I don't worry about quotas. I like playing, so I do it a lot and when I do I take it all in and enjoy the hell out of it. I never feel like I have to force myself to do it.
Quote by Biebsy
Hey guys,

So, recently I've been really focusing on soloing and improv especially, but whenever I sit down, turn on the backtrack, right from the first bend to the last root note, all I want to do is smash my guitar, crawl into a tiny whole and stay there till Christmas. My phrases sound like shit, all I get is pissed off. Any tips? Articles? Ideas? Anything? I really want to keep at it, and I WANT to get better, but I just am in a rut, or moving at slow pace or w/e.

TL;DR I'm ****ing frustrated man.

btw: self-taught, know very little theory

I suggest that you forget the backing tracks, and instead play along with real bands. Learn the solos note for note, phrase for phrase. Capture the feel. Enjoy the experience… soak up the inspiration.

IME experience backing tracks mostly benefits the person that sold it to you. They are a product… a way for unknown musicians to make some money. They do sound cool sometimes, but they are generally a person sequencing and looping, which is not the same as a band playing together and interacting. That interaction is what you feed off of as a soloist. Likewise the band interacts with the soloist. You just don't get that with backing tracks, so you're forced to think and judge your way through it….. "ok now I'm gonna do this arpeggio lick I learned about"…… "now Im gonna string skip"…. "that really sucked, I guess Im no good". It's not natural to play that way, and IMO it's very unsatisfying.
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I think you need to read up on modes more. I provided several links in post #8. The fundamental thing about modes is that they are NOT scales and should not be treated that way.
You can, by all means, treat their intervals as scales. (For instance, a lot of people use the "Dorian scale", which is simply a scale with the same intervals as the Dorian mode.) But keep in mind, that is not modal, necessarily.

What's the difference between the "dorian scale" and the "dorian mode"?
You gotta love music. You gotta love playing. You gotta play a lot. You gotta learn lots of songs, and enjoy the hell out of playing each one. Don't worry about how "easy" the songs are. Being good at lots of easy songs will lead to you being able to learn more difficult songs down the road.

regarding lessons….. I always see people complain about not being able to afford lessons, yet they usually have high speed internet, an X-box live account, a smart phone, and a computer or 2. It's a shame because lessons are often the very thing they need.
Quote by FrauVfromPoB
First learn the scales as something purely theoretical, that could be applied to any instrument. Memorize the interval patters, and memorize all the notes in every natural major and minor scale. Forming melodic/harmonic minor is easy enough after that. Be able to just rattle that shit off. If you can sing (some people just can't) be able to sing them too, given a starting pitch.

Then learn each note on each string at each fret. Be able to put a finger anywhere on the fretboard and instantly name the note.

Then put that shit together.

DO over think it. It's not the same. It's the difference between being able to do something and knowing what you're doing.

It's never good to over-think it. and yes it's the same thing, it's just a matter of being able to recognize it.

understanding scales theoretically as you suggested is very helpful of course, and I wouldn't consider that to be over-thinking it. I would say that in doing that you're just understanding the fundamentals, which is important.

Over thinking it is convincing yourself that you're avoiding box shapes. When you apply a theoretical idea that is based on patterns to a physical instrument, the pattern can be seen visually. That's what a "box shape" is. The restriction you see in the pattern is there by design. If you want the sound of a particular scale, you'll restrict yourself to those notes. It doesn't really matter where you play it on the neck.

to the OP: I suggest using the patterns to your advantage.
Quote by *Juno*
anyone got any tips for learning scales as a group of notes allover the fret board, rather than boxes or positions of notes to be used in isolation ?

its easy to learn the boxes, but has anyone got any suggestions on ways to mould them together so that it becomes easy to make runs up and down the fret board rather than playing a lick in one box, then moving to another box etc ?

It's the same thing. don't over think it.
Quote by Black_devils
A troll on the interwebz darn I thought I wouldn't find you here!

Think again!

But seriously learning things like scales (and other musical concepts) should enhance a persons ability to hear and utilize those things.

The biggest problem I see is that people too often skip the fundamentals in lieu of things that they think will = them being totally amazing. A lot of times that is scales, but it's the premature learning and the inappropriate use that is the problem, not the concept of scales itself.
Quote by Black_devils
Look i'm tired of coming on here, and seeing people post about how they feel like they're stuck in a rut because they keep playing the same thing over, and over again. Or how they want to learn how to improvise, but every attempt they make at improvising sounds like they're running up and down scales. Or how one person will come on the forum and post a song and ask how to play like the specific, artist they posted.

