Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.guitar Subject: Pinkie Wars Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:29:52 -0400 NOTE: I've renamed this thread for the benefit of those who are tired of the debate between John and I on this subject. If you fall into this category, just avoid the "Pinkie Wars" posts. Personally, I think this is exactly the kind of debate that should be happening in the guitar world. So if you're still following this debate, read on. John wrote: > Here, again, is your a priori assumption that [posting > the little finger] causes excess tension (until now you've > been arguing that it causes *increased* tension - sudden- > ly, without giving further reasons, you now believe it is > excessive?). I see no difference between increased tension and excessive tension. If one technique causes more tension than another, then the increased tension is excessive. It's excessive because the other technique eliminates it. If you want to assert that increased tension can be beneficial, then you need to explain the circumstances under which this is so. I wrote: > You've argued that posting the little finger is useful > in scale playing. This is hardly a new musical situation. > Further, posting the little finger isn't a new idea. It > was standard lute and guitar technique for centuries. > Yet in spite of this, it was eventually abandoned because > the increasing demands of guitar playing made its faults > too obvious to ignore. John wrote: > Yes, and it was abandoned in order to free the a finger. > Since p-i runs don't use the a finger what you've said > above is irrelevant to your task of proving that the > technique is biomechanically unsound. You're making an unfounded assumption. Remember, guitarists posted the little finger for generations. Human nature being what it is, I doubt they would have given up a valid technique for the sake of a theoretical abstraction. You've said that posting the little finger mostly affects A, and that this isn't an issue in P-I alternation. So why did guitarists abandon it? John wrote: > I'm trying to get you to prove that your stricture against > planting the little finger does, in fact, reflect reality. > You still have to do that. Actually, I think I have. But you've claimed you feel no increased tension when you've tried the experiments I've suggested. I find this hard to believe, so I'll try again. 1) Hold your hand in front of you. Your wrist should be comfortably aligned, with no deviation to the right or left, and only a slight downward bend. Relax your fingers as much as possible. There should only be enough tension in your hand to hold it in the position I've described. 2) Now laterally splay apart your fingers. Notice the increased tension in your hand. 3) Now release the tension you used to splay your fingers. Your fingers should fall back into their normal position, very close to each other. 4) Try this several times. Notice that no matter how slightly you splay your fingers apart, the tension in your hand increases. ANY LATERAL SPLAYING OF THE FINGERS INCREASES TENSION. (Lee F. Ryan describes this in his book "The Natural Classical Guitar." He recommends "stacking" of the right hand fingers to avoid this tension.) Assuming you grant this, can you explain how posting the little finger can be done with no lateral splaying of the fingers? If you post your little finger, you must splay the fingers apart, especially between A and C. As you cross from one string to the next, this splaying (and thus the tension) increases. Your solution is as follows: > Actually, I figured out how to deal with this. > As you play to the higher strings you lift the > little finger off of the soundboard and place it > on the 1st or second string. Not as stable, but it > works, and the tension and difficulty are gone. > Therefore, you do not have to switch to different > techniques between the upper and lower strings. First, isn't stability the raison d'etre of posting the little finger? If you're chipping away at its stability, you're begging the question: is this technique really worth preserving? Second, your solution is to post your finger on the soundboard when playing strings 1-3, and repost your finger on 1 or 2 when playing the bass strings. This only lessens the splaying, it doesn't eliminate it. You might reply that you can minimize this further by reposting your finger at every string crossing. Again, this begs the question: is this technique worth preserving? Now let's get down to business. You may do the experiment I've described above and report that you feel no increased tension when you splay your fingers. If so, then I simply don't believe it. In fact, I don't believe you're feeling no increased tension when you post your finger on the soundboard. You've said I'm ignoring your reports because they conflict with my preconceptions. But consider what you're asking me to believe. You're asking me to believe that when you immobilize one finger, it has no significant effect on your other fingers. In essence, you're telling me your hand works differently from every other human hand. Call me pigheaded, but your claim defies reality. I've already suggested you're dismissing excess tension because you're so accustomed to it that you don't notice it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it only means you personally haven't noticed it. When I pointed out the flaws that cause increased tension, you replied: > Well, if they don't bother me, they aren't flaws. > Perhaps if they ever do bother me, then they'll > become flaws. The answer is right there, in your own words. I realize how smug I sound. But all I can say is that I've seen many people who can't detect subtle but real increases in hand tension. (Indeed, for the first sixteen years of my own playing, I couldn't recognize subtle increases in tension. Only after good training did I become more sensitive to it. And I'm still learning.) The excess tension in bad technique is real. Its effects can be seen and heard in the playing of those who have bad technique. It can also be seen and heard in the way their playing improves once the excess tension is eliminated through better technique. John wrote: > BTW, there's no animosity in anything I say in this > thread, Tom. Nothing personal. I've never regarded any of your debates with me on RMCG to be personal attacks. Your criticism has always been directed at what I say, not who I am. John wrote: > I just don't believe you are able to prove your position > regarding that this technique is unsound. If you could, you > would have offered solid evidence by now and done so. In- > stead, you only offer accepted theory. There comes a point when I can no longer offer additional evidence. Either what I say makes sense to you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you're free to reject it. Incidentally, you've repeatedly said you're not recommending posting the little finger. Why? Either it works or it doesn't. If you really believe it causes no excess tension, why not advocate it and teach it to your students?