Great players with bad technique?

Lately I have exchanged a few posts here with guys like JoeBob and Jim Richmond... these guys are teachers and believe in proper technique.

I am NOT a teacher, and everything I do is wrong from a 'proper technique' point-of-view. At first I tried to argue with these guys, but I realized that I was being stupid. There are certain things a learner can do to improve the mechanical efficiency of his tools (hands, fingers, etc) and only a fool (or an old hack like me) would ignore these valuable instructions.

But having said that - we all know that many great guitar players have developed their own styles that do not always follow the rules of proper technique.

My question is: which famous names do - and which do NOT - play with proper technique? Does Clapton play with proper technique?... Mark Knopfler?... BB King...?

Who among the great and the good plays by the rules?... and who breaks them all?

Lately I have exchanged a few posts here with guys like JoeBob and Jim Richmond... these guys are teachers and believe in proper technique.

I am NOT a teacher, and everything I do is wrong from a 'proper technique' point-of-view. At first I tried to argue with these guys, but I realized that I was being stupid. There are certain things a learner can do to improve the mechanical efficiency of his tools (hands, fingers, etc) and only a fool (or an old hack like me) would ignore these valuable instructions.

But having said that - we all know that many great guitar players have developed their own styles that do not always follow the rules of proper technique.

My question is: which famous names do - and which do NOT - play with proper technique? Does Clapton play with proper technique?... Mark Knopfler?... BB King...?

Who among the great and the good plays by the rules?... and who breaks them all?

I think Clapton's a good example. He definitely does not stick to the one finger per fret rule - often times I'll see him use is 3rd finger when I would use my fourth.

I think technique is an individual thing in more than just a subjective way. People have different physiology - finger lengths, etc. To me it looks like Clapton has a slight case of what I call the 'Monkey Fingers'. I have a friend with a similar hand-type, very long fingers - it's easier for him to rely on his ringer finger in situations where I find it easier to use my pinky.

I think in some cases technique just has to take a back seat to the physical realities of your individual hands.

I don't think Django Reihnardt would fall into the 'good technique' category, but it sure didn't hold him back!

Yeah, Clapton. We should snip his left pinky off.

Lately I have exchanged a few posts here with guys like JoeBob and Jim Richmond... these guys are teachers and believe in proper technique.

I am NOT a teacher, and everything I do is wrong from a 'proper technique' point-of-view. At first I tried to argue with these guys, but I realized that I was being stupid.

:-)
FWIW- I didn't think I was being argued with- and I welcome a healthy level of debate. Keeps me on my toes. :-)

But having said that - we all know that many great guitar players have developed their own styles that do not always follow the rules of proper technique.

My question is: which famous names do - and which do NOT - play with proper technique? Does Clapton play with proper technique?... Mark Knopfler?... BB King...?

Who among the great and the good plays by the rules?... and who breaks them all?

I would say that most rock players play with some degree of flawed technique and many jazz players from time to time as well.
SRV has the notorious thumb over the fretboard that would send Segovia into an apoplectic fit.

1GSpbuFSr2o

Same with Satch:

jGNgcRwKW4Q

Even technique monster Mike Stern has a creeping thumb.

x4urazL5zkU

John Scofield and Pat Martino too.
Even Danny Gatton.
You would be hard pressed to find a guitarist who doesn't have some hole in their technique.
Classical technique is the most accurate/economical- but you can't dig in with it.

I think in some cases technique just has to take a back seat to the physical realities of your individual hands.

I don't think Django Reihnardt would fall into the 'good technique' category, but it sure didn't hold him back!

Not at all- Django is one of my favourites of all time.
Monster player- he used his crippled fingers to make chords he couldn't make with two fingers. So musical.

proper technique.... oh man, what is that? i would say "do everything you can to make your music". if it works, its good. if not, it has to be redesigned to achieve a certain thing. as long as your fingers make it, it´s fine.
the videos above show masters of the illegal thumb. great stuff.

So muting the E with your thumb is dumb ?? With mits as big as mine.. forget it. My wife brings me size 9 gloves from the surgury center and they just fit. ;)


Imagine if all the greats had perfect technique, I bet they would not sound as different as they do...

My technique is horrible, but it works for me.

