Current Right Hand Technique: Are Shearer, Presti still valid?

[jmaulz]

This fosters interdependence between the fingers, the foundation of focal dystonia.

I think you have it backwards - if one develops focal dystonia, then, due to the overlapping in the brain of the mental model for two fingers, they, as a result, are not independent of one another anymore. Performing normal, if coordinated, motions with multiple fingers at the same time does not by itself lead to focal dystonia, however.

Correct, the fingers are not independent, they are, as I said, interdependent. And I couldn't agree more, simultaneous normal, coordinated motions do not lead to focal dystonia.

[Tom Poore]

Mr. Maulsby:

There’s much confusion to parse through, which I’ll be willing to discuss. But first, let’s deal with the crux of our disagreement.

I challenge jmaulz to cite any method—by Shearer or anyone else—that makes this assertion.

This is odd (and more than a little offensive), but since you’re insistent, I’ll respond: I am unable to cite any method—by Shearer or anyone else—that makes this assertion. As I made clear in my post, my experience wasn’t necessarily a reflection of the Shearer method, though the teacher I worked with was a current student with Aaron at Peabody at the time, 1975-1976:

You’re trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you say you’re not necessarily talking about Shearer. That gives you plausible deniability. On the other hand, you painstakingly insinuate that the thing you’re arguing against is a Shearer concept. Well which is it? Your tactic, intentional or not, is clear. You’re indulging in the old fallacy: I’m not saying my neighbor is a thief, but people who know tell me my neighbor is a thief.

Here’s the bottom line, in your own words: “I am unable to cite any method—by Shearer or anyone else—that makes this assertion.”

As for the “hostile, accusatory, off point, and personally hurtful tone” of my responses, consider this. You link someone’s name to a potentially harmful concept, but you cite no evidence that he actually advocated it. Further, what evidence you offer is secondhand, and you admit it’s doubtful. And then you fault me for calling you on it.

On sober reflection, you might grant that your posts gave good reasons for my taking offense, regardless of your actual intent.

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA

[da23will]

It's not easy to understand what one means by "Shearer technique" or "Presti technique", because there is, presumably, a lot more to their "technique" than just the position of the wrist.

Putting aside the old chesnut of whether one is supposed to move primarily from the knuckle joint or not - which other threads have discussed - the thing about right hand technique that interests me most is the difference between "sympathetic motion", and finger independence and playing/relaxing. I distinguish these two "schools" because I have always struggled to reconcile them. If these schools or ideas can be reconciled, then I would love an explanation.

As I understand it, and as an illustration, an advocate of sympathetic motion would play a tremolo by playing a, m and I and keeping all three fingers in the hand until p plays, at which time a, m and I are released in a block. By contrast, those who talk of the play/relax approach appear (in a tremolo situation) to relax each and every finger immediately after it plucks, so that it returns, naturally and without effort, to its position above the string.

Can anyone reconcile these two approaches or, if not, illuminate Shearer's thoughts on finger movement in a tremolo context (and in particular, what one is supposed to do with each finger immediately after it has plucked the string)?

[Crofty]

da23will

"What one is supposed to do with the finger...."

For myself, that has always been a decision that I am content to leave to my fingers, since I have never seen any possible advantage in forcing them away from their natural return impulse.

Their natural instinct always seems to return to their "neutral" position. If I analyse it, this return impulse seems to operate at the same speed as the actual stroke - a sort of mirror image - and, given that I want the fingers to be immediately available to pluck again, that always seemed fine by me.

I have enquired of advocates of deliberately holding them in, releasing as a bloc etc, when playing tremolo, to explain the benefits but have never received an answer that makes sense.

Paul

[Tom Poore]

It's not easy to understand what one means by "Shearer technique" or "Presti technique", because there is, presumably, a lot more to their "technique" than just the position of the wrist.

I won’t speak for Presti, as I have no firsthand knowledge of her own thoughts on how to play. Shearer, on the other hand, described his approach in great detail. There are twelve books published under his name. His “Learning the Classic Guitar, Part One” (1990) is a good place to start.

