Content
Thread
Forum
Date
Quote by Captaincranky
Yeah well, the only difference is that he was sure and I wasn't.



Sorry, I missed your post.

Anyway, what you said about the A on the D string being the only place that A makes sense, it would depend how you're thinking about the music. If you want to play the melody purely on the wound strings, you can go for it but there isn't really anything wrong with playing that A on the 3rd string. Playing the A on the 3rd string would allow you to preserve the harmony instead of having to release the C early in order to shift over to the A on the 4th string. Of course, there are other fingerings which would allow you to keep the A on the 4th string and preserve the melody and harmony but those fingerings are beyond the intended level of student this music was for.
Buy a flamenco guitar if you want to play flamenco.

Browse www.stringsbymail.com for a set of flamenco strings. I don't play flamenco so I can't point you in any particular direction.
What Dreadnought said.
Place one finger on one string. Press as hard as you can. Play the note at a reasonable volume (don't bash it). Keep playing the note and slowly relieving pressure until you can't sound a clean note anymore.

See how little pressure you need to play a note?

Your guitar is not 'hard as shit to play'.
Quote by EqualOfHeaven
Get a smaller guitar and put your foot on the ground, you don't need a stool for classical position, they're pointless, just cuts off circulation in your leg and give you abdominal cramps. Since you're a beginner I'd recommend Elecrtic or Electric-Bodied acoustic, then when you've got the chops start playing a boat with strings.



Are you serious? Really?

Get out.
Quote by nowinterweather
As of right now, I'm still a sophomore in high school, but it's never too early...

I was looking over the requirements for auditions at FSU, and this is what they give on their website:

1. Major and minor scales (Segovia edition)
2. right-hand arpeggios
3. knowledge of entire fingerboard
4. adequate musical performance of such standard etudes as those of Aguado, Carcassi, Guiliani; selections from Sor Studies (Segovia edition); performance of minor works by Milan, Bach, Tarrega.

I've been working through the Segovia scales, and I'm assuming right-hand arpeggios is something similar to the Giuliani 120 or some other right-hand exercises I've been doing, so I don't think I'll have a problem with them when it comes time to audition. What I'm afraid of is the "selections from Sor Studies" bit... Will they just hand me a Sor Study and ask me to play it? My sight-reading is passable, but I can't see myself passing that unless I work through them all beforehand. Maybe I just have no idea how the whole thing works...


Yes, right hand arpeggios would be referencing the Giuliani 120 but there are other right hand studies like the Carlevaro ones too.

What they mean by selection is that you can pick one or two of the Sor Studies from the Segovia edition, prepare it and perform it for them. They probably will give you a sight reading test but it probably won't be anything too difficult.
If you can play BWV 998 musically and you haven't even graduated high school, you are already good enough to get in pretty much anywhere you want. BWV 998 is usually reserved for 3rd year and above as far as I know so if what you say is true, you show tremendous amounts of promise. You should really consider auditioning for the conservatoires in Europe if you are already that good. You could easily get a scholarship if you nail BWV 998 and whatever else you pick at the audition.

As for other repertoire, you could have a look at some Dodgson, Gilardino, Bogdanovic and a bunch of other contemporary composers but those would happen to be the more 'guitaristic' composers that came to my mind first. There's nothing wrong with doing Villa-Lobos if you do it well. College/university audition panels aren't looking for perfect players or anything, they're looking for potential and an obvious passion for music and playing the classical guitar. Want to impress the panel with Villa-Lobos? Learn Etude 10, it's not played often (you'll see why!) and really demonstrates a very fine control of your instrument if done well.
Quote by giutar
Maybe they are also available in Europe? If yes, I would be interested in the names.



Ah, I should clarify that I only said that because I'm from Australia and I haven't really heard or seen that many European guitars, not because I think only Aussie guitars are good.
I wouldn't really bother...painting the top will mess with the resonance of the guitar and you'll end up with a dead sounding guitar if you do. Sure, you can plug it in but then many of the over-tones in the sound will be lost and you'll just get a louder dead sounding guitar.
If you plan to take classical guitar seriously and you and your teacher feel like your instrument is holding you back, you should start looking for a better instrument. Though, you should look further than the Antonio Loriente. The problem with lacquered top guitars is that while the 'better' models do provide an improvement in sound, the sound will never be of a modern-day concert grade simply because the lacquer stifles the top vibrations, making a quieter and less resonant instrument. I'm not sure what you could get for $22000 that would be French-polished since I am not really into brand names in particular and the only cheaper concert instrument makers I can name come from Australia.