I play open D major chords with my first and third fingers swapped around, my old guitar teacher poked fun at me about it till I pointed out it actually made the chord change in the song he was teaching me alot simpler, he laughed and never brought it up again. :P

The thumb is a necessary tool in some styles. And with bending, I don't see any other way than to hook the thumb around the neck. The problem then becomes how rapidly you switch thumb positions. I videoed myself and sped it up. The thumb was moving from behind the neck to over the neck very quickly. It was funny as hell. Any, you get my point.

The other issue is why do some people get to make the rules and accuse others of breaking them? Where does that authority come from? My guess is the printed book. Things written in books have the air of authority.

Another issue is why people pick on themselves for having bad technique. If it bothers you, change it. I read that Tiger Woods re-vamped his technique some years ago. It's not that big of a deal. In fact, the whole notion of good/bad technique is not that big of a deal.

For me , there is no such thing as correct technique where the guitar comes into it .
Hundreds of years ago , people were playing totally different music than they play now , and modern day demands require variations upon any theme to reach the required goal .

There is a basic instruction regarding how we need to approach the instrument , but it is such a diverse thing , that it's impossible to say that is right , or wrong , but only ' this works ' and ' this doesn't ' .
Anything inbetween is for the taking .

A certain guitar player passed away this week bless him , and he certainly didn't conform to any rule books .

I play open D major chords with my first and third fingers swapped around, ...

Is that even possible?

:-)

SRV has the notorious thumb over the fretboard that would send Segovia into an apoplectic fit.



I have read and seen where some of the best jazz players on the planet use their thumb.
I don't see that as a detraction.
I will say that the other side of the coin is the theoretical end. SRV was a killer player but he himself said that he was not all that knowledgeable about music itself. I don't think however this has any real bearing on their ability to play. I just think that if you took someone like Hendrix and gave him a couple of years of theory he would even have been better.
Does this relate to technique to you guys?

So muting the E with your thumb is dumb ?? With mits as big as mine.. forget it. My wife brings me size 9 gloves from the surgury center and they just fit. ;)

Imagine if all the greats had perfect technique, I bet they would not sound as different as they do...

I think I am being misunderstood.
Using your thumb is perfectly valid for some things- but in 90% of cases there is probably a better way to do it.

I have huge hands too- but I never have problems playing complex jazz chords, shifting positions and such- but I have trained my hands to do it for hours a day for more than a decade.
Does this make me a *better musician* than anyone else- not in the least- but I am passionate about striving for better technique because greater facility gives me a wider palate to work with.
That's it.

If someone else is happy with their playing as is and doesn't feel they need to correct or change the way they play then that is fine with me- unless they are paying me to care, in which case I will be on your ass.

Perfect technique for me is like any other type of perfection- something that is unattainable that we strive for regardless.

When the guitar was invented in the 1600s, it was designed to be a solo instrument (not an ensemble instrument), it was made to be played with the fingers (not a pick), and be played sitting down. Anything else is not proper technique.

Now lets get on with playing!

When the guitar was invented in the 1600s, it was designed to be a solo instrument (not an ensemble instrument), it was made to be played with the fingers (not a pick), and be played sitting down. Anything else is not proper technique.

Now lets get on with playing!

Oh dear.
That isn't a helpful or useful attitude if you wish to develop skill with an instrument.

Again, correct technique isn't fixed.
It is adjustable to suit the music of the age, the style of music and needs of the musician.
All 'correct technique' is about is finding the most efficient way to execute your ideas.
It isn't something arbitrarily arrived upon but rather the distillation of thousands (possibly millions) of players over many years of playing.

It changes over time and is fluid in nature- as it should be.
Saying that any change in technique since the 1600's isn't proper... I don't know where to begin with that sort of thinking- it certainly isn't something I agree with, nor would even try to refute. I'd be wasting my time to try to argue with someone who genuinely believes this- or are you just winding me up?

I am actually getting to the point of opting out of these discussions.
If people want to have rational discourse about Tab, Tips, Theory and Technique then this is the place for it, isn't it?
If people want this to be the place to NOT talk about technique or to negate the idea that any technique is necessary then I am obviously in the wrong place and wasting my time.

Nah, man...I wasnt trying to wind you up. My point was that no matter what you do, there's always someone who'll consider it improper.