As I understand it, and as an illustration, an advocate of sympathetic motion would play a tremolo by playing a, m and I and keeping all three fingers in the hand until p plays, at which time a, m and I are released in a block. By contrast, those who talk of the play/relax approach appear (in a tremolo situation) to relax each and every finger immediately after it plucks, so that it returns, naturally and without effort, to its position above the string.

Can anyone reconcile these two approaches or, if not, illuminate Shearer's thoughts on finger movement in a tremolo context (and in particular, what one is supposed to do with each finger immediately after it has plucked the string)?

To my knowledge, Shearer never published anything in which he directly addresses tremolo. My understanding, however, is that he would view it as a natural consequence of fundamental right hand technique, which he addressed in detail.

While he didn’t address tremolo, he did describe the a, m, i arpeggio in detail. (This arpeggio is obviously analogous to tremolo.) One fundamental of Shearer’s approach is to avoid, when possible, alternation between m and a. Thus, he taught a, m, i as follows:

1) As a starting position, prepare all three fingers on the strings—a on ①, m on ②, and i on ③.

2) Without moving m and i, flex a to sound ①.

3) Without moving i, flex m to sound ②. (a continues in the same direction as m.)

4) Flex i to sound ③—m and a simultaneously extend together back to prepare on ② and ①.

5) Begin a new cycle by flexing a to sound ① without moving m. (i does not yet return to ③.)

6) Flex m to sound ②—i now returns and prepares on ③.

Note that this sequence puts alternation between i and m, rather than between m and a. Shearer’s reasoning is that i and m are naturally more independent than m and a. Thus, it makes sense to put alternation between i and m.

Shearer knew that it’s often impossible to avoid m and a alternation. (For example, during the p, i, m, a, m, i arpeggio.) And like most teachers, he taught exercises for developing m and a alternation. But when given the choice to put alternation between i and m or between m and a, Shearer recommended i and m as the better choice.

Specifically regarding tremolo, when practicing slowly, Shearer would recommend that a, m, and i together return to the string as p flexes to sound the bass string. But as the movement speeds up, I believe he would know that i might begin its return before m and a.

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA

[Alexander Kalil]

the thing about right hand technique that interests me most is the difference between "sympathetic motion", and finger independence and playing/relaxing. I distinguish these two "schools" because I have always struggled to reconcile them.

Actually, if you wish, there are three different 'schools' for studying right hand movement patterns. Apart from the sympathetic-motion and the play-relax approaches you mention, there is the opposed-motion or finger-exchange approach: to actively extend the next finger to play while a finger is being flexed. This is presumably the one jmaulz is criticizing in his first post above and that has lead to the subsequent dispute.

an advocate of sympathetic motion would play a tremolo by playing a, m and I and keeping all three fingers in the hand until p plays, at which time a, m and I are released in a block. By contrast, those who talk of the play/relax approach appear .. to relax each and every finger immediately after it plucks, so that it returns, naturally and without effort, to its position above the string.

And by further contrast, an advocate of the opposed-motion approach would play tremolo by, say, flexing p while extending am, then flexing a, then flexing m while extending pi, then flexing i. Another advocate would rather flex p while extending i, then flex a, then flex m, then flex i while extending pma. And so on.

Can anyone reconcile these two approaches

Berg in his above mentioned book, Lesson 14 in particular, seems to be aiming at reconciling all three approaches. He begins by dividing right hand patterns into two categories: those involving sympathetic motion, and those involving opposed motion between fingers. He then goes on to analyze each pattern as a sequence of individual flexion movements accompanied by simultaneous sequence of carefully timed extension movements. Finally, he observes (at the beginning of the chapter):

"After the patterns become organized and comfortable at higher speeds, restudy them and apply the concept of release: during slow practice each finger can release right after its stroke. As the speed increases, the release will become integrated into a fluid movement."

So he seems overall to be suggesting to study/teach right hand movements first in the sympathetic-motion and opposed-motion modes and then later switch to the play-relax mode.

....
To me personally Berg's system appears unecessarily complicated, and quite puzzling. Why not just play-relax from the start?! I am a subscriber to the play-relax approach myself and never had any problems playing everything this way. But I gather that Berg is an experienced teacher and he must have some good reasons for his multi-stage method.

[lagartija]

With regard to the three methods Alexander references in his post, depending on the student, one approach may be better than the other.