Let's end this foolishness right now guys. Why is learning how to play by ear so important you may ask? First of all you if you read what I've previously written in the beginning of the post you will not have any of those problems. Instead of coming on this forum asking how to play like the artist you have in mind you could just transcribe their song.

What's transcribing you may ask? Well transcribing is basically figuring out the song by simply listening to it, and writing down what you've figured out. It's beneficial in many ways. It's so beneficial that it would be impossible for me to list all the reasons why it's great because there's literally 1000's of benefits.

Music is an art of hearing if you don't use your ears how will you understand what's going on in a song musically? How will you be able to tell what the key of the song is just by listening to it? Do you want to be the type of person that goes into a jam, and can't start off the jam because you have to ask what key the person is playing in? What happens if they key changes in the middle of the song what are you going to do?

are you going to Ask the person what key they've changed to in the middle of the jam?

Hell no that's
embarrassing, and not fun it's lame if you ask me... We all want to be able to improvise on the spot like musical gods, but the only way you'll be able to do that is if you learn how to transcribe songs it's good ear training.. You wonder why you can't improvise, and make something sound good in the spur of the moment. But yet you know all these scales you're confused as why it doesn't sound musical.

It just sounds bland and scale like well my friend I have the answer to your problems when you improvise you don't think scales, and patterns guess what? You think sound! Mhm right now you may be confused. Did he just write sound? How is this even possible...

Well you play what you hear in your head, and the only way to be able to do that is if you're using your ears... When you start using your ears transcribing countless songs you will begin to understand that possibility of how a song can be played in many various different ways instead of playing it over, and over again note for note. It doesn't sound fun playing a song way a million times the same way.. But when you're in the spur of a creative moment, and you hear something you'd like to put in the mix you could just bring it out of you just because of the fact that you know your instrument purely by sound!

With your ears you're only limited to imagination my friends, but with scales your limited and bounded by scales.

So get to transcribing unless you want to be stuck in musical ruts for the rest of your life. Doors will open musically for you just because of the fact that you'll have the ability to transcribe anything you hear. You can literally enter the mind of the, artist that your transcribing, and figure out how he came up with that musical idea.

If you want to learn a new style like jazz or blues you could just simply transcribe it. Using your ears is the best method to making music learning all the theory in the world will not teach you how to compose music, but using your ears certainly will!

-------------------------- Sorry I was in a rush when I posted this so excuse me if I've made some Grammatical mistakes.-------------------------

So you play a musical instrument which is based on sound and figured out that using your ear is important. Brilliant!

as for ending the foolishness you see on the internet….. good luck with that.
I find that a lot of people tend to over think the warm up thing. You'll get warmed up simply by playing. You just need to use common sense to determine where to start off. For example, starting off with the most intense and fast thing you can think off, at full speed, would be ignoring (or not having) common sense.

I would suggest that moving your fingers around in a way that is inconsistent with what you'd actually be doing while playing music is a waste of time, and not necessarily very effective. You're better just playing music (or at least musically) That way you encounter all of the relevant movements…. bends, vibrato, slide, strumming, picking, hammer ons, pull offs, Chords, scales, chromatics…… It's all in there anyway so why waste time being unmusical?
Quote by eric_wearing
what is the best way for me to warm up. I have tried stretching but that has just made my fingers more tense (turns out that its bad to stretch before exertion). Is there any dynamic warm ups.

Just play.
Quote by JakeFrmStatFarm
So, is it best to be proficient at playing before I concern myself with theory? Or should I learn to play along side learning theory? One my musical goals is to become very proficient in theory, so I know that I want to learn at some point, but I want to do it at the right time, in case I learn wrong. I hope that made sense.

Also, any advice on a good place to start? I know good places to learn technique, but theory seems a little more hard to come by.

Sorry if this was covered somewhere else, but none of the stickies seemed to satisfy me, and looking up older threads has never worked well for me.