I dont think there really is any proper technique when it comes to playing any kind of modern music. The electric guitar is a bastard instrument. Rock, country and blues are all artforms that evolved from people passing down knowledge and learning from each other...not from anything considered proper. My view is that if it works, its right!

Nah, man...I wasnt trying to wind you up. My point was that no matter what you do, there's always someone who'll consider it improper.

I dont think there really is any proper technique when it comes to playing any kind of modern music. The electric guitar is a bastard instrument. Rock, country and blues are all artforms that evolved from people passing down knowledge and learning from each other...not from anything considered proper. My view is that if it works, its right!

Ok then- well my point I guess is that correct technique is simply the quickest way between two points.
If you wanted to travel from Philly to New York, would you drive to Miami on the way for no reason other than that was the way you know how to go?
I wouldn't.
I'd learn a new way to drive straight between the starting point and the destination.

Correct technique is simply finding the most efficient and hassle free way to execute musical ideas.

Jim, I completely hear what you're saying. I understand the frustration you must feel when you're making yourself perfectly clear and still meeting resistance. It shouldn't be that way.

My take is that if you are not able to play to the level you want to play, and if it's because you are limited by your technique, you REALLY SHOULD work on your technique. Anything less would just be rationalizing why you're not at the level you should be.

Having said that, there really are people that are satisfied with the way that they play. Or, to put in another way, better technique isn't going to help them reach their goals. People do play music for many different reasons. Sometimes people are being honest when they say that they don't care for big solos or rapid and complex chord changes.

I've never felt that classical or even jazz technique needs to be mastered to play rock or blues. In fact, I can say that I've yet to hear a great technician blow me away with their blues playing. I believe that old blues players with extremely poor technique are amazingly proficient in their OWN technique. They're feeding their families with it and that's what really matters to them.

So, I guess my short answer is that if you feel your technique is limiting you, well, you should work on it.

In answer to the original post, I don't believe I've ever heard what I would call a "Great Player" with bad technique.

Jim, I completely hear what you're saying. I understand the frustration you must feel when you're making yourself perfectly clear and still meeting resistance. It shouldn't be that way.

My take is that if you are not able to play to the level you want to play, and if it's because you are limited by your technique, you REALLY SHOULD work on your technique. Anything less would just be rationalizing why you're not at the level you should be.

Having said that, there really are people that are satisfied with the way that they play. Or, to put in another way, better technique isn't going to help them reach their goals. People do play music for many different reasons. Sometimes people are being honest when they say that they don't care for big solos or rapid and complex chord changes.

I've never felt that classical or even jazz technique needs to be mastered to play rock or blues. In fact, I can say that I've yet to hear a great technician blow me away with their blues playing. I believe that old blues players with extremely poor technique are amazingly proficient in their OWN technique. They're feeding their families with it and that's what really matters to them.

So, I guess my short answer is that if you feel your technique is limiting you, well, you should work on it.

In answer to the original post, I don't believe I've ever heard what I would call a "Great Player" with bad technique.

Indeed- and thanks for showing some understanding of my thought process. :-)

As a music educator it is necessary to develop a program for students to work through.
Saying that people need to develop their own technique is completely correct and everyone does at some point decide on what they want to concentrate on and what they don't.
But sitting down with students I can't just let them do what they want when I KNOW that the way they approach the instrument will limit them down the track.
I can however remember way back when I was learning guitar.
My music teacher (the incredible Ian Miller in Sydney) was on my case all the time about my thumb position and right hand picking technique.
I worked on it day and night at it (eventually).

One of the proudest moments in my life was not when I played to 10000 people at a festival, or had an album I played on go to no 2- it was when my music teacher turned to me and said with a smile, "Wow James, your right hand is like a rock."
It really doesn't get any better than that, for me.

I agree with your comment that you don't need to master jazz/classical technique to play rock/blues.
But think of someone like John McLaughlin.
You simply can't play that sort of stuff with a low slung guitar, poorly held pick, no right hand control and a sloppy left hand.

However, I realise we are all here for different reasons and I won't thread jack this any further.

FWIW, a great technician with amazing blues playing would be Scott Henderson of Tribal Tech.