With that said though, you have only been playing for a few months...if you're looking to spend that much on an instrument already, you need to ask yourself if you want to pursue classical guitar seriously or not. If so, I would say go for the upgrade, it should last for a while but if you are as impassioned as I think you could be, that guitar would only satisfy you for the next 2-3 years at most before you want a concert instrument. That's not to say don't go for it if you love the classical guitar and want to study it seriously, as I mentioned in my previous post, upgrading an instrument is very important to a player's development.

EDIT: You should look into buying a used guitar as well. The players usually take good care of them if they're decent or good instruments and they're usually willing to sell at much cheaper than what they bought it for. It's also usually played in too.
Quote by derek8520
^^^ Was that a joke response?
That sounds shit



Obviously, it's a joke response. As for the music sounding shit? It's music you don't understand.
Quote by Captaincranky
A classical guitar is the most basic and standardized of form factors with respect to the instrument in general. Nylon strung guitars have kept pace with changes to the contemporary acoustic guitar, (cutaways, 14th fret neck joints, electronics, spruce as a top wood), but as these changes have been made, so would a purist argue it isn'a a "classical guitar" any more per se.


No. Considering that the 18th and 19th century instruments often used spruce as a top wood and some included 14th fret neck joints, you're wrong on that point. The point about cutaways and electronics is half-correct. You would still call it a classical guitar but you probably wouldn't play it.

Quote by Captaincranky
Your instructor is "first at the scene of the accident", so to speak, and he or she should be overseeing this issue.

There are a lot of people on the internet, talking a lot of smack about how much you need to spend for "street cred" on a guitar. These oftentimes are people who have the money, and enjoy telling others about it.


There is no harm in getting online and asking for a second opinion. What if the instructor recommended something bad or unsuitable? It's definitely not unheard of and when the TS is looking at spending $2200 or so on an instrument, I would say it's definitely worth looking at. When the 2nd part of that quote starts talking about spending money, it sounds like you're asking the TS to be careful with their decisions and money, which he is doing by posting in this thread (I may be reading you incorrectly).


Quote by Captaincranky
There are some fine instruments produced in Asia nowadays, and people sometimes mistake bling, brand, and country of origin as being necessities.


Not really. There are some decent instruments being made in Asia with a really nice price-tag to match but for the most part, there aren't that many. Also, would it be the sound the TS is looking for? Would it be a suitable instrument for his/her level of playing?

Quote by Captaincranky
The irony is, the more you spend for a guitar, the more delicate instruments become.


Yes.

Quote by Captaincranky
That said, as long as you can set the "action" of your present to a comfortable point, I see no reason not to continue using your current guitar. As you improve, and perhaps even buy a better instrument, you'll find there's a lot of benefit to having a "beater" for day to day practice.


I'm sorry but, no. Upgrading an instrument for a Classical musician is very important in helping the player develop as lower-end instruments can be far too forgiving in terms of sound production and finger placement. Achieving an acceptable sound on an entry-level instrument is far easier than achieving an acceptable sound on a concert instrument. The increase in dynamic range and variety of tone colours on the instrument also enable the performer to focus more on the detail of their interpretation they could not if they were playing a lesser instrument. There isn't really a good reason to practice on a 'beater' guitar everyday if it's unable to accommodate your musical ideas.

Quote by Captaincranky
If your instruments are adjusted and sized in a similar manner, there's no justification for banging on a multi-thousand dollar guitar on a day in, day out, basis.


Refer to above paragraph. I really don't think any of the world-class Classical musicians would agree with you.
Quote by Captaincranky
I'd didn't "proofread" your tab, but I did notice you've tabbed the song in a slightly lower key than it would typically be played. (I think).



It's tabbed straight from the manuscript.