IMO the best time to start is after you can already play. You need some context to relate that theory to otherwise it's just fancy words. Starting prematurely will get through arguments at UG (or into them at least) but if you really want to understand the stuff in a way that will be useful to you in making music, you're better off studying theory post beginner phase.
Quote by SR7s

I'm mainly an electric guitar player (rock, fusion, metal, etc.) but since I heard this guy I started playing my acoustic more often. I would like to know how to play like him, what scales he uses, how to improvise and compose this way. I know he uses open C tuning but is it really necessary to play like him? Also, what kind of music would you say this is..

Learn to play his music. Nothing else will get you there.

If it's to difficult, learn easier stuff. Come back to this guy when you're ready.
Quote by gui8tar
I want to learn how to improvise this type of style. At the moment I can play scales but do not know how to mix them or add extra notes like this song. What else do I need to learn to play guitar like this? If you could tell me exactly whats going on in this song that would be grate but i understand if not.

1) that's not even improvised…. completely planned out and practiced.

2) you're not going to learn by picking the most complicated/impressive thing you can find and then asking people on the net "How do I do this". There are some things that you could do that for, like "how do I find the glitch in such in such map" in a game, but what you need to do for guitar is play it a lot, for years.

Even if someone could explain to you exactly what he's doing in that music, you'd still be left without the foundation to pull it off.
Quote by terran236

For the last year and a half I was very determined to be "the best". .

I would suggest that this is the root of your problem.

There is and always will be someone that can do something that you can't on the guitar, so you're better of playing because you love music. Allow yourself to appreciate it on all levels, even stuff that doesn't seem mind blowingly amazing.

If you want to compete, play sports.
Quote by EADGBE1
I heard learning scales is important and helps. Is that true? What scales should I learn first?

Yeah, it's true, scales are a fundamental aspect of music.
Since we're advertising I should mention that I teach private lessons via Skype. Sign up via PM here at UG or from my site....
Quote by NoTreble
the thing is that I want to know what I'm playing in my bass, I want understand music.

Now, that's a great reason to study theory!

This is a good place to start....
Quote by NoTreble
Hi guys,

I am starting feeling that i'm a not a true musician without knowing any theory

I don't want to discourage you from studying theory, but I do want discourage you from thinking that knowledge of music theory is the thing that makes one a true musician.

That said, Justins site isn't bad, and music is quite helpful as well. Whether you have the background to understand what they are talking about or not, I have no idea, but if you're not willing to spend any money on lessons, you might pick up a thing or 2 there.

There is always more to learn, so take in what you can and get rid of the "real/true musician" mentality, cause it never stands up to reality.
Quote by Dave_Mc
and most of the people saying either thing won't really be qualified to make an informed decision

that's what I'm thinking. Nomesayin
Quote by peanut77
Ok, so I read the posting about asking about modes, but hopefully this won't be deleted, or worse, I will be humiliated in public

So, for some reason my teacher taught me the modes as the first scales to learn, I've been able to use some of the modes while playing some songs, but still struggling with them.

No longer with my previous teacher, due to low funds, I recently started to read about the Major scale and how I need to learn the Major and minor scales.
Now, I know the Ionian = Major scale and the Aeolian = minor scale, but here is where my confusion begins, when I see the Major scale across the entire fretboard like in the link below I can see the exact same notes as the modes including the minor modes

Major Scale Diagram

So, my question is very simple, is the Major scale the same as the modes? except with different starting points? if so, can somebody explain why they are called two different things if they are one and the same? and why are the minor modes being played in the major scale? or am I completely looking at this the wrong way?

Hope someone can help me out, because this has been bugging me for a while..

Thanks all

Well, the modes of the Major scale share the same notes as the Major scale, so yes the patterns on the neck will be the same. To understand why they are not the "same thing" though, you'll need to get a handle on some fundamentals.
Quote by Dave_Mc

that probably goes both ways, though, nomatter how bad something is there'll also always be someone praising it

Totally agree!
Quote by The Madcap
Today in my Forms & Analysis class, we ended up getting really off topic from what we were supposed to be doing, because of a few questions in class, and basically my professor is this lady who got her PhD in Music Theory at Harvard, and we were just talking about all the problems she had with music pedagogy. Stuff like not enough counterpoint being taught, problems with the Kostka-Payne textbooks, too much emphasis on four part chorale writing, and not just college curriculum, but private instruction and how it's generally taught in the US.

Anyways, I've always had my opinions on what's wrong with how X is being taught, but that's mostly just in the realm of classical guitar. From you guys' experience being taught as musicians, what are some qualms that you've gained?

