Learning Proper Left Hand Position

I think golf is a great analogy.

Guitar, like golf, has a "standard" way of doing things. Golf, like guitar, is populated with people who are good at it through non-standard techniques.

I disagree with Chris, in that I don't think those who succeed through non-standard means have considered what they'll gain/lose by going against the grain. I think it's more a case of savant behavior... they do what's instinctive, that gives them feedback on how well their instinctive techniques are working; they analyze (consciously or not) that feedback, and make adjustments until they get what they're looking for. The difference between this approach and a pedagogical one which considers the downside is that the downsides usually aren't considered - progress comes by happy accident. The people who really consider what's going to be lost by adopting a specific technique aren't usually artists, but teachers: they see hundreds of students over the course of a career, and if they're paying attention, they can associate one situation with another.

One of my teachers golfs. His approach isn't standard, because he's 6'6" and doesn't use custom clubs. Last spring he was at a driving range hitting balls, and a golf instructor was watching him. The instructor came over, and said "I'm just going to tell you two things...", gave him two tips which he followed, and he was suddenly driving straight, consistent, and 20 yards farther than before. The tips he was given didn't result in "standard" practice; they isolated where he was losing the most from what he was doing, and moved his swing in the right direction without changing the core of his learned behavior.

Tom I'm not sure I disagree with what you are saying although I didn't really think about their feedback mechanism, but my thought would be...

Take a guy with an unconventional swing an yes it's proabably all about instinct and what comes naturally but his feed back is tangible he hit's the ball straight, long whatever, as long as he continues to get the feedback he is looking for then there is no need really to think about the downsides.

The same with guitar if you are continually getting postive feedback and are able to do the things you need or want to do I would think it's just human nature to continue that why regardless of what the supposed standard or proper way is.

So for a golfer it ends up being a score for a guitar player it's his abilty to play the chops etc that is needed. I guess you could theoretically argue that said guitar player with a non standard technique can play passages to say 240 bpm but possibly could get that higher if used better technique and that may be true but only worth pursuing if he actually needed to play that way.

I don't think those who succeed through non-standard means have considered what they'll gain/lose by going against the grain. I think it's more a case of savant behavior... they do what's instinctive, that gives them feedback on how well their instinctive techniques are working; they analyze (consciously or not) that feedback, and make adjustments until they get what they're looking for.

That sounds like a great away to describe the process that many of us use to learn - an 'instinctive' use of feedback. As you say, most us will stop looking as soon as we find an answer that satisfies us, despite the fact that there may be other possible solutions to be discovered if we keep at it.

The difference between this approach and a pedagogical one which considers the downside is that the downsides usually aren't considered - progress comes by happy accident. The people who really consider what's going to be lost by adopting a specific technique aren't usually artists, but teachers: they see hundreds of students over the course of a career, and if they're paying attention, they can associate one situation with another.

My guess is that many (most?) people who attempt to learn guitar today rely heavily on that feedback method, even though it might result in a long term deficit for an apparent short term gain. This is compounded by the fact that many people who teach guitar in the wider world have not had traditional classical training themselves and may not even be trained teachers.

But I don't believe that it's all happy accident when it comes to the top players. I'd imagine that most of the people in the Youtube links are well aware of the classical viewpoints by now and have also given some considered thought to their own styles over the years. No matter how good you are we'd all like to be just a bit better, and if the equivalent of those golf tips were to be on offer then I think most players would at least give them a try. Even at my very modest level, I certainly enjoy trying different styles and combinations. :)

I certainly don't think that it's a case of absolutely "anything goes". There's no doubt that there really are such a thing as 'bad habits' or inefficient ways of playing. My only beef is with those who think that there is only one valid solution - theirs. The classical techniques clearly work very well, but they were developed as part of a package - a specific style of instrument, coupled with a prescribed posture, and designed for playing a particular type of music. I don't think that you can necessarily export individual bits of a package into other areas and expect them to work exactly as well. Or to provide the exclusive right solution.