EDIT:

To the TS, keep in mind that the bass has not been included in the tab so it may sound a little funny.
It would be nice if he tuned his guitar. This thread belongs in recordings and covers.
If you're paying $2200 and getting a lacquered top, I wouldn't really bother. It wouldn't really be a 'concert' instrument at all. There would be a massive improvement on the $300 guitar you currently own but it would still be considered an instrument more suited to study rather than performance.

It really depends on the kind of sound you're going for too with a concert instrument. Take a look at different kinds of guitar construction, lattice guitars are getting quite popular (though it's my understanding many European players prefer the traditional construction/sound) and so are double-tops. You're probably not going to get a great guitar for $2200...if you're looking into getting into classical guitar seriously, I would probably aim at around 5-6k for the lowest level concert instruments.

Honestly, if you're looking at concert instruments, it's time to leave brand names and start looking at individual luthiers and commissioning an instrument yourself (or buying one they've already made if you like it).
Quote by BlacKobalt
I don't know about the cutaway and company but when it comes to resonance...It's supposed to be plugged in (it's a solid body, the sound hole is fake).
As for the fingerboard...you may be right. The most expensive classical guitars use exotic woods, but there are a lot of very good guitars (pricey too) that use rosewood.
Any more information/opinions?



I know it's supposed to be plugged in which is why it's probably not worth much. The resonance contributes siginificantly to a guitar's tone because the more a guitar resonates, the more overtones that appear in the sound, giving the impression of a fuller, bigger sound. A guitar that doesn't resonate that well just sounds percussive and when you are playing a nylon string guitar, you may as well be playing a flamenco guitar if it's that percussive. Solid body guitars simply don't resonate as well as a well made classical guitar because much more energy is needed to actually make the body vibrate at all and in the right places too so even if you can achieve any volume you want with amplification, the sound is just going to be dull and crappy.

You seem to really want to believe that this instrument is worth something. Did you come here looking for information or just validation? The most expensive guitars don't use 'exotic' woods (at least not in the sense that you're describing...), the tops are always some sort of cedar or spruce and the back/sides are usually some sort of rosewood. The necks are probably the most varied piece on the instrument but again, they aren't 'exotic' in any manner. I can't actually think of any good classical guitars that deviate from this kind of setup.

Think about it. Your guitar's supposed to be a classical guitar and it has...

A solid body - no good for tone or resonance (refer to first paragraph as to why amplification doesn't really help)
A cut away - what serious classical guitarist would play with a cut-away?
Electronics - If the instrument were that good, there would be no electronics. If the factory thought they were producing a concert instrument (which they weren't, no concert guitarist would buy this if only for shits and giggles) they wouldn't have added in electronics because mics are better for amplifying good classical guitars.
Rosewood fingerboard - Yes, some 'good' classical guitars use rosewood fingerboards but they are in a very very small minority. Considering the above points, I don't think this is one of those exceptions.

Last of all, it was factory made, which is enough said about the quality of the guitar itself. Something like this would have been made with the amateur/hobby player in mind, not a classical musician with a very picky ear.
Probably not worth that much because it's a cut-away and the body is too skinny to resonate as well as a classical guitarist would want it to. Brand name classical guitars don't fetch much regardless of age because they aren't considered to be as refined as luthier-made instruments and this was definitely made with the contemporary finger-picker in mind.

EDIT: Also, the rosewood fingerboard screams cheap. High level classical guitars come with ebony fingerboards.
Quote by Bikewer
also to follow the specific fingerings which are part of classical guitar music.



Everything but this. It's highly contextual for the player and the composer in question. If you're playing a study written by a guitarist, it's usually best to adhere to the fingering in order to learn whatever they wanted to teach you. In the case of playing music written by non-guitarists, the floor is open to any fingering you want provided that it provides a musical outcome and does not strain the performer. If you are playing a transcription of a piece that wasn't originally for the guitar, the same things apply as just mentioned.

Following fingerings strictly is a rather old way of learning/playing the guitar, it's really more to get a beginner/intermediate student used to idiomatic shapes and patterns.

EDIT: Read my post here.

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31254743#post31254743
Reported for advertising and spam
Quote by supersac
its much better and many times louder than a nylon string gutiar



I hope when you say 'it's much better' you mean that it's better for you and not as an objective statement.