I've come to the conclusion that no matter how good a particular teacher, or teaching institution is, there will always be people complaining about it.
Quote by PunchSlap
He thinks he has won...

^ So does he
Quote by dannymanor
Hey GuitarMunky, I totally agree - learning existing solos is a must and the best way to grow as a player. and If you are a creative player it will immediately inspire you with ideas for your own solos too.
Nowadays with play along tabs and youtube instruction videos showing you exactly how to play, it's a fast and very accurate way of learning the solo / riff / tune, however, it does take some of the thought process and ear training away. I remember watching a interview with Nuno Bettencourt and he talks about it. he basically says that learning with today's tools makes you a copycat and the best way is to learn it by ear and play it (position and fingering) as you feel it.

Yeah, I'm talking about learning them by ear & playing them by memory... and I do agree with Nuno, though I'm not concerned with the copycat part because that's part of learning. To me it's a matter of listening, and doing what's appropriate for your skill/knowledge level.

The main problem with todays tools is that they enable beginners to convince themselves they've bypassed beginnerdom. They skip the basics and go right to learning the most amazing solo ever via tabs or video on YouTube. On top of that, they study theory by chasing down the most appealing advice containing the fanciest words, having no idea whether or not those words are used appropriately.
Quote by PunchSlap
1) I don't "have" to switch actually, I can do vibrato and bending with ease with a thumbs behind grip. I only switch because it is comfier. As for the other stuff, I've yet to come across these.

2) It's totally not relevant in terms of practical knowledge(I have to do this to prove my point), but if you were to choose one position to restrict yourself to, you would be better suited with a thumbs behind grip.

I believe the thumbs behind position is greater overall, yes. Because you can play anything you can play with a thumbs around grip, with a thumbs behind grip, plus a lot more. Simple as that. It's sooo incredibly simple, seriously, read that again.
But I also believe you can switch when you come across the type of passages that benefit greater of a thumbs around grip, like passages when you don't play chords, sweeps, stretches or anything involving vertical position shifting, or something that's easy relative to your playing ability. I do this myself as it's comfier with the wrist in a more natural position, but because my fingers are in a less efficient position I can't do this during the stuff that requires a thumbs behind grip. Make sense now? Or am I still idealizing?

I hope I stated my point clear and correct this time.

A very important and often overlooked step in getting good at both writing and improvising solos is learning to play existing solos. It helps you develop your ears, your technique, and feel.
Quote by dannymanor
Should a guitar solo be improvised or composed?
What makes it more exciting? Is it the thrill of connecting to the moment, trusting your instincts and letting your fingers run free... or planning the ultimate composition - one that has been crafted, polished and well practiced on the fretboard.

Perhaps, it's a mixture of both worlds. An improvisation that sticks in your head and gets played over and over again - each time with a small alteration, a slight improvement to the primary improvised solo.

Some of the greatest guitar solos seem to be at least partly composed, as the player plays them identically live every time. Some examples of that include: Sultans of Swing (Dire Straits) The Wall (Pink Floyd) Sweet Child O' Mine (Guns and Roses), For the Love of God (Steve Vai) and many many more.

What do you think????

For your own music, it should be whatever you want it to be. It's a mistake to idealize and say that 1 way or the other is "better" or "proper" or whatever.

Do what comes natural to you.
Quote by PunchSlap

Considering you can play all the things you can play with a thumbs around grip, with a thumbs behind grip(I assume you can at least, I've yet to come across a passage that would prove the opposite), it would insinuate that the thumbs behind grip is simply more efficient.

Like I said from the start, if you exam how people actually play you'd have to reach the conclusion that most guitarists disagree. I mean why would they all bring their thumbs up if there wasn't a good reason. You place your idealized opinion above common sense and common practice.

Quote by PunchSlap

C) Efficient for playing the part of the spectra of passages that can't be played by a thumbs around grip.

That's why people lower there thumbs when they need to stretch.

Quote by PunchSlap

D) Why aren't you claiming that?

Because it's stupid.

Quote by PunchSlap

I've never advocated that you should restrict yourself to the thumbs behind grip only.

yes you are. By saying that one is more efficient (or superior) overall you imply that people should use that position. Why else would you bring it up?

