often won't sound right or will be very difficult to play unless you are picking with strict alternating strokes.

And (b)the sort fingering control that Chainsaw is talking about, does seem to be important. At least - as I say, after belatedly going back to Speed Mechanics, I was surprised at how much those first 30 exercises helped to speed up my general alternate picking, eg on typical Paul Gilbert licks and similar stuff ... so I think he's probably right to say those exercises are important to build up strength and control in the left hand.

On the other hand - super-fast picking isn't everything (is it?). Most of the time I prefer more expressive bluesy playing, or more arty/creative jazzy fusion playing. But that's all purely personal of course ... so just 2:cents on all that. :)

Ian.

[bluesking]

Yep,
Obviously speed is only one aspect of guitar playing. Also, it is only one cause of hand strain. When I moved up to 12's I deffinitely had to fight for my right to bend strings (even though I am droptuned). This caused me lots of discomfort and slowed me down a bit. Nowadays I can play faster with heavier strings as its obviously what I am used to. But then I think its easier to become maniacal about speed than string guage, so there is probably more likelyhood that someone will take it too far.

[Blutwulf]

Staying quite on-topic, I am actually a little pleased to see the arguments (which have adequately been presented so we can move on, as Crossroads has pointed out).

This forum is a learning resource for guitarists. What differentiates it from an academic resource or edited materials from an established publishing firm is that it is the "voice of your peers." If new guitarists learn nothing else from this thread, I am hoping they will carry away the understanding that they must weigh what they're reading, and keep the useful while discarding the rest.

How to tell which is useful and which is to be discarded? Well, apart from discarding anything from "Blutwulf," you should put it to a test of sorts. As you get more experienced, you can simply muse on it and decide.

As an example, just because information comes from charismatic posters like JonR or Jed doesn't mean it is useful to you. If you haven't noticed, they absolutely love music, and have a deep understanding of theory. Unfortunately, they will somethimes not lowball it enough, and can frequently overload your little newbie circuits in their passion.

As another example, just because information comes from cynical buttholes like Blutwulf doesn't mean it is to be offhandedly discarded. Much of their posting will be concerned with nipping bad habits in the bud, weeding out crap from quality, etc.

This thread didn't get to the point of underscoring completely the two poles of this topic. In a nutshell, "side 1" would have you believe a certain thing, and "side 2" would have you ignore that thing. What to choose? Well, put it to a test. (Hint: I'll tell you now that testing will result in you pursuing the economy of motion favored by classical guitarists. But is that useful? What if you want to play wicked metal with a guitar slung to your hip? Like I say... weigh and choose.)

[Crossroads]

Yep,

Obviously speed is only one aspect of guitar playing. Also, it is only one cause of hand strain. When I moved up to 12's I deffinitely had to fight for my right to bend strings (even though I am droptuned). This caused me lots of discomfort and slowed me down a bit. Nowadays I can play faster with heavier strings as its obviously what I am used to. But then I think its easier to become maniacal about speed than string guage, so there is probably more likelyhood that someone will take it too far.

Well the following is probably gear discussion, ie breaking the very rule I'm supposed to enforce lol ... but - in recent years I only ever use standard light 9-42 sets ... 20 years ago I went through a phase of trying all the heaviest gauges possible (I think I was probably influced by advice in a guitar mag or something), but I don't think I ever really saw the attraction of heavier strings .... I guess it's probably personal and invidual taste ... of course I snap plenty of top-E's and B's, and end up with vast stocks of unused low-E, A and D (and quite a lot of G too) ... a bit annoying that, ie the way we have to buy a whole set (no I don't change the whole set every time I bust a top string ... I do buy them 10 packs at a time though).

Ian.

[bluesking]

In a nutshell, "side 1" would have you believe a certain thing, and "side 2" would have you ignore that thing.

Great post, but in playing devil's advocate perhaps you have under-represented "side 2". As a self appointed (and I'm sure, unwelcome) member of "side 2" I would never suggest anyone ignore anything. However, what does get taken in should be judged in the cold light of suspicion, paranoia and misanthropy [or 'reason' as kinder people may view it]. Even moreso than normal if the internet is involved...

[bluesking]

Well the following is probably gear discussion, ie breaking the very rule I'm supposed to enforce lol ... but - in recent years I only ever use standard light 9-42 sets ... 20 years ago I went through a phase of trying all the heaviest gauges possible (I think I was probably influced by advice in a guitar mag or something), but I don't think I ever really saw the attraction of heavier strings .... I guess it's probably personal and invidual taste ... of course I snap plenty of top-E's and B's, and end up with vast stocks of unused low-E, A and D (and quite a lot of G too) ... a bit annoying that, ie the way we have to buy a whole set (no I don't change the whole set every time I bust a top string ... I do buy them 10 packs at a time though).

Ian.

Well, I'm not sure this is quite gear discussion, and if it is, perhaps it is on the acceptable side. I mean, gear deffinitely affects how we play, distorted lines vs. a clean archtop is a world of difference. Just imagine, most instruments can't approach this breadth of possibility (yay guitar!)

But on topic, I have been using 12s droptuned a semitone since my SRV-fanboy days. Since then, circumstances (and partly taste) have kept me doing it. I've messed about so many bands (especially poor ol' piano players) with weird keys that I can't really go back. I tried to talk about the possibility of going back to EADGBE at our last rehearsal, and I think they were about to hit me before I said "only joking". Singer's generally appreciate it. I love the feel and the tone. There is something a little "mean" about the sound, I have yet to work out whether this is a simple pitch issue, or something more complicated, rooted in temperament.

