P-m-i scale fragment

Technique Critique
#1

This is a short video of me for @scp showing a scale playing approach I talked about on this thread:

I am not sure this is the right place to post this, but this is usually where the videos go, and it is about technique, so here it is.

I argued that this approach is easier to learn than the traditional classical approach of strict i-m alternation, and since I talked so much about this, I thought a vid might help.
I have not practiced this in 11 years! (Guess I’m getting old)
This is 16ths at 140 bpm, and this is where its at without practice. I have no fingernails, and I deliberatly chose electric guitar to do it, because it is a little harder to do than on classical. I am not claiming this something special or even good, but I can still pull it off. I am nowhere near close doing this with i-m alone at this speed.
You can also see in the vid, that my right hand is a bit messed up (lots of involuntary movement in the ring finger), that is due to injury, and not part of the technique :grin:

2 Likes
Fingershred on Youtube
#2

Almost the same… 8 years maye be. Though I didn’t practice even back then, just played some stuff )

I don’t know how you do it. For me it’s like impossible to play on electric using my old acoustic habits 0_0 (except chords obviously)

1 Like
#3

The hardest thing is to keep from hitting all the other strings! You can see how big and unfocused my movements are. If I try to keep the movements small, it feels like cramping up the hand, and the fluidity goes away. A flatter approach helps, my wrist is rather straight, and my thumb is closer to the strings, so it feels like plucking upwards with m and i. A player who can do this really well is Tariq Harb

#4

Hi, and thank you. The p-m-i scale fragment video shows a technique similar to what I’ve been developing, except that I sometimes add the ring finger–especially if I’m playing a descending and want to jump to the high E or B string.

The question I’m always asking is what is the most efficient finger to use for each note in a passage. Since I improvise a lot and don’t have a lot of time to work out passages in advance, that translates into the mirror image question of which finger(s) to avoid so that in a following passage they don’t stumble over one another. For example, if I play a fast ascending scale and hit the high E string with the thumb, it can be hard to get it, or any other finger, to a lower string in time to continue the passage.

So I’m looking for generally applicable rules of engagement about what not to do. Does that make sense or am I searching for something that doesn’t exist?

BTW: Harb is super but he plays with his fingernails and I can’t begin to get that beautiful crispness.

1 Like
#5

That’s great, I would do that too. Other stuff I would play with p-m only.

In my personal opinion, you are looking at this the wrong way. The passage you want to play dictates which finger to use for each note, and not the other way around. There is no way to know this beforehand, if you haven’t analysed and practiced the entire passage in some form. Also, even when using strict p-m-i, there are often two possible ways of playing the same sequence.

That I can provide, at least for what I came up with. It goes like this:

  • You avoid playing ascending string changes with the thumb, except if it can be played as a sweep following another thumb that came before on the lower string

  • You avoid descending string changes with any of the opposing fingers, if the note before was played on a higher string with the thumb

That gives you this set of possible string changes:

p-m

  • ascending with “m” (or “p” if it can be swept)
  • descending with “p” (or “m” if it can be swept)

p-m-i

  • ascending with “m” or “i” (or p if it can be swept)
  • descending with “p” or “i” (“m” only if it can be swept)

p-a-m-i

  • ascending with any finger (“p” only if…)
  • descending with “p”, “m”, “i” (“a” only if…)

BUT what I would recommend doing is to play everything with a simplified p-m-i + p-m approach.

  • Every descending string change with “p”
  • Every ascending string change with “m”

One of the most dreaded scales in classical guitar would then look like this:

Bildschirmfoto 2020-06-08 um 22.36.16

I would play like this until I felt really secure, and gradually try to include sweeps for string changes that you can’t get otherwise. If this was really working at a decent enough speed, like 150 bpm for 16ths, I would gradually include the two other string changes possible with p-m-i, descending with “i” an ascending with “i”.

As for this:

The main difference is, where your point of contact with the string is. The classical approach would be to try to always use the pocket where the nail meets the flesh. Regardless of nail length, together with plucking rather close to the soundhole (compared to flamenco or Tommy Emmanuel)) that gives you the more bell/harp like sound of classical guitar. Longer nails help with the volume and enhance this quality of the sound. But the way you are playing (with calluses/fingertips, string maybe hitting a bit of nail on the way?) is totally fine. That is how you get a more “flamenco” sound on nylon btw. It doesn’t change the technique at all. But maybe try that (EDIT: plucking where the nail meets the flesh) too?