I first learned ami arpeggio using the block release. When I learned pimami arpeggio, I learned to extend m as a played ( the opposing motion method). Then as I learned other patterns, I learned to use immediate release.

I remember asking why I had keep all the fingers in the hand and not just release them individually when they finished plucking. My teacher at that time could not say why...that was the way he was taught and he just accepted it. I did as I was told. After a number of years of playing I concluded that the block release method for pima was intended to teach a student who did not know what release felt like in their hand. Each student comes with a different history of how they have used their hands in other tasks besides music, they have different degrees of dexterity and some are more or less aware of tension in their hands or other parts of their body. Complete release of individual fingers can be too subtle for some students. Releasing all the fingers in a block is a gross motor motion in comparison to individual release and perhaps is meant to teach the student what release feels like.
Was it necessary for me as a first step? I don’t think so, since I could already release fingers individually, and was very aware of the sensations of release and tension from my decades long practice of martial arts and yoga. However, I have seen students who have not yet become aware of when they have tension in muscles and when they have relaxed them.
Just as there are “natural athletes” who have full command of their bodies, there are those who do not have such facility and must learn to use their bodies from a more basic starting point.

To say one way is the “natural” way for the hand to move and it is obvious that one of these methods is *the* right way to teach the technique, seems to assume that all students come with the same awareness and habitual use of their body. The habitual use of the body determines what most people call “comfortable and natural” ( for some people, tension “feels natural “!) and unless you are working with very young children, that will depend on the physical tasks and hobbies the student had before coming for instruction in guitar.

One size does not fit all and perhaps having the three ways of teaching allows one to use the approach that is most appropriate for that particular student and the way they use their body.

[Mark Clifton-Gaultier]

One size does not fit all and perhaps having the three ways of teaching allows one to use the approach that is most appropriate for that particular student and the way they use their body.

That's a good philosophy in principle but assumes that the instructor is capable of making the judgement. Your own experience of being taught by someone who appears not to have had a clue what they were doing or why - good or bad - is all too common.

Everything you say about past experience, working life, its impact on the hands and mind (i.e. awareness) is pertinent.

I have had students in that position - cabinet makers and joiners of many years standng whose hands worked as fists (though still capable of great finesse of touch in their particular way) and who had to (re)learn the most simple of single digit flexion/release processes over several months.

The block release method is a brilliant way of introducing the same sort of unnecessary tension to the hands of those who have not already benefitted from such a profession.

[lagartija]

One size does not fit all and perhaps having the three ways of teaching allows one to use the approach that is most appropriate for that particular student and the way they use their body.

That's a good philosophy in principle but assumes that the instructor is capable of making the judgement. Your own experience of being taught by someone who appears not to have had a clue what they were doing or why - good or bad - is all too common.

Yes, good point. If you never thought about the approach you were taught and why it was taught that way, you might end up being a teacher who cannot or does not analyze how your student uses the body and what approach will advance their technique best.
I agree that there are many “one size fits all” type teachers out there.

Everything you say about past experience, working life, its impact on the hands and mind (i.e. awareness) is pertinent.

I have had students in that position - cabinet makers and joiners of many years standng whose hands worked as fists (though still capable of great finesse of touch in their particular way) and who had to (re)learn the most simple of single digit flexion/release processes over several months.

The block release method is a brilliant way of introducing the same sort of unnecessary tension to the hands of those who have not already benefitted from such a profession.

Perhaps, or it is possible that total relaxation of all fingers at once on cue (p playing) is a strong enough sensation (compared to individual release) that the unaware student understands finally what is meant by”release”. I agree that for a student that is already able to release individually, that would be unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. In my case, I don’t think it messed me up, but it was time spent on a possibly unnecessary task.
Yes, a student who was in the merchant marines for many years used his hands and forearms as a unit (as one would when hauling in lines) and took some time for him learn to use his fingers independently and especially to release a and c. He was taught that release by using the block release method. At this point, he has enough knowledge of how to release that the fingers can be released independently. Could he have been taught to do that quicker with individual release? Perhaps...but we will never know which path was shortest to the end result.

