Learning classical and acoustic simultaneously?

[emil1369]

Hello all

Short version - when learning acoustic guitar primarily and classical "on the side", which technique should prevail? Do the collide, necessarily? Must I choose one?
Is it a bad idea to learn both styles at the same time?
By technique I mean the position of the guitar, for example : right leg vs left leg.

Long version :

I started playing/learning the guitar almost a year ago. I started with a teacher, then switched to JustinGuitar as I wasn't getting the structure I thought I needed.
I've done that for a few months and am now feeling that I'd like to go in deeper. I'm close to finishing the Intermediate course on JG, and saw another teacher once a couple of weeks ago. I intend to exhaust everything that JG has to offer, eventually.

In the meantime, I bought Frederick Noad's Solo Guitar 1 book, as I'd like to get a good foundation and to learn note reading.Besides, my nylon string was getting lonely, so I thought why not?

So, can I learn classical guitar from the book and go on a parallel track with a teacher and/or other sites in a blues/rock/folk direction? Is it a bad idea to mix the two in terms of technique or other aspects that I'm too inexperienced to think of?

Thanks
Emil.

[wcap]

(First of all.... A little pet peeve of mine is that steel string acoustic guitars seem to have taken over the title "acoustic guitar". Classical guitars are acoustic instruments too, and so should justifiably be also referred to as acoustic guitars in my mind!).

OK, with respect to your question....

Opinions will vary, in part as a function of playing style, in part due to your body size and guitar sizes, and in large part due to personal preference.

Personally, I play all my guitars with similar posture and very similar right hand technique. I always rest my guitars on my left leg, with the guitars angled upward (even when flatpicking and strumming, though I'm mostly a fingerstyle player), though I don't necessarily prop up the left leg if I am playing, say, a really large jumbo. I think that developing really good classical guitar right hand technique will give you much better tone on steel string guitars. The only difference I see is that classical guitar technique might not facilitate palm muting so well.

And even if you play the different guitars differently, I'm not sure the techniques will necessarily clash. You will just become a more flexible player.

[mr. beaumont]

You'll get all kinds of "attaboy, you can do it" responses likely, but if you're serious about classical guitar, you need to play classical guitar.

If you just like the sounds of both types of strings, have at it.

*my personal experience, if it matters..

Started on steel strings, electric and acoustic. 4 years into playing got bit by classical bug, studied classical for 2 years...realized I didn't have the discipline. Got into jazz, here I am today. Still play a lot of nylon string, and I consider the two years I spent on classical the most beneficial thing I ever did for my playing.


If anything, spend the teacher time/money for classical.

[Dogsnax]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You'll get all kinds of "attaboy, you can do it" responses likely, but if you're serious about classical guitar, you need to play classical guitar.

If anything, spend the teacher time/money for classical.

^^ +1 ^^

I totally agree with Mr. B. I'm a steel-string player who transitioned to classical guitar and I'm still having trouble with my technique. My opinion is it's much easier for first learn proper classical technique and then apply that same technique to the steel-string acoustic.

[harpon]

What jazzes you?

what kind of music do you prefer?

I think you should just go with the flow!

If you have larger and/or professional expectations, you probably wouldn't be asking that question-

so I'm assuming your main focus is simply to enjoy yourself

don't think about it so much
stay systematic and focused on strategic advancement

but in the long run just play and enjoy
the other decisions may present themselves along the way

DON'T fret!

[scottishrogue]

Originally Posted by Dogsnax

I totally agree with Mr. B. I'm a steel-string who transitioned to classical guitar and I'm still having trouble with my technique. My opinion is it's much easier for first learn proper classical technique and then apply that same technique to the steel-string acoustic.

+3 I agree with Dogsnax and Mr B, that it's far better to learn classical technique and then apply what you learn to your acoustic playing. Classical instructors will insist you take the correct posture, as well as your right hand and left hand technique. If they don't, they're not a real classical instructor, but someone just trying to pick up some extra cash from someone that doesn't know any better.

Glen

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by harpon

What jazzes you?

what kind of music do you prefer?

I think you should just go with the flow!

If you have larger and/or professional expectations, you probably wouldn't be asking that question-

so I'm assuming your main focus is simply to enjoy yourself

don't think about it so much
stay systematic and focused on strategic advancement

but in the long run just play and enjoy
the other decisions may present themselves along the way

DON'T fret!

Yes ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.

Unless you have ambitions to be a purely classical guitarist, just play whatever you want. Personally I think it's a good thing to be able to switch between different types of guitar.

[Paikon]

Since you are a beginner I suggest that If you have money and time to study take classical lessons. You don't have to become a classical guitarist or even like classical music. The things you will learn you can apply on whatever guitar and play whatever music you like.
Its not a good idea to do a bit of everything.

[Dogsnax]

Originally Posted by Paikon

Since you are a beginner I suggest that If you have money and time to