Cheers,

Chris

For those who enjoy different styles, check out Dave Hole's slide technique. :D

White Trash Girl

King Bee

Short Fuse Blues

Dave Hole Web Site - including info about why he plays that way

He tours in the USA and Europe a fair bit but actually lives just up the road from where I do. I haven't met him but his wife Jan gave me one of his CDs when we used to go to the same gym for a while. Great stuff... just watch those fingers fly....

All wrong? Or absolutely all right? :mrgreen:

He seems to be well regarded around the world.

I certainly enjoy 'Classical' style music (I even set up a shop selling 'Classical' music on Cd for a while) but the other genres all have their own special appeal too. That slide playing is just WONDERFUL. So full of life and energy.

Chris

Take a guy with an unconventional swing an yes it's proabably all about instinct and what comes naturally but his feed back is tangible he hit's the ball straight, long whatever, as long as he continues to get the feedback he is looking for then there is no need really to think about the downsides.
There is one thing, which in mathematics/computer science would be the difference between a global and local minimum (or maximum depending whether your glass is half full or half empty). You can keep making small improvements, but still be stuck in an area that isn't the best one. It's like the Fosbury flop in the high-jump, if you weren't using this or a similar technique you could train and get better at what you were doing, but you would never get over as high a bar as you could with it. Actually, the analogy is quite good, because there are plenty of situations (most non-athletics ones...) where the Fosbury flop would be an extremely bad choice of jumping technique.
And this is completely in keeping with looking at what other people are doing and trying to figure out why it works for them or getting advice from instructors and peers; it's trying to look over the hill and make sure you aren't stuck in a local minimum (or at least know which one it is).

it's trying to look over the hill and make sure you aren't stuck in a local minimum (or at least know which one it is).

Great post. :) Sometimes it's good to work on perfecting things with relatively local focus, and other times you'll get better results by taking a lateral jump or, as you say, "looking over the hill" to see what's on the other side. Music seems to be a field with a lot of successful lateral thinkers.

Cheers,

Chris

"inefficient ways of playing" is a great way to put it, Chris. I've said that to students hundreds of times: I don't believe there's a right or wrong, but there's definitely an efficient and an inefficient way to do some things. But what's inefficient actually depends on context - I'll sometimes have students using two different fingerings for the same chord within a song, just to make the transitions more efficient.

I do know that I'll never convince a die-hard Classical enthusiast though.

We had this discussion before and I had shifted his view of the rockers not one milimetre! So when I lent him a video of Jeff Beck (who he admires - I had trouble getting the video back..) I couldn't resist pointing out how Beck frequently appears to be throttling his guitar, yet still gets some very nice noises out of it.

“Ah yes” he said “but he could do better still if he used my techniques”

UPDATE:

It's seems that I was wrong about my friend's position… or perhaps there's been a shift in perception on both our parts. That conversation was some years ago.

Last night he came round for dinner with his wife and extended family. We put two tables together on the verandah and 12 of us sat down to a splendid meal, complete with Christmas crackers etc, on a lovely warm summer evening. Delightful stuff… but at some stage three of us inevitably snuck off upstairs to where the music toys are. James, his teenage son (who is a very good violinist) sat down with headphones on to enjoy playing the electronic drum kit while his dad and I talked guitars. So I asked him about hand positions again.

Now, the last time we talked about it was probably three or four years ago and he was still primarily a classical man, through and through. But since then he's bought a Les Paul and got together a band with some workmates who have played at a few work and family functions, mostly older style rock covers. Had he shifted, or at least broadened his stance? It seemed so. :D

I began by saying that I play with my thumb alongside (and demonstrated, as in the photos above). He surprised me by immediately saying “So do I” then adding “when I play the Les Paul”.

He then ran through the advantages of playing rock that way. Of course, bending, thumb muting and fretting figured, as did the angle you might hold the guitar depending on what you were playing. But he was also able to explain some other subtler and harder to explain advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

The way he did it was to play the same thing two different ways and say what he felt was the advantage and disadvantage of each. It was especially useful because, with a guy with that degree of skill, you can actually hear the difference too.