As for loudness, the better concert-classical guitars are just as loud or louder than acoustic guitars but those are usually too expensive for the hobby player. Not that loudness should be the deciding factor in whether or not you buy a guitar considering that amplification exists.
They're definitely picking everything in all tracks. Choose whatever you prefer? You can definitely get a much better sound than they can with a pick or just with fingers...their pick-attack is way too aggressive for my taste.
I liked the track but I don't hear any 'interesting' things going on regarding classical guitar technique...
Disregard 'Justinguitar' and just about every single online website/video dedicated to Classical Guitar technique. So many of them are truly awful despite garnering countless views and likes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3BfKQ0pelQ - watch this and related videos by the same guy for left hand technique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1zlTyl74Bk - watch this for overall technique and useful exercises. Pumping Nylon is basically the guitar bible though there are other things that other teachers teach that are just as valid. Don't worry about that for now though.

Really, if you want to be a good Classical Guitarist, learning online will get you pretty much nowhere. Being a good Classical Guitarist (I'm talking about world-class) requires a good teacher, countless hours of dedication and work and the correct practice method which a good teacher will help foster. Those two videos I linked you are probably among the best possible ones to start you off on but there are many things that you need to know that will be missed because you don't have a real life teacher.

Also, contrary to the above post, don't 'ideally' familiarise yourself with just Segovia. It's good to listen to him and find out how much he contributed to the guitar repertoire but don't fall into the trap of idolising him just because of that.

Here's a few links of good players.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRSkk-BbYoI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULP3MN85bs0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1giUN-5W6A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGBTJYvIi3E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjMv8yS-BbQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPfZVflJdp0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCo9x2n1uo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbW4rYYKxhg

Of course, there's many more good players, but this is just to give you a bit of an idea of what the good players sound like.
If you don't do it properly, yes. I don't know why so many people think bends need finger strength. Here you have your entire arm at your disposal and can take advantage of the instrument's weight + gravity to bend notes and people think you need insane finger strength...
Quote by Captaincranky
So then you have to fret the 2nd fret on E-6 to produce an E on that string.

The drop D tuning taketh the E away, and your finger puteth it back.

This is Em in drop D

e-1 0
B-2 0
G-3 0
D-4 2
A-5 2
E-6 2 (0 in standard tuning).

I'm sure you know this, but that's just for the record.



This is correct.
Guys, it's not an Em/F#...read the actual notation. The guitar's tabbed in Drop D
Am, E7, A7, Dm, E7, Am ending on the leading note at the 3rd octave.
Quote by Kaozz
i was referring to the allegro, do you think it's safe to repeat fingers on a piece like that?... i don't think so ...



Depends on what fingering you're using. It's a very situational thing.
Quote by bearsfan092
So I've played electric guitar for about three years, and acoustic for a year and a half. However, I've had an itch to play classical because I want to introduce some serious discipline into my guitar life. Plus the music is just fantastic.

So I've been talking with the various classical guitar teachers around here, and I've settled on one that I'm starting with in May. Thing is, I need a classical guitar. Ordinarily, I'd go out shopping by playing a few guitars in a store. Can't really do that seeing as I don't really have any classical technique.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a solid classical guitar? Let's put a limit at 300 USD for now. Preferably new, but I'd look into used if that's the case.

EDIT: Just as a sidenote, does a steel string acoustic cause any serious complications for learning over a classical?


Yamaha C-40 is brilliant for beginners. They're very consistently made guitars and for the quality you get for what you pay, there really isn't any better. There isn't really much point investing in anything slightly more expensive (like up to 1K) since you're just learning and achieving the basics of right hand tone production will take quite a while anyway.

Playing a steel-string is pretty detrimental if you're looking to get into classical technique. Your nails will be awful all of the time because of the steel strings and the subtleties in tone between an acoustic and classical guitar are way too different to actually learn how to produce a good sound on the classical guitar properly. The body size of an acoustic guitar is also usually much larger than that of a classical guitar. The string spacing and tension is also different. I wouldn't recommend it
Quote by Kaozz
you can't repeat fingers on the right



That's absolutely untrue. You can repeat fingers on the right hand if it serves a musical purpose. The only dangerous thing is if you become dependent or make it a habit that you can't break out of. Instrumental pedagogy is all about flexibility. Repeating fingers on the right hand is only bad if you use it as a crutch. There are many situations in classical guitar repertoire where repeating fingers either makes the repertoire easier or is imperative to making a musical sound.
You can't really go wrong with a Yamaha C-40 for a beginner's classical guitar. Alhambra guitars are good student instruments too up until the 4P model where the price to quality ratio begins to taper off and not be so great.

