Thumb Over Grip

I have my thumb over the top sometimes when playing but there are only a few songs that I actually use it to fret a note. It doesn't feel comfortable to me.

I don't think Hendrix had "horrible technique" and even if he did, he could play better (electric) guitar than anyone in his generation - so is it really bad technique if he is making his guitar sound brilliant?

Really bad technique should be judged as something that is limiting or making your guitar work sound worse. To me if someone puts their thumb over the top of the neck to block out strings that would sound bad if they were included in the chord that is not bad technique. However if someone always used their thumb to avoid learning barre chords that is a different matter. I do use my thumb over to do certain chords - and with some chords - besides missing out notes, there isn't really a way to do it without (D/F# just being a simple one). So how can something that is helping me play (and mute strings) be considered bad?

My two cents: technique is the mechanics you use to get the results you get.

Guitars come in a limited number of sizes. People, not so much. Whenever things are cast in stone, as "this is the RIGHT technique!", it ignores people who are the outliers - those who are bigger/smaller/faster/stronger than the norm. So the question(s) really need to be framed that way from the start. Here's what I propose as a method for finding what's "good" technique for your playing:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a particular technique?

Since this thread is about thumb over, I'll limit myself to that... putting your thumb over the neck brings the palm of your hand closer to the neck. This, in turn, limits your reach (try it - see how many frets you can span with the thumb over versus the thumb behind the neck).

2. Does it limit me?

Some people have really big hands. Hendrix did. He was my height, but I play a Strat too... if I compare the reach of my fingers to photographs of him, his fingers were easily an inch longer than mine, maybe more. In any one position on the guitar, you may have to reach for some notes - for example, if you're in the key of C in fifth position, there's no B note (middle line of the staff in standard notation) under your fingers. You either reach for it at the fourth fret of the third string, or you reach for it at the 9th fret of the 4th string. Since musical phrasing should dictate what's the better choice, you need to reach six frets. If you can do that with thumb over, you're not limited. If you can't, you might be.

3. Does it matter?

This one I have to break down into to parts...

a. does it matter right now?

If you can play everything you want to right now, the answer is no. If you can't, the answer might be yes - it depends on what's holding you back.

b. will it matter later on?

Your tastes in music may change; I know mine have over the years. So if there's any conceivable style - or any conceivable advancement in your own style, be aware that making something a habit is easy; changing a habit can be very hard.

4. Will I gain anything from it?

With thumb over, you get more leverage for bends, you're able to fret basslines with the thumb, and you have the potential to play certain chords that can't be done any other way with a muted fifth string. So even though you may discard a technique because there's a better way, it might still be worth using is some situations - whether it's "bad" or not.

I'm trying to say the same as NoteBoat: there are outliers.

I can't use my thumb or fretting hand like Hendrix, my hands simply aren't up to it. I can play the same notes/chords differently though. I'm not in a comparable situation, so to try and do the same as him (for me) is ridiculous. I like Note's breakdown of how to pick your technique. Hendrix' playing would have screwed me over big time in some regards, which is why his technique would be horrible for me (and many others) to follow. I can play both thumb over neck and behind, simply because having access to many tools is a wonderful thing to have. Determining what's good and what's bad really depends.

All true...but TR said what I also thought: "you look down and see it". Geez, I couldn't tell ya what I do...and unless I look at what I'm actually doing I haven't got any mental image of how I do whatever it is I do... :?

I've always been glad just to have the notes come out right!

Cat

Liontable........

I still don't think he had horrible technique - and I've learn't nearly all that I know from him - and people think I sound alright (or better but I don't like to big myself up, I'm bad at that because I still know I have limitations)

I couldn't do the thumb over grip for the barre chords for the longest time and the other thing you must realise it Hendrix wasn't playing every note in the barre chord either - he was using that little finger to add fills. Even if you think his technique is "horrible" because it was slightly unorthodox you must admit the results were incredible and that's why I use his techniques.

I feel like we're talking about different things, Flea. It works for you, which makes it great technique. It doesn't work for me, which makes it horrible technique. I used Hendrix as an example exactly because he did things differently, and it turned out great.
My two cents: technique is the mechanics you use to get the results you get.

I simply need different mechanics to get the results I want. The same goes for Eric Johnson (who also uses his thumb over regularly), who I very much admire. He's an amazing guitarist with phenomenal technique, which is why he can get away with some things I can't. He has his technique and I have mine, simply because we're different people (just watch anyone's vibrato). If it works for you to get what you want, then it's all good. I'm not trying to downplay anyone's achievements :wink:

I wouldn't compare with famous musicians to see which technique is optimal. If it works for you, it obviously works, but that doesn't mean it's the optimal way to do it. Jimmy Hendrix had horrible technique in some ways (and I use him as an example because you love him). Not because he did something "wrong" or because it sucked, but simply because many other people wouldn't be able to do the same things he did.
- Liontable

I can't actually make the stretches Satriani makes either so he must have pretty horrible technique for me :lol: Damn Satriani and his awful technique. Just because you can't make the stretch or most people can't make the stretch with the thumb that Hendrix does doesn't mean it's horrible technique and like I said - I couldn't do it either at first - so I kept going back and trying till I could.