Hope this helps

EDIT:

You can of course always incorporate the traditional 3-string arpeggio with p-m-i, even if that doesn’t fit my set of “rules”

#6

btw if I remember correctly I used ‘sweeping’ when playing descending apoyando ))
I mean I sometimes used the same finger (usually ring finger) on two adjacent strings

1 Like
#7

Yeah, a lot of the fast players do that actually. (some of them without even knowing I presume). I think its a great and efficient technique. Too bad it only works descending :pensive:

#8

Oh, nice to hear it. It’s not like I’m focused on using ‘officially correct’ technique but it’s nice anyway…
And I even have an idea how I got this technique. One word: bass ))

1 Like
#9

YES! I was thinking about Bass too. I probably learned as much about fingerpicking from playing bass than I did from practicing guitar.

1 Like
#10

Gentlemen, than you all.

My instinct is to move the right hand in the same direction as the left, so that instead of playing the E Maj. scale starting p-m-i…, I would naturally pick it m-i-p, m-i-p, i-p (or m-i; it wouldn’t occur to me do play it p-m), etc.

I’ll try it the way you’ve described and see how it works.

BTW: What’s so dreadful about the E Maj scale?

#11

Also, would you finger the ascending scale inversely? That is, i-m-p, i-m-p, etc.?

#12

That would go against the “every ascending string change with m” idea. So how would you pick an ascending scale where most strings have three notes but at least one has two?

#13

That is the opening run of Etude No. 7 from H. Villa-Lobos. In some conservatories or competitions this piece might be mandatory to play during the entrance exam. Starting a piece with a naked, all picked fast scale, paired up with some anxiety and shaky fingers is not always fun. Personally, I’ve trembled and fumbled my way through this piece quite a few times in my life in front of an audience and/or a critically watching comission. Great stuff!

#14

No, always p-m-i. Or m-i-p, i-p-m, it’s about the direction of movements, not the finger you start with.

Same principle as in the descending example, but geared towards the upward string change:

3 nps -> m-i-p, then “p” is last on the lower string and you can change up with “m”

2 nps -> m-p, then “p” is last etc.

If you want to play the villa-lobos ascending, every thing is m-i-p, except for the 2nps on the 3rd string, which is m-p

#15

Unless your Steve Vai, trying to intimidate Karate Kid

#16

off-topic, but Chopin liked it much. And he was a shredder definitely… just… on piano ))

#17

Always moving in one direction seems unduly rigid. I don’t think you could play arpeggios that way. What’s the rationale for doing it with scales?

#18

Not all of them, but I’m not claiming that at all. I can play a lot of arpeggios that way, even an ascending 3-string arpeggio with p-m-i is not especially difficult. But the approach I described was entirely based on string changes when scale playing.

Is always moving a pick strictly up and down less “rigid” in comparison?
I don’t think of either approach as “rigid”, it’s rather just simple. Using three fingers, always in the same direction is efficient, which means fast, because you avoid alternating between two fingers as much as possible (sometimes it might be unavoidable) which is less efficient and less fast.
The reason I prefer the direction m-i-p over the direction p-i-m is natural finger independence and range of motion. Everybody I know can easily mimic a gun with their hand. That means pointing out with a straight index finger, while the other fingers are curled up. This is much harder to do the other way around. You can easily test this, just curl up your index finger while trying to keep the other fingers straight.
Translated to playing that means, if i play with “m” first, “m” will then be curled up, but I will still have a good range of motion with “i”, which means it is easier to move relaxed.
If I play with “i” before “m” as in p-i-m, I will inhibit the range of motion of my “m” finger, and possibly be less relaxed, etc.
This is especially important for me, since I have an unusually inhibited range of motion between “i” and “m” in my right hand due to injury.
p-i-m can still work for scales though, I also tried this, and can do it probably almost as fast as the other way around, but it feels more tense and less reliable, for me at least.
However, if I used it, I would still try to avoid breaking the cycle by going “p-i-m-i-p” for example, to preserve the efficiency.

Besides the efficiency/speed advantage, it is easy to structurize. Limiting the variables -> possible finger combinations, makes this much easier. I know what to do to make a lick work, because I always know how I have to change strings.

#19

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.