I watched Segovia play his last concert of his last european tour. He always placed his thumb on the centre line of the neck. But then the top joint of his thumb could be bent back at 90 degrees and the lower joint at over 60 so he could probably bend it back to his forearm. So his technique is physically impossible for most folks. Whilst it does provide more leverage, I for one cannot use that technique and span to higher notes without beaking my thumb.
Btw A.S. received an absolutely huge standing ovation.

Indeed- and thanks for showing some understanding of my thought process. :-)

As a music educator it is necessary to develop a program for students to work through.
Saying that people need to develop their own technique is completely correct and everyone does at some point decide on what they want to concentrate on and what they don't.
But sitting down with students I can't just let them do what they want when I KNOW that the way they approach the instrument will limit them down the track.
I can however remember way back when I was learning guitar.
My music teacher (the incredible Ian Miller in Sydney) was on my case all the time about my thumb position and right hand picking technique.
I worked on it day and night at it (eventually).

One of the proudest moments in my life was not when I played to 10000 people at a festival, or had an album I played on go to no 2- it was when my music teacher turned to me and said with a smile, "Wow James, your right hand is like a rock."
It really doesn't get any better than that, for me.

I agree with your comment that you don't need to master jazz/classical technique to play rock/blues.
But think of someone like John McLaughlin.
You simply can't play that sort of stuff with a low slung guitar, poorly held pick, no right hand control and a sloppy left hand.

However, I realise we are all here for different reasons and I won't thread jack this any further.

FWIW, a great technician with amazing blues playing would be Scott Henderson of Tribal Tech.

I'll just point back to my initial point. John McLaughlin couldn't do what he does without the technique required to play that music. John Lee Hooker didn't need that technique for the music he wanted to play. I'll still say that Hooker had good technique. It certainly wasn't "Bad".

Honesty with ones self is the most important thing. Why do you play? If someone wishes they were better, but instead of working at it, defends their poor ability by saying they just want to "Serving the song," they're not doing themselves any favors. However, if they play OK and create songs like John Lennon did, I'd rather have them do what they want to do with the guitar.

As far as Scott Henderson goes, he's a perfect example of a massively talented and technicly accomplished player that I loath when he plays the blues. I don't recall the exact name of the album, but I think it was "Dog Party". I bought it when it came out because of all these reviews about it being the best blues album of the year. I couldn't give it away fast enough.

Scott is an amazing player, but what I heard was simply shredding over blues changes. I didn't find Scott to be a great blues player in any way. Just my take. YMMV. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subject! Take care.

I think it depends on what type of person you are. Some people feel comfortable developing skills within a set of rules, and having a plan of sorts. Other people are prone to doubt the norm and want to experiment and find something they can call theirs. Hendrix comes to mind. Most teachers would probably cringe if a student started barring with their thumb. But, everything Hendrix did was different, and he did it all well...thats what made it so good.

I studied classical many years ago and even had the great pleasure of getting a couple of lessons from one of Segovia's students. Calssical technique was pounded into my head and of course into my hands. I went from that to Berklee where at the time it was pick style only.

Needless to say I really struggled with that, since I was wanting to work my fingerstyle playing (on nylon strings) into jazz tunes. I did study this technique and benifited from it.

Today I use both styles together sometimes just fingers with the pick in between my first and second knuckles...or just the pick. Many times I use a hybrid style with pick and fingers.

I can Travis pick pretty well as long as I don't have to use my thumb for bass notes. This is simply to keep Segovia from rolling over in his grave :lol:

Learning to use my thumb will be a challenge I will work on at some point 'cause after all it will expand the different techniques of playing I will have at my command. Chet Atkins played with excellent technique(s) all mixed up.

I guess what I am getting at is that there is not just one pure technique or style. The more we can learn the better we can be.

Players like Clapton etc. and a lot of us are really into one style of playing and hopefully work toward using the techniques that work best for that style.

It is interesting (entertaining?) to note what at least we think of as bad habits can work so well for others.


Just my two pennies worth...

I studied classical many years ago and even had the great pleasure of getting a couple of lessons from one of Segovia's students. Calssical technique was pounded into my head and of course into my hands. I went from that to Berklee where at the time it was pick style only.

Needless to say I really struggled with that, since I was wanting to work my fingerstyle playing (on nylon strings) into jazz tunes. I did study this technique and benifited from it.

Today I use both styles together sometimes just fingers with the pick in between my first and second knuckles...or just the pick. Many times I use a hybrid style with pick and fingers.