I'm sorry, but you're simply pulling my words out of context. I'm not telling you how to play, or what you're doing is wrong or right. Some people won't reach the speed they want because their muscles simply don't allow it, many people don't have Hendrix' huge hands which might physically make it impossible to do it. Most things are remedied by training, some things aren't.

Secondly, you have to want to play like him. I like some of his songs, but I really don't see Hendrix as anything special (The horror!). I prefer Eric Johnson's rendition of "All Along the Watchtower", and Hendrix' original techniques would hinder me in playing the music I like to play. It simply makes life harder with no payoff for me. Someone else might want to recreate his tone, but for me it would be a handicap. That would make it "really bad technique" for me, for what I want. Technique is a way to get where you want: this is my entire point.

I have nothing else to add to this, I've made my point and the discussion is simply moving around in circles. We probably simply disagree on what we're trying to reach by playing, and that's just fine.

Good lord! I'm doing it in my avitar! :shock: :lol: In my defense I do have plenty of hand to spare. :roll:

Hey, TR...it's just like you said a while ago...ya just don't notice how we do anything until we really look at it. So what...long as the notes come out right!

Cat

Some people won't reach the speed they want because their muscles simply don't allow it, many people don't have Hendrix' huge hands which might physically make it impossible to do it. Most things are remedied by training, some things aren't.
Would you like me to post a picture of my hands? I don't have huge hands like Hendrix either.
I really don't see Hendrix as anything special (The horror!). I prefer Eric Johnson's rendition of "All Along the Watchtower"

Look, I think you should show a little more respect - obviously you're hero (Eric Johnson) has seen something in Jimi's music otherwise he wouldn't be covering it (and yeah I know that's a Bob Dylan originally) and furthermore wouldn't have been touring on the "Experience Hendrix" tour for the last couple of years. He obviously still see's something special in what Hendrix did and those who were around at the time (which I'm not one of, are you?) also saw something special in him, his music and his playing. People such as Jeff Beck, The Beatles, Ritchie Blackmore, Eric Clapton and others all saw that Hendrix was something special.

I can hear you already saying it "that doesn't mean I have to think he is" no and you're right, but come on the man has influenced so many people, including Eric Johnson - there is obviously something about him that draws people in, even if he is not for you.

I agree, Flea. I've heard it said over and over "anyone can play like that" but they can't in any real sense unless they came up with it in the first place. They are just copy cats. You can bet on the answer to the mainstream question: "Eric Johnson? Who's that?"

I dare to say Jimi Hendrix has become immortal...deservedly.

Cat

Look, I think you should show a little more respect

Actually, I don't think I should. To me he never really meant anything: I had heard maybe one or two tunes of his when I was younger, I wouldn't have known his name and I surely wouldn't have liked any of his music. Finding him amazing simply because others do would be extremely shallow and entirely meaningless.

I'm not really big into the guitar hero thing to be quite honest. I have artists I like and dislike, but that doesn't really make me look up to them (although I can admire their skill). For me, knowing someone's personality and seeing how they act can make me think of them as heroes, which is most often people I know in real life. I know many artists see him as a source of inspiration, but that hardly means anything to me because I don't connect to it. I'm sure a great deal of people would simply say he is because it's nearly taboo to admit you don't really like him, especially if you're just a random hobbyist.

I know he was important, but so many people ever were. "Talent" and "revolution" also require a great deal of luck, simply to get the exposure and for people to accept it. Hendrix happened, but we'll never know what would have happened if he hadn't turned up. Being the first to ever play X doesn't really mean anything to me. Maybe someone else would have created something, maybe not. There are many influential artists I personally don't consider impressive, for example the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, ...

Everyone experiences things so differently which is exactly why it's so difficult to make objective statements. I hope that anyone who believes in an absolute truth is religious, because only a god could ever find it.

I agree, Flea. I've heard it said over and over "anyone can play like that" but they can't in any real sense unless they came up with it in the first place. They are just copy cats. You can bet on the answer to the mainstream question: "Eric Johnson? Who's that?"

I dare to say Jimi Hendrix has become immortal...deservedly.

Cat

I'd be careful Cat! Many people I know (who aren't musicians) ask "Jimi Hendrix? Who's that?", while they do know Lady gaga/Adele. :lol:

(I'm actually serious by the way, it surprised me)