He played a run of notes that occur at the end of one of Mark Knopfler's songs. It was quite high on the neck, near the body of the guitar.

He demonstrated how using the traditional “classical” style hand position he was able to get great clarity, separation, and accuracy with each note. But….. he then pointed out that it still sounded a bit too classical or, as he put it, "a bit too anal". There were some small but important aspects that he just couldn't do quite as well using that position (which I thought was an impressive admission!). :)

He then showed me how Mark Knopfler plays it - which is not in the classically technical manner. He also mentioned that he can often actually hear Knopfler missing a few notes here and there when he plays it, but said that didn't matter, because what was primarily required was a sort of flow and drive and ‘feel'. If the cost was a few skipped notes then it was worth paying. Whereas if you did it the other way around, and got all the notes exactly perfect but lost some of the flow and feel that the piece needed, then that price wasn't worth paying (on that occasion). For other music, the order of importance might be different.

It would come to life more if you could hear it, but I thought that was a great demonstration. It also settled something that's been quietly bugging me for years - is the way I play actually deficient in any major way, or is it just a case of it being absolutely fine for what I do play but something that would need extending if I wanted to play some of the many other possible styles music? The answer seems to be that for what I do play it's just fine. If I attempt things more in the classical vein, and switch to a version of the formal classical techniques then I've got the basic positional idea but would need WAY more work on it to get close to the required precision.

It seems that it's down to what is the most important thing you're aiming to achieve, and what the best way - for you - is to achieve it. Which I think is pretty much what most of us have been saying, albeit from different angles. :wink:

Cheers,

Chris

When I first started playing guitar, one of the first chords I learned was the D major chord, played xx0232....I asked the guy who showed me, "isn't there a way to play it using all six strings? I like a fuller sound - using four strings sounds a bit weedy to me, especially if you're changing down from E the going to A." I think I was born to be a rhythm guitarist...

Anyway, he showed me a different variation - he said, "it doesn't really matter if you play the A string as well - x00232 - because the A note is still a part of the D chord. OR...you could bring your thumb over the top and play 200232, fretting the F# note on the bottom E string with your thumb."

I tried that, like the full D chord, and I've stuck with it ever since.

Then when I started playing barre chords, I found it difficult to get all four fingers in place at the same time - found it much easier to hook my thumb over the top, and fret the bottom E string OR the E and A strings with my thumb, and concentrateon putting three fingers in the right places.

It's all about what's comfortable for you, and (as Chris and Noteboat have said) what's most efficient.

I've posted these photos before - obviously, it helps to have big hands, but for me this is the most efficient way to play a I - IV - V progression in C....

The C chord......

The F chord...note how little movement there is...

and from there, it's pretty easy to slide the whole shape up two frets for the G chord.....

Of course, this is a totally useless configuration if you want to play a blues shuffle.....but put a capo on the second fret, you've got D G and A. Capo on the fourth, E A and B. Probably the most common progression in 50's rock'n'roll....Capo on the fifth, we're in Chuck Berry territory - F, Bb and C. Although I think Chuck's favourite progression was Bb, Eb, F - you'd have to tune the whole guitar down a semitone and play C F and G for that one.

Learning guitar, to me, is similar to learning a foreign language - first, learn the rules of grammar - or the rules of music theory. THEN when you've mastered the basics, you can learn to experiment - learn the local patois, learn the local slang, and listen to regional accents. Where I live, there are four towns with a population of over 50,000 within a 20 minute bus ride...

Ask someone from one of those towns for directions, you'd get different answers from each...

Newton-le-Willows - "turn right at t'lights."
St Helens............."turn raht at t'lahts."
Wigan................"turn reet at t'leets."
Leigh................."turn reight at leights." (Leigh pronounced Lee, reight and leights as rate and lates!)
Warrington..........."turn ri at li."

Now let's ask 'em all how to play a G chord....