I would highly recommend finding a teacher who actually specialises in classical guitar to teach you but just know that there are lots of pure CG players out there who really aren't that great as players or teachers. You probably won't be able to tell who's solid or awful since you're new to it but good luck anyway.
They're all suitable audition pieces. Where are you applying to study, out of curiosity?
Recorded today, this was my end of year performance assessment at the ANU School of Music. Hope you guys like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqFCXLMf4Ok&feature=youtu.be
Pretty interesting blend, like your intuition for the layering and such but I felt like the guitar was more of a hindrance than anything in this piece IMO. The arpeggiated chords in the beginning didn't do much for me and felt more out of place than anything but otherwise, I think you have a good feel for transitions and how to string together a good sounding texture which is great!
Quote by Jacques-Henri
Did you actually pay the ~300$ for Sibelius or does your college/school/uni have a copy?



I split the cost with a friend since you can register Sibelius on multiple machines.
Quote by Kämpfer
I like.

What software did you use? (assuming those aren't real instruments)


I used Sibelius 6 to write the music and a free VST called Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra. It's the best free orchestral VST you can get!

http://www.vstcafe.com/2011/04/sonatina-symphonic-orchestra.html
Structually, I felt it was really well thought out and the build-up to the first solo is conceptually great but what really bothered me was the instrumental writing in the beginning. You have some good melodic ideas but harmonically, the orchestral instruments sounded quite empty. At the moment, it sounds like you're dabbling a bit on the synth and coming up with a skeleton of what could sound potentially great but the string harmonies are letting you down quite a bit. If you're able to read music, I suggest getting the scores of the simpler Mozart symphonies and looking at how he writes his string parts. They're an excellent starting point for learning how to write/voice in an orchestral setting and the reason behind a lot of the things Mozart does becomes obvious as you study it and the sound it makes.

As for the playing, very tight rhythmically but the mix was a little muddy for my taste. Vocally, the melody was great but the singing put me off a bit, especially in the beginning. Try not to slide in between notes too much as you end up being ever so slightly flat when you do and at times, I felt like it would have sounded much better if you hit the note on the beat instead of sliding up to it.

You've got heaps of potential man, keep it up!

Would you mind giving me a critique?

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?p=30533109#post30533109
First of all, I love the production quality on this! The drums sound great considering they're just EZDrummer (am I right?). Great energy from the very start and good riffs. Your transitions between sections are good but what I'd like to hear is you recycling some of your ideas a bit more. I get that it's prog metal and that it's meant to push on relentlessly which is an idea that you capture very well without being too idiomatically prog metal but I felt like hearing the first riff again or something would have been nice instead of a bunch of really nice riffs but only once. If you asked me to sing back a riff that you played in that, I'd be a little hard pushed on doing it which isn't to say I didn't enjoy it, I did but overall, it wasn't a very memorable song. I'd also watch out for clarity in your harmonies, particularly around 1:20.

If you don't mind, could you please give mine a listen and crit?

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1570514
Love the groove to this, the pseudo cross-rhythmic pattern in the beginning sets a steady pulse really well. The guitar solo fits quite well at first but after about 20 seconds of it, it doesn't really do much for me. Ridiculously clean playing though and the little gestural ideas you have between the fast passages are great!

Actually, as I'm writing this, I'm listening to it a second time and think the solos actually fit quite well, it seems I just needed to get a firmer context of why they're there and they're certainly very effective!

I'm not too convinced about the drums in the background, I'm sitting here wondering if they're intended to be sameish the entire way through or if it's because you don't really know what to do with them. I think if you had a little more interaction between the drums and the guitars, it would sound much more 'groovy' but otherwise, good job, I enjoyed it much more on the 2nd listen through!

Could you please crit mine?

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1570514