[jmaulz]

Mr. Maulsby:

There’s much confusion to parse through, which I’ll be willing to discuss. But first, let’s deal with the crux of our disagreement.

I challenge jmaulz to cite any method—by Shearer or anyone else—that makes this assertion.

This is odd (and more than a little offensive), but since you’re insistent, I’ll respond: I am unable to cite any method—by Shearer or anyone else—that makes this assertion. As I made clear in my post, my experience wasn’t necessarily a reflection of the Shearer method, though the teacher I worked with was a current student with Aaron at Peabody at the time, 1975-1976:

You’re trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you say you’re not necessarily talking about Shearer. That gives you plausible deniability. On the other hand, you painstakingly insinuate that the thing you’re arguing against is a Shearer concept. Well which is it? Your tactic, intentional or not, is clear. You’re indulging in the old fallacy: I’m not saying my neighbor is a thief, but people who know tell me my neighbor is a thief.

Here’s the bottom line, in your own words: “I am unable to cite any method—by Shearer or anyone else—that makes this assertion.”

As for the “hostile, accusatory, off point, and personally hurtful tone” of my responses, consider this. You link someone’s name to a potentially harmful concept, but you cite no evidence that he actually advocated it. Further, what evidence you offer is secondhand, and you admit it’s doubtful. And then you fault me for calling you on it.

On sober reflection, you might grant that your posts gave good reasons for my taking offense, regardless of your actual intent.

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA

Hello Tom – it seems to me that we’ve come full circle, so in hopes of minimizing further confusion, allow me to recap:
I studied with a student of Aaron Shearer’s at Peabody in the mid 70’s who taught me that when one finger flexed, another should extend. This technique fostered interdependence in my hand between the fingers which was a contributing factor to symptoms of focal dystonia that I experienced beginning a few years later. I did not say, nor have I ever said, that this technique was Shearer’s method. Nor do I mean to suggest that this technique has or will necessarily cause injury to anyone else.

If I understand correctly, you read, and were offended by two things:
1. The implication that Shearer, or any other teacher for that matter, taught that every movement must be accompanied with another movement (“I’ve never seen any guitar teacher claim that every movement must be accompanied with another movement.”)
And,
2. That I had linked Shearer’s name to a potentially harmful concept without evidence (“You link someone’s name to a potentially harmful concept, but you cite no evidence that he actually advocated it.”)

Un-pleasantries aside, and to your point, it’s true, there is an implicit association here. At the time I certainly had no reason to think otherwise. However, because I didn't know in fact whether or not the instruction I received was the Shearer Method per se, I’ve always been careful to offer the disclaimer that I can’t be certain the instruction I received at that time was Shearer’s teaching.

Having only had one session with Shearer himself, and never having seen or heard of this technique from any other source, I’m more than happy to defer to your experience, having worked closely with the man for many years, that he, in fact, did not teach that when one finger flexes, another should extend, or that every movement must be accompanied with another movement.

You did peek my interest, however, and so I dug out my Shearer Method books. In light of this discussion, it would be helpful to me, and probably others, if you would share your thoughts about the intent behind the following excerpts from Mel Bay’s Aaron Shearer Learning the Classic Guitar Part 1 (c. 1990), regarding extending one finger when another flexes, which sound a lot like the training I received so many years ago:

Page 68 regarding free-stroke -
“After sounding its string, i extends as m flexes-this is the opposed movement.”

“Your aims in beginning free-stroke alternation are as follows: To ensure that, at the instant i moves in one direction, m moves in the other.”

“Proceed as follows: Begin with the familiar p,i, m movement, sounding (strings) 5, 3, 2, except now extend and prepare i on (string) 3 as m flexes to sound…
While following through with m, again sound (string) 3 with i and simultaneously extend and place p against (string) 5…
While sounding (string) 5 with p, lead with m to extend and place i-m on their respective strings…”

Page 82 regarding opposed-finger sweeps –
“Remember, one finger simultaneously extends as the other flexes.”

Page 87 regarding rest-stroke –
“As you begin rest-stroke alternation, remember that your fingers must move in opposite directions – one finger simultaneously extending as the other flexes.”