I can Travis pick pretty well as long as I don't have to use my thumb for bass notes. This is simply to keep Segovia from rolling over in his grave :lol:

Learning to use my thumb will be a challenge I will work on at some point 'cause after all it will expand the different techniques of playing I will have at my command. Chet Atkins played with excellent technique(s) all mixed up.

I guess what I am getting at is that there is not just one pure technique or style. The more we can learn the better we can be.

Players like Clapton etc. and a lot of us are really into one style of playing and hopefully work toward using the techniques that work best for that style.

It is interesting (entertaining?) to note what at least we think of as bad habits can work so well for others.


Just my two pennies worth...

Wes Montgomery only used his pinky on his left hand to grab his "octaves". He seemed to do OK.
As long as you can accomplish what you set out to do, and don't develop tendonitis, carpel tunnel or RSI your 'technique' is fine.
If you're having a "problem" or "issue" facilitating something - or some pain - you might want to look at your technique(?).

I will add this though ... a lot of "3 finger on the fretting hand" players who also have a decent amount of chops and play alot, do tend to develop tendon and ligament problems in their left hand after 25 or 30 years of playing that way. I'm just sayin' ...

marty friedman's picking is atrocious. :grin:

I'm sure most players vary their technique to accommodate the song they're currently playing. I wouldn't dream of even attempting to play a Classical piece with my thumb over the neck, nor would I try to play a blues with bends & vibrato with my thumb anchored to the back of the neck.

Alternate picking, economy picking, hybrid picking, fingerstyle? Whatever works (consistently) for a piece.

The only bad techniques are those that prevent you playing what you want to play!


Ted

I'll just point back to my initial point. John McLaughlin couldn't do what he does without the technique required to play that music. John Lee Hooker didn't need that technique for the music he wanted to play. I'll still say that Hooker had good technique. It certainly wasn't "Bad".

Honesty with ones self is the most important thing. Why do you play? If someone wishes they were better, but instead of working at it, defends their poor ability by saying they just want to "Serving the song," they're not doing themselves any favors. However, if they play OK and create songs like John Lennon did, I'd rather have them do what they want to do with the guitar.

As far as Scott Henderson goes, he's a perfect example of a massively talented and technicly accomplished player that I loath when he plays the blues. I don't recall the exact name of the album, but I think it was "Dog Party". I bought it when it came out because of all these reviews about it being the best blues album of the year. I couldn't give it away fast enough.

Scott is an amazing player, but what I heard was simply shredding over blues changes. I didn't find Scott to be a great blues player in any way. Just my take. YMMV. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subject! Take care.

I can appreciate everything you've said and perhaps we are coming at the same thing from a different perspective.
I do avoid using a word like 'bad' fwiw, preferring the word 'inefficient' as it is more accurate and doesn't make the student feel bad about their playing.

I prefer "Well to the Bone" rather than "Dog Party" for some of Scott's bluesier playing.

I just found a quote that sums up my attitude pretty well:

"He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet." Dan Haerle

Richie Havens got his point across.


Q1pMeyy__r0

Is that even possible?

I meant 1st and 2nd.:oops:

See, that's how bad my technique is - I can't even visualize it.

Arto Lindsay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZctJ3xhNFlw

Arto Lindsay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZctJ3xhNFlw

Interesting.
I hadn't heard much of what he had done.
Curiously this sort of stuff utilises what is called 'extended techniques'.
Basically anything that falls outside conventional technique.

People might be, given my earlier writings, be surprised that I am actually a fan of a lot of these unconventional techniques.
I'm a huge fan of Derek Bailey and Henry Kaiser who worked a lot with these techniques.
Kaiser is a respected jazz guitarist as well with great technique.

Lee Ranaldo from Sonic Youth and Page Hamilton of Helmet are also amazing guitarists who broke away from a jazz tradition and went their own way.
Ranaldo went uber-experimental, extended technique.
Hamilton went dropped-D grunge metal stylee.

Glad to see Richie Havens mentioned here. Not sure I'd put him on a great players list, but I'm honestly impressed. Big hands. real big. Uses lots of seldom-seen open tunings and uses his thumb for a capo. One of the first times I ever saw a person playing and thought "Whoa, I've never seen anyone *play* like that before..." If he ever comes to your town, I recommend checking him out.

