Another way to view the CtC discoveries:
There is a 2nps technique (single-escaped, symmetrical versions are UX and DX).
There is a 3nps technique (2WPS).
There is a 1nps technique (double-escaped).
There are special 1nps techniques that are sometime applicable (sweeping).
So now one can ask:
6=2+2+2 or 3+3?
7=3+2+2 or 2+3+2 or 2+2+3 or 2+2+2+legato
Etc.
And I suspect some people here believe that
3=2+1
(But not me)
Yeah, lots of taxonomical possibilities for picking technique, fun to consider!
Escape type is maybe the most fundamental, describing on the level of individual pickstrokes. Four basic categories: upstroke escape, downstroke escape, double escape (every pickstroke), and trapped (no escape, e.g. strumming).
Correlation with notes per string is interesting too, though gets a bit harder to classify, for example “2WPS” and “double escaped” aren’t necessarily different techniques, kind of just different applications as e.g. 1nps bluegrass crosspicking stuff and 3nps scalar stuff can share the same basic motion.
Maybe a simpler classification would just be “odd” vs “even” numbers of notes per string. (Though not necessarily different motions there as well e.g. you can use double escape for odds or evens.)
It does get tricky to describe clearly, no wonder we’ve spent so much time on terminology and evolved over the years as we’ve gained a better understanding of things. Hopefully all in service of ultimately making things clearer and clearer!
I agree, and this is my summary of the CtC discoveries:
So if it is 4 strokes you can view it as 2 + 2 or 3 + 1 or however you want to play it.
I see no real difference between UWPS and DWPS because of symmetry.
Odd/even is actually a really bad way to look at it, I can explain why if anybody cares.