Quote by PunchSlap

I'm simply saying that the thumbs behind position is simply more effective.

but you're saying it's more effective overall, and that's where you "went wrong".
Quote by PunchSlap
Please do!

because you're pretentious. Remember, you asked

Quote by PunchSlap

If Rusty Cooley, and Steve Vai, and John Petrucci were to be restricted to a thumbs around grip then yes, I believe I could play stuff they wouldn't be able to play with my thumbs behind grip.

But they aren't restricted are they? that's the point. They change to an appropriate position based on what they're doing.

Quote by PunchSlap

I'm saying you're achieving a less efficient position(And this would mean that you could still possibly outplay a less skilled player depending on your level, you seem to think this was relevant so I just mention).

Efficient for what? I mean if you're bending or using vibrato it's completely efficient right?

Quote by PunchSlap

Are you claiming that you can play the exact same stuff with a thumbs around grip that you would with a thumbs behind grip?

No, I'm not claiming that. I am claiming though that strictly playing with your thumb behind the neck regardless of what you are playing just for the sake of conforming to an idealization of superior technique is silly at best.
Quote by matthewzguitarz
Couldn't find the new topic button in the music theory section, so going to post this here.

Anyways, I have been wanting to get more serious with guitar, so I worked on controlling how loud I pick the strings(I played very loud before, just realized that is why my gain was so low on my mixer), and other stuff I can't really remember, plus barre chords which I am actually noticing that they are easier to play than I thought, only having problems with the F chord.

Now, I like tabs and stuff, they are really nice to have(especially since I got guitar pro last year). But, I am feeling kind of limited because I can't read sheet music. I guess my guitar teacher had actually taught my brother how to read sheet music, but never taught me for whatever reason, and now I am clueless on what to do.

Any ideas?

going through a book like this would do the trick..

Quote by PunchSlap
Lol, why would I talk condescending towards a technique on the guitar?

I can only guess as to why, but you are condescending when you say stuff like this....
Quote by PunchSlap

But if we were to elect one of the positions as technically superior it would definitely be the thumbs behind grip.

If what you're saying is true, than that means that with your superior technique, you can do things on a technical level that guys like Rusty Cooley, and Steve Vai, and John Petrucci...ect.... can't do with their inferior technique.

I suppose if I saw you do that I might think you weren't just a noob idealizing perfection.
Quote by PunchSlap
Yes, I also think the plain bending and vibrato is easier with a thumbs around grip. But it's just too clumsy during passages that you need to have a thumbs behind grip to do, unless it's slow and switching doesn't take too much time for you to not be able to fret the notes, whatever(or simply: technically hard passages). ANYWAY, I don't think we can elaborate on this any more than done

What do you mean by "plain" bending. To me that sounds condescending..... like you're saying "simple" or "easy" bending or something. What type of bending would a person do if they had there thumbs lower..... "technical" bending?

Would you say that what these guys are doing is not technical? Just plain old basic playing?

I wonder if Paco ever tells Al and John that they would be able to play more technically if they just lowered their thumbs. (and they don't even bend or vibrato much here)

Now Im gonna assume that this is your guy here.... or do you think he's clumsy and/or not technical?

watch the thumbs when he bends or vibratos ...

This guy gets mentioned a lot as well.

and there are all kinds of "technical" playing. If you think this stuff is easy just because it's not fast, Id like to see you play it..
(notice the thumb, even though not bending )

So I guess what I'm saying is.... show me someone that is "better" or "more technical" than these guys and that never brings their thumb up over the neck.
Quote by Dave_Mc
^ what thumb position does bubbles use when he plays guitar?

THumb over lol
Quote by PunchSlap

Lol, we made a three page long thread arguing about the thumb position when bending a string

Quote by BlueIceBox
What sounds do you think are essential and you should be able to name by ear?

By 'sounds' I mean things like Major, Minor, Sus4, 7th, Diminished, etc.

Lots of things, but I definitely wouldn't recommend that you make a complete list of these things and then try to learn them that way.

You take in the stuff gradually over time. If you need direction get a teacher.
Quote by MaggaraMarine

And TS, the song is definitely not in dorian. It's in D minor.

yup, and if you check out the solos, he's not playing D dorian at all. minor / minor pentatonic.