From what I have read Hendrix and SRV had terrible technique but what they did worked for them. I think that's all that matters. It you can make what you do work then so be it. However, I would like to change the original question a bit...what CLASSICAL players have bad technique. Usually classical players are drilled by their teachers to perform every skill perfectly. Now, based on my minimal knowledge, classical music (along with jazz) are probably 2 of the most complicated to play (country could be put here as well)...BEFORE anyone freaks out...YES I know there are exceptions to this. But GENERALLY (and I KNOW someone will argue) these are the harder genre's to play. I know jazz players are known for their crazy chords that span 10 frets (insert exaggeration here!)...and country has their chicken pickin' licks from hell!

I don't think there is a schoolbook for playing pentatonic blues and rock styles "correctly", which is probably a good thing since it is informal music. Figuring it out for yourself is somehow appropriate.

And most of the instructional stuff I have seen doesn't have anything to say about the minutia of blues playing like quarter tone bends and blue notes and messing with the beat and setting your action high and getting an authentic sound from how you pick and not playing with machinelike precision and on and on.

I don't think there is a schoolbook for playing pentatonic blues and rock styles "correctly", which is probably a good thing since it is informal music. Figuring it out for yourself is somehow appropriate.

And most of the instructional stuff I have seen doesn't have anything to say about the minutia of blues playing like quarter tone bends and blue notes and messing with the beat and setting your action high and getting an authentic sound from how you pick and not playing with machinelike precision and on and on.

Actually you CAN study this stuff.

GIT, Berklee and in London, ICMP, all have contemporary music courses.
You will learn an awful lot about contemporary music from the beginnings of blues, rock, rockabilly, some jazz, metal. The lot.
At a diploma or degree level.

They really aren't shredders schools any longer- and indeed for years.

I guess we are also at the mercy of what defines a "great player".
To me The Yarbirds triumvirate, Clapton, Beck and Page exemplify "great players"
because I take great joy out of listening to their music.
I do not consider any of them to be excellent technically in the pure sense.
Clapton plays Clapton technique, which is the wealth of all his experience and that of his blues heroes.
Beck plays Beck technique which is a pure creation of his mind and soul, on a different plane of existence maybe.
Page plays Page technique which he has absorbed and twisted from many sources into a sonic barrage that no other guitarist can or might want to emulate.

Put a lot of their stuff up for judgment and there's a hell of a lot of "bad technique" going on.
So what? Give me a touch of that stuff. It's AWESOME. :smile:

A few years ago, my dear wife gave me a package of lessons with one of the hottest classical/jazz players in our area. I was pretty excited about it.

After the first lesson, though, I was bummed out. I've always been a southern-rock type of guy, more on the blues side of the line. This guy was telling me as tactfully as he could that my technique was totally screwed. Everything from the thumb hooked over the fretboard to the way I did vibrato was totally "uncouth." After the second lesson, we both agreed things weren't going to work out. Just too much frustration for both of us.

Now, I'm no great player, but I'm okay. I started teaching myself when I was 14, and I know I taught myself a lot of weird moves. Regardless, I can contribute fairly well to a garage performance. I think maybe I'm too old for radical changes in technique now. This is probably something to keep in mind when you go to a new instructor.

Is that even possible?

Me too! :mrgreen:

Now, I'm no great player, but I'm okay. I started teaching myself when I was 14, and I know I taught myself a lot of weird moves. Regardless, I can contribute fairly well to a garage performance. I think maybe I'm too old for radical changes in technique now. This is probably something to keep in mind when you go to a new instructor.

I deal with this a lot with people's technique (and my own, remember).
'Too old' - no way.
3 months of playing with new technique would be more than enough and get you back up to speed (and beyond) what you can current do now.
I would lay money on that.
Less than 1/90th of your playing life thus far.

You would have to want it though- it would be a bit of work but it is definitely achievable.

Sounds like you are better off without that teacher though.
I would never say someone's vibrato is 'uncouth'.
That is totally disrespectful and condescending.