:D :D :D

Vic

I have what I've heard some people call "double jointed" thumbs, not sure what the proper term is, but it seems usually when i am playing chords other than barre chords, the ball of my thumb (or "heel" of my thumb, the part where your thumb attaches to your hand) comes in contact with the back of the neck. I'm perfectly able to play barre chords normally, this just happens during open chords or when playing a melody. I've attempted to play the "correct" way, but it seems i don't have the thumb strength to do it. It feels uncomfortable. I've always been a fan of Paul Stanley, and always noticed he plays with his thumb in the clasical position. I always felt i was doing it wrong, but i've come to terms with the way i do it and it works good for me. Doing it the classical way would mean undoing everything i've already learned, so i'll just stick to my way unless i figure out my way is limiting my learning too much! :)

That sounds like a great away to describe the process that many of us use to learn - an 'instinctive' use of feedback. As you say, most us will stop looking as soon as we find an answer that satisfies us, despite the fact that there may be other possible solutions to be discovered if we keep at it.

Like someone giving first aid at an accident scene...they stop the bleeding in one spot but don't even think to look elsewhere...

Very true. Actually, this is how I swapped to playing ultra lights over thirty years ago. Someone pointed out to me that the covers I was trying to copy were played with specific strings...and I'd never get close to that particular sound unless I used the same dynamics. (IE: Jimmy Page)

The point is, I guess, is that there's always more to learn...

Cat

The point is, I guess, is that there's always more to learn...

Amen. Like Rachmaninov said... "music is enough for a lifetime - but a lifetime is not enough for music"

If you make a fist, the thumb is mostly over the middle finger. If you then relax your hand and place the loose fist on the neck of the guitar, your thumb will mostly be behind the middle finger.

Just because something feels "natural" doesn't mean it is natural. Wrapping the thumb is comfortable, especially on guitars with thinner necks. First position chords can be played, but as soon as barre chords or scales have to be played, the thumb needs to drop in order for the fingers to gain more coverage.

Not to say that wrapping the thumb is wrong, it's just not efficient if you're playing incorporates more than first position playing.

Hi Matthias,

I hope you don't mind if I disagree with some of what you say. :) I'm not a surly young punk rocker who can't be bothered with "old fashioned" ways - I'm 65, play a variety of styles, and am genuinely interested in what the advantages of each method are.
If you make a fist, the thumb is mostly over the middle finger. If you then relax your hand and place the loose fist on the neck of the guitar, your thumb will mostly be behind the middle finger.
That may well be true, but it's still a rigged exercise. I could just as easily say “close your hand and put your thumb alongside your curled fingers” or “touch your thumb and index finger, then open your hand and drop the guitar neck in”. I don't start playing by making fist shapes, and if I pick a guitar up casually and put my hand around the neck my thumb falls alongside the neck, more or less opposite the index finger. That feels comfortable and natural to me, and I'm clearly not alone.
Just because something feels "natural" doesn't mean it is natural.

Well, “natural” does usually mean “natural”. I guess you meant to say something like “Just because it feels natural doesn't automatically mean that it's the most efficient”? I'd certainly agree with that. But I don't think it's a simple matter of choosing between two methods. I believe that there are more than one way to do things and that with an instrument as versatile as guitar there's a wide range of situations that may lend themselves to quite different approaches. There's no single ‘right' way. Limiting yourself to just one seems needlessly restrictive - unless you're only ever going to play a single style such as good old ‘classical' music. Despite what some guitar traditionalists may try to tell you, that isn't necessarily the best way to play all genres.
First position chords can be played, but as soon as barre chords or scales have to be played, the thumb needs to drop in order for the fingers to gain more coverage.

Not to say that wrapping the thumb is wrong, it's just not efficient if you're playing incorporates more than first position playing.

