Studying Classical Guitar Leads to Playing Classical Guitar
Andres Segovia was responsible for establishing the nylon-string guitar as a concert-level instrument.
Many people ask me if learning Classical Guitar will make them a better Rock, Blues, Jazz or Bluegrass player. The short answer is no.
To explore this, we need to look into the nature of the Classical Guitar itself and how it’s been traditionally taught.
There was a time, not so long ago, that the guitar in general had no respect in the classical community. Andrés Segovia, the Spanish guitarist, made it his life-long mission to establish the nylon string guitar as a legitimate concert instrument. He felt that the guitar should stand shoulder to shoulder with the violin, piano, and all the instruments traditionally associated with the classical style of music. The problem for the guitar was that it had a very limited repertoire and an even more limited reputation.
Though Segovia was not a composer, he set out to adapt music written for other instruments to the unique sensibilities of the guitar. He also encouraged composers to write for the guitar. Taking this new material and developing a virtuosic technique, Segovia toured the world to prove to audiences that the guitar was a concert-level instrument. Within his lifetime, he accomplished this formidable goal.
The problem with most traditional classical approaches is that they focus too much on reading, memorizing, and interpreting repertoire. Improvisation tends to be ignored. Yet, improvisation is a critical component of all contemporary music.
Each style of music has characteristics and skills that must be learned to successfully participate in that style. Blues, for example, focuses on specific feels, embellishments, and scale-chord relationships that are unique to the Blues. The same concept is true for Jazz, Bluegrass, Rock, etc.
Studying Classical Guitar is a great way to learn Classical Guitar. If you want to play contemporary music in which inidividual creativity is prized (even simply in the form of improvised solos, introductions, or endings), you need to study the given genre itself.
6 comments
Posted 08/30/09 at 1:42 pm
Very interesting. You talk about the problem with most traditional classical approaches. Is there such a thing as a good classical approach? If so, how would you characterize it? And could original composition perhaps be the “improvisation” for classical music?
Posted 08/30/09 at 7:50 pm
Just a little background to my first comment: I’m thinking of taking some classical guitar lessons and I want to know how to evaluate the teacher’s approach when I meet him for the first time. Thanks.
Posted 09/01/09 at 12:51 am
Ruth: Classical approaches are relatively straightforward. It’s the contemporary approaches that are often vague and unstructured. To me, a good classical approach would include theory, ear training, some history and context for the music, considerations of interpretation, and performance. The other things such as technique and reading are standard in all classical studies.
Posted 09/01/09 at 12:52 am
Re: your second comment: Classical guitar study will include reading, technique, tone production, right and left hand position and coordination, care of the nails, repertoire from traditional classical sources and performance considerations. Most classical guitar teachers do not go into ear training, theory or improvisation. If they did, that would be great but it’s rare.
Posted 12/30/09 at 6:40 pm
The exception that proves the rules is Lenny Breau. I think all of his guitar techniques complemented each other. Of course, Lenny was unique. I do think that your are wrong about classical guitar technique. It does have the potential to make a better guitar player in any style, but most of the benefits are from musicianship that is developed best in the classical repertoire: harmony, chord voicings, phrasing, nuance, discipline and so on. Of course, all of these can be learned in other disciplines, but the fact is that most rock musicians don’t give a whit about playing softer than triple fortissimo. The potential to use classical training has been best used by jazz musicians: Oscar Petersen, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and so on. They all started as classical musicians. I venture to say that Sting must have had some classical training too. The difference between classical guitar and classical piano is that less guitarists seem to have crossed the chasm of playing from a written page to playing by ear. There are many jazz musicians that have done so and are fantastic rock players e.g. Andy Summers. I think your critique is true to a certain extent, but somewhat narrowly focused. Many classical musicians like Ranaan Meyer are now seeing the benefit of playing by ear and how it makes them a better classical player as well. Ranaan is creating a new style of classical improvisation. This is a tradition that used to exist in baroque and classical times (ormamentation and cadenzas) but was lost some where. Improvisation does need a place in classical training. Unfortunately it is not there, with the exception of some schools of organ playing.
Posted 12/30/09 at 9:18 pm
As a classically trained vocalist I came at guitar strictly as an accompaniment instrument. I taught myself to play guitar as a substitute for carrying around a piano and pianist. Believe it or not the guitar, even in these days of electronic keyboards, is lighter.
Improvisation isn’t really well taught in most instrumental programs, with the exception of the jazz band part of the instrumental department. The sax player who taught the first jazz band taught them to improvise and the several different people that taught the second band also worked on that skill.
I didn’t really pick up the ability to improvise until I started playing bass in my 40s.
One skill that I wish more guitarists had is the ability to pick up a piece of music and just play. The old joke is “How do you confuse a guitar player?” “You put a chart in front of him.”
“How do you stop him from playing completely?”
“You put notes on it.”
Leave a Comment