“Proceed as follows: …
Flex i; as i contacts (string) 2, extend m without a pause. As i sounds (string) 2 and follows through to come to rest against (string) 3, m should continue extending to a position…
Without hesitation, complete the alternation cycle by sounding (string) 2 with m and simultaneously extending i…”

Thank you.

[Tom Poore]

Mr. Maulsby:

Every citation you posted from “Learning the Classic Guitar” involves right hand movements in which alternation of adjacent fingers is absolutely necessary. For example, your citation from page 68 is describing the p, i, m, i arpeggio. And your citation from page 87 is describing i and m alternation.

So please explain. Are you seriously proposing that right hand alternation should be done without moving adjacent fingers simultaneously in opposite directions?

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA

[guitarrista]

It seems to me that 90+ percent of the time when students complain about a teacher's instruction it is actually about students misinterpreting a teacher's instruction and then complaining that the misinterpretation, which they falsely attribute to the teacher, makes no sense or has harmful results.

[Crofty]

It has always seemed utterly obvious to me that the natural way that ANYBODY might tap their index/middle fingers on a table=top [usually out of boredom/impatience] is precisely the same as that advised, for guitarists, by Shearer and others.

It's also always felt to me like a chapter, in a book on running, describing what legs need to do....... I think for most people such advice would be redundant. However, as I have observed so many players with faulty rh techniques, over many, many years I can see that the technical difficulties of playing a guitar can often disturb these natural finger movements.

The problem is then that necessary advice can be misunderstood, but also that incredibly simple and natural movements of fingers becomes subject to too much self-analysis; then players can end up losing that natural, alternating movement, rather than reinforcing it.

My own view is that complex and UNnecessary advice on special sequencing of the fingers - for basic alternation in tremolo for example - has a lot to answer for in muddying the waters surrounding this topic.

Paul

[Jack Douglas]

When I started this inquiry in January of 2017 my query was for me about the position and angle of the wrist and height of hand above the fretboard. Since my original post I’ve gotten a better understanding of how my natural ‘crooked’ nails require a mid nail string attack thereby requiring a slightly open right hand (when I look down I see a slight hint of palm. It’s slight, but very effective in getting a full rich tone and my nails don’t hook the strings. That may sound simple, but it’s made a big difference in ease of playing.
I am fortunate to have attended several of Christopher Berg’s guitar workshops and started early on alternating fingers when I play. I don’t consciously think about what my fingers are doing. Using m and a simultaneously is still an effort. Of late I’m concentrating of using i for my main rest stroke instead on m. Long story, but that started when a teacher told me how easy it was to use a as a rest stroke as easily as a free stroke.
I’ve been following another discussion on here about ‘the Discovery’ Of a feather light right hand technique. I feel that my right hand is relaxed, but pressing the string downward to cause the string’s up an down motion requires more than a feather light touch; relaxed yes and without tension. For me just enough effort to set the string in motion is required to get a rich, full tone.
I’ve learned that Right hand technique must include the shaping and care of the nails. Adam Holtzman was a tremendous help to me in tweaking the shape of my nails. I’ll fully admit that my gardening results in broken nails and starting over often. I’m a hobbyist guitarist so it’s not the end of the world.
I have learned much from the many comments about the subject!! Thank you!

[Tom Poore]

It seems to me that 90+ percent of the time when students complain about a teacher's instruction it is actually about students misinterpreting a teacher's instruction and then complaining that the misinterpretation, which they falsely attribute to the teacher, makes no sense or has harmful results.

Amen. I’ve ceased to be astonished at how even the most obvious misreading can harden into an obdurate misconception.

An example: Years ago, there was an internet discussion of Shearer’s “Learning the Classic Guitar.” A well known person in classical guitar scholarship chimed in to fault Shearer for ignoring solfege. I replied that solfege was an integral part of “Learning the Classic Guitar.” In reply, this scholar argued that Shearer didn’t advocate solfege from the beginning of a student’s study, and thus was too late to be useful. I then pointed out that “Learning the Classic Guitar” instructed beginning students to solfege before they began playing a piece on the guitar. I also noted that the very first piece in “Learning the Classic Guitar” was entitled “So-Re One.” The scholar ignored the plain fact that his arguments were obviously false.

There’s a point at which ignorance becomes willful.

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA