Andrei Puhach wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:55 pm
It might be a bit harder to play with short nails, especially, the 'a' finger: higher chance to miss the string. Finger movements must get more precise.
Another example is Tatyana Ryzhkova (easy to google images of her nails).
Thanks for your help. Andrei. But why Tatyana Ryzhkova? She strikes the notes at an oblique angle and does not achieve a particularly outstanding tone quality, despite having access to very expensive luthier guitars. I am trying to achieve tone quality with the headstock held very high (playing nearly perpendicular to the strings) with modest-quality factory-made guitars.
At my current level, playing with short nails seems to me much easier than playing with long nails. Short nails are recommended by both Hubert Käppel and Stanley Yates, my two guides in guitar technique. With long nails, I think it is very difficult to get the sweet spot exactly right. You want to depress the string with the flesh and make the stroke exactly when you have compressed the flesh to the point where the flesh just meets the nail. Now, since how much you compress the flesh of the fingertips determines the dynamics, it is of course constantly changing with every stroke of every finger. Nonetheless, if the nails are short enough, the fingers (the brain?) quickly learns to just to get it exactly right each time, despite constantly changing depth of depressing the string. Biofeedback from the ears is of course essential to adjust on the fly. All of this is much harder as the attack angle approaches the perpendicular, unless there is something that I am missing. So far, it seems impossible. You cannot get a quick, noiseless release from the center of the nail when stroking nearly perpendicular to the string. Yet Paul Galbraith does it. I hope to discover the secret.