I do keep my archtop at standard tuning though, using the same guage, I find this suits it well. Thankfully I don't really play jazz outside of the home, so no one cares about my tuning.

[Crossroads]

Great post, but in playing devil's advocate perhaps you have under-represented "side 2". As a self appointed (and I'm sure, unwelcome) member of "side 2" I would never suggest anyone ignore anything.

Yep. Of course ... nobody here is ignoring stuff (as far as I can tell), well I'm certainly not (perhaps it would have been better if I had lol) :) .

Ian.

[Blutwulf]

I'm ignoring the Hell right out of it. I am so Side 2 that I have actually forgotten what it was I was ignoring. Probably some sort of sophistic and "different for difference's sake" methodology propagated by someone who regards a Wikipedia lookup as academic research.

But my point is that the reader will need to decide on their own. Who the Hell am I or anyone else to disagree with the OP? My disagreement is no more weighty than his assertion. Until the reader weighs it, he is as right as I am.

We should be allowed to disagree, of course. We should ignore where we feel it is warranted. We should also be allowed to encourage readers to disregard something just as emphatically as someone else encourages readers into using it. I should, I suppose, leave out the epithets and terms of opprobrium, but what better way to add immense excitement to a post, eh?

"Epithets and terms of opprobrium..." Who the Hell talks like that?

[Crossroads]

I'm ignoring the Hell right out of it. I am so Side 2 that I have actually forgotten what it was I was ignoring. Probably some sort of sophistic and "different for difference's sake" methodology propagated by someone who regards a Wikipedia lookup as academic research.

But my point is that the reader will need to decide on their own. Who the Hell am I or anyone else to disagree with the OP? My disagreement is no more weighty than his assertion. Until the reader weighs it, he is as right as I am.

We should be allowed to disagree, of course. We should ignore where we feel it is warranted. We should also be allowed to encourage readers to disregard something just as emphatically as someone else encourages readers into using it. I should, I suppose, leave out the epithets and terms of opprobrium, but what better way to add immense excitement to a post, eh?

"Epithets and terms of opprobrium..." Who the Hell talks like that?

Sure, ... but I think a difference arises when advice may risk serious repercussions.

If it's unqualified advice about which scales someone should learn, or about how to grow delphiniums, then it really doesn't pose any serious risk. But it's obviously quite different if the advice concerns medical matters.

I don't mind at all what Chainsaw writes on his web-page. He can write whatever he wants. That's his look-out.

The only potential difficulty arises if we appear to endorse the content by posting about it here. And in that case I'm just asking that we exercise due caution about that.

But to Chainsaw and Fingerpicking - lets not make it any big deal. It's just a minor passing storm in a teacup, OK guys :p .

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

lol. i'm just saying, you don't need a ba in history to know your history. you don't need a diploma in gardening to know your gardening, nor one in music to know your music, nor one is psychology to know your psychology, nor one in physics to know your physics and nor one in medical science to know your medical science.

I agree though that one should always be prudent and clear on what they know and what they don't know particularly when giving advice to others, i'm not referring to this specific case.

I'm just saying a diploma is superfluous and not necessary for possessing knowledge, that's all.

schools are not places necessarily where humans learn exactly. more where humans are trained to be workers. diplomas are only useful for being workers they are not necessary for being wise or learned in any subject really although some things require physical ability and use of tools that are hard to come by to be good at, but information wise libraries and google know all and can supply any information any school can.



as for string gauge I play acoustic and currently have medium strings on there, but i'd like to go thicker.

thicker strings give better harmonics and are better for finger tapping, and when i had lighter ones sometimes i would bend the top e right off my fretboard which was incredibly annoying.

i will never go to lighter strings again and would like to try heavier ones, but they are hard to come by.

(why the basically thickest gauge is called medium, i don't know..)

as for speed, i think most things that people will tell you to do will come naturally, and i wouldn't recommend focusing on those, it will cramp your style.

it's like golf, you can find so many things "stand like this" "put your ball here" "twist your hips" all sorts of stuff that are ruining peoples' games every day and filling their minds with useless stuff, that alot of which is technical true, but concentrating on that is completely the wrong way to go about it imo.

but minimizing movement i do find is a good thing. for example i don't recommend practicing something that is easier for you to do but that requires more movement rather that something you're not flexible or dexterous enough for.

because when you want to go to ludicrous speed you'll need to have minimized your movement. there's no way around it. you need to practice what's difficult but most convenient.

if speed is not a concern for you, then play any way you want as long as it sounds nice.

if you plan to play quickly then practice the right way to go quickly, meaning slowly, cleanly slowly ramping up the pace with no sudden jumps in pace, and what's most "convenient" or compact require the least movement.

and when you do this, you'll feel it, mostly in your forearms. and when you do, that there is the gold you were looking for. that's what you improving your speed feels like, and the very next time you pick up your guitar, if you pushed yourself enough, you'll be faster.

if you don't feel a burn, your time was basically wasted.

[ChainsawGuitar]

Well I have to say, thanks for the input guys- even if it was a bit like an arguement at first.

I thought I clearly wasnt giving medical advice, but if thats not clear I will probably think about either re-wording it, making it clear that I'm not a doctor, or at least mentioning my sources/links to further reading materials.

And just like Fingerpikinggood was saying, I dont have a medical degree, but I happen to know about the anatomy of the hand- but from a guitar playing perspective, not a medical one.