I don't think that too many people would disagree with the need to put your thumb round the back when playing barre chords, but it's certainly not necessary for playing scales or solo work in general. Just have a wander round Youtube and you can watch any number of legendary lead guitarists playing with their thumbs predominantly alongside the neck. They don't do this because they're dumb or because nobody ever told them the secret of putting their thumbs behind the neck, they do it BECAUSE IT WORKS!! :D It actually can have clear advantages over the thumb behind method - depending on what you're playing

I don't buy the idea that ”it's just not efficient if you're playing incorporates more than first position playing”. Maybe that's true for what you play, but it's certainly not true for me. I started out on guitar playing a nylon strung classical guitar in the approved position - footstool, upright position and all. I do know how to do it, and if I want to play that style of music then I'll still use it. But once I move into a more rock position all the angles change, plus the main game changes too. I don't believe that thumb alongside is less efficient at all, or that it automatically limits my reach, because I know that it doesn't. (and, hey, if it ever did I've developed this nifty skill of actually moving my hand and then putting it back where it was. :wink: ) For playing Bach in the full classical position then, yes, there are times when it certainly would restrict me, and be uncomfortable too. But for other styles and angles I find that it can definitely be the reverse - more effective and more comfortable. I can play either way so I have absolutely no reason to say this if it isn't true.

Depending on all the other postural angles, I may find that my reach and general ease and comfort are actually decreased by having my thumb behind. What works very well in one position isn't necessarily going to be as effective when you change other parts of the equation. Move the neck down and the overall geometry changes, thereby screwing up something that worked well when the whole package was balanced in the classical manner.

If I'm holding the guitar in an upright classical stance with my hand right up in the cutaway, it's comfortable and efficient, but as I lower the peg-head down the angles on my wrist change too. It becomes more and more awkward, and the usable reach starts to diminish. It also starts to create tension in my shoulder. At this point it becomes more comfortable and actually more effective for reach to move my thumb alongside and drop the neck onto the web of my hand. My take on all that is that there's a classical style and a rock style and they both work fine for what they're designed to do. I find that trying to use just one for all occasions is very limiting. I think that guitarists like Dave Gilmour, Mark Knopfler, Jeff Beck, etc probably think that way too. They certainly don't seem to have any trouble at all playing “scales” using their thumbs alongside like I do.

For me, when playing rock and similar styles, the advantages of thumb alongside comfortably outweigh any possible disadvantages. If anybody really can't understand what those advantages are just go to Youtube and watch those guys and see if you can figure it out - because there is no possible doubt that it does work very well indeed.

Cheers,

Chris

Great post, Chris.

I want to add one more reason behind the "keep your thumb behind the neck" guideline.

I study music a lot. Not just guitar - I probably spend about 15-17 hours a week trying to learn more about all kinds of music, and that sometimes leads me down completely unrelated paths that help me as a teacher. One insight came about a month ago, when I read pianist/conductor Daniel Barenboim's autobiography.

I play a bit of piano - I studied for five years with a concert pianist, and I still play at least a few hours a week. Piano teachers always describe proper hand position as holding imaginary round objects (some use oranges; I use tennis balls). This keeps your fingers curled, and directs the force down toward the keys.

I had always assumed the reason was efficiency: it minimizes the strain on your muscles by directing the force straight down from the last finger joint. The analogy I formed in my head was holding a weight - if you have your arm hanging down by your side, with a right angle at the elbow and the weight in front of you, it's a lot easier than holding the same weight with your arm extended straight out in front of you, right?

Anyway, there was a passing sentence in Barenboim's book that mentioned finger position. But he said the position has to do with timing. And after thinking about it for a while, I realized.... dang, he's absolutely right.

If you have your thumb too high (or too low) on the guitar's neck, your fingers don't curl the same way they do if you have the thumb behind the neck. That's the key to Barenboim's observation: if your hand is in the proper position, your fingertips are essentially all the same length - they're the same distance from the palm of your hand in relation to the keys/strings. If you're not in proper position, some fingertips (especially the little finger) are too high - so it takes longer to get the note played. Compensating for that difference is certainly possible, but it sure is easier if you can use the exact same timing to 'fire' each of your fingers as needed.

Anyway, I found it an interesting observation.