This is like one of those rumor situations where somebody says something thats true (XX song by Santana is in Dorian), but then someone else passes it on, but with a slight change. (some other song by Santana is in Dorian, even though it really isn't)..... eventually someone at the end of the chain gets the idea that it's common knowledge that "some other song" is in Dorian. Happens all the time.
Quote by Deadds
Correct. no V, no key. That Bminor chord could be a ii, iii, or vi of major keys or a i, iv, or minor v of minor keys.

with that droning Bmin chord you could play in all those keys and it wouldn't sound bad.

So if you have a progression like say a I - IV - I - IV in C Major, it's not really in C Major because there is no V chord?

Where'd you get that idea?

Quote by Zordon
Lol fascinating how so many people here have false information about music theory, c'mon guys at least try to verify your shit.

Beginner + the internet = instant expert apparently
Quote by bobduff80
So I've learned some chords and finally getting barre chords down. I'm thinking the next step would be to learn scales. What is the best method you have found for learning them? Thanks.

Before you get deep into theory, I'd recommend spending more time with those chords. Get proficient at switching between them. Get good at rhythm techniques like strumming and picking. Best way to do that is to learn a bunch of songs. (not the solos just the rhythm parts)

When you've achieved reasonable competency there, you can expand to solos, which is where scales will come in.

again, if you can't play any songs, don't even worry about that yet. There is plenty to learn, so you might as well do it with some kind of structure. Random fancy words that you lack the foundation to understand will do little good when it comes to actually playing the guitar.
Quote by cdgraves

Playing with the thumb over isn't "wrong", but it's not always "right". Thumb-behind is never bad technique, it's never the "wrong" way to position your hand.

Totally disagree. What's appropriate really depends on what you're trying to do... what kind of sound you want to get..... what kind of feel you want to play it with.

Quote by cdgraves

As for bends... you shouldn't have to change hand position to bend. I'm happy to provide visual proof that bends are just as easy thumb-behind. It really doesn't take much force to move a little wire half an inch. It takes more force to open a door than bend a guitar string up a whole step - it all comes back to precision.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's an idealistic approach that isn't reinforced by common practice.

You don't have to bring your thumb over, it's not like a rule, it's just the way most guitarists choose to play (again for good reason)....... and I believe that you can bend strings with the low thumb, but most people don't. I definitely wouldn't recommend it as the "better" approach, though maybe you could say that you personally favor it.... that'd be fair.
Quote by Dave_Mc

I also find it funny how the "thumb round the back of the neck" guys are talking about "challenging" and "not challenging" music. First of all I think that's very condescending- blues or even rock might be easy to play at a very basic level, but like any style of music it's hard to play *well*...

for sure. I find that most people with that attitude can't even play the stuff they're talking down to. The guys that can, including guys that can shred, usually have a bit more respect for it.

On a side note, I feel that one of the biggest downfalls of the current guitar culture, is this idea that if it's not an over the top spectacle, that it's not even good at all. It effects me as a teacher because I get people that won't bother to learn things like open chords, and strumming simply because they're worried that they'll be pegged as a beginner. They want me to show them "legendary/amazing solos" and techniques that they read online = awesome even though they can't switch between 3 open chords, or get through 1 entire song. It's like they got it all figured out, but they can't barely do anything because they're too good for the basics. and Im not accusing anyone in this thread of being that way necessarily, it's just a somewhat related side rant.

Quote by PunchSlap
Ah, alright then. But all these guys put their hand behind the neck whenever a technical passage comes by(possibly not very high up the neck or if they have big hands, like PG), doesn't that signify something? What these videos show is that these guitarists have no difficulty in changing the thumb position when they happen to bend. It may be 'easier' to bend a note with the thumbs over, but I still believe that if you maintain the thumbs behind position it puts your fingers in a better position for any technical difficulties. If the passage is easy, then maybe you would save some energy by putting the thumb over. But if you still have control with the thumbs behind then don't see the problem with using a thumbs behind bend or vibrato, regarding the actual vibrato and bend.

My only argument for using thumbs behind is that it makes you more ready in technical passages, don't you agree with this? I agree that a thumbs around grip puts the hand in a better position for the bending or "vibratoing" only though. But as I said, in a technical passage(particularly involving wide stretches), it might be troublesome to change positions, so it is simply more effective in the long run the keep the thumb position at the back.

Honestly I think that you're idealizing, and with all due respect I consider that a mistake.
again look at those videos and notice ...

1. there thumbs are sometimes up even during faster passages

2. bringing the thumb up or down as done seamlessly, and causes no issues regardless of speed or whatever you think "technical" is.