I used to stick pretty close to classical rules of technique until I realized something... The classicists were right about many things in what they believed, but bear in mind back then they also believed all disease was caused by a spastic frog that lives in your stomach so they can’t be right all the time. Whatever allows you to exert your will over that piece of wood with wires on it (guitar) without tendonitis or carpal tunnel should be explored

I used to stick pretty close to classical rules of technique until I realized something... The classicists were right about many things in what they believed, but bear in mind back then they also believed all disease was caused by a spastic frog that lives in your stomach so nobody can be right all the time. Whatever allows you to exert your will over that piece of wood with wires on it (guitar) without tendonitis or carpal tunnel should be explored

Who's to say exactly what proper is?

There's no "right" way to play. There are, however, plenty of WRONG ways. You need to develop a technique that works for you. However, that doesn't mean just doing whatever you happen to do and saying "it works for me!" You need to pay attention to what works, and what gets in your way.

I've been surprised at how far Jimmie Vaughan lifts his fingers off the fretboard.
It doesn't look very efficient...lots of flapping fingers...but he sure sounds good!

Having had lessons and instruction in proper technique I have found that various positions and movements are just not anatomically possible for me.
I have small hands, I'm left handed but play right handed and several years ago I broke my left hand and wrist. No way I can bend my wrist to execute proper "technique". So I do what many people do. I look for what works for me
and work with what I have. Proper technique and execution may serve as a model but I don't think (in my very humble opinion) it was ever intended to limit ones capabilities or form of expression. Do what works for you.

............
The other issue is why do some people get to make the rules and accuse others of breaking them? Where does that authority come from? My guess is the printed book. Things written in books have the air of authority.
......


The authority comes from human physiology. We all have different bodies that are unique to a certain degree but there are principles of how to use the body in the most economic and effortless way that apply to all humans and take into account those slight differences between individual bodies.

So called 'proper guitar technique' simply aligns with those principles of efficient movement. Proper technique is not about the guitar it's about how to use your body wisely in relation to the guitar.

Why do many guitar players wind up with problems in wrists and shoulders? That is a matter of technique, the interface of your body and , in this case, a guitar. And if you're not using the connection from your shoulder to your wrist correctly chances are the actual techniques you wish to perform (hammer on, triplets, bends etc) on the fretboard will be difficult or impossible.



Segovia's ideas of proper technique did not incorporate the the sounds and styles of modern guitar playing therefore it would be silly to adhere strictly to his notions of proper technique outside of the context that he developed them.

If hooking your thumb over the top of the neck is the most efficient and effortless way to get to where you wanna go then that is proper technique.


Good technique to me means something very simple. It answers the question "How do I get the result I want in the most efficient, relaxed and effortless manner." Therefore technique is not set in stone. By it's nature it must be adaptable in accordance with the intended goal.

What makes 'correct' technique correct is not that someone says so in a book. It's because the body says so. The body is the determining factor and it will always communicate how appropriately or not you are using it . Pain or pleasure. If there's pain, muscle fatigue, cramping, sorness etc. then guess what it's telling you.

The only book that I am aware of that really addresses guitar technique properly is "The Principles Of Correct Practice For Guitar" by Jamie Andreas.

I don't think many "rock" guitarists use anything approaching classical technique; the thumb on the centre of the neck. Remember that classical guitarists rarely play full chords or bend notes (try bending on a nylon string guitar - it doesn't work because of the huge elasticity of the strings). You can argue that the electric guitar evolved more from the steel guitar than from the classical guitar.

Knopfler is an interesting case because he fingerpicks most of the time, which accounts for much of the Dire Straits tone. It certainly removes the harshness of the usual Strat sound.

Yes - I would drive to anywhere I wanted go. If it was outta my way I would just enjoy the journey and the scenery of the road. It ain't always about efficiency in art, in fact, just the opposite.

Otherwise Calpton would learn to use that pinky. Those three fingers were his most efficient and quickets way to his first million. It's like , what finger should I wear my slide on? Pinky? Ring Finger? Heck some guys wear them on their index finger. Then someone like Jeff Healey comes along and well, technique? I don't know, I think we are all born with our own best technique just waiting for us to find it. Follow the music it will lead you to your best technique.

I'd say Zappa had pretty poor technique. But it worked and it's fascinating to see and hear.

thats like saying " good food that tastes bad"

albert king was lefty & played a right handed strung guitar, flying v, with the bass string on the bottom. (upside down) i would say that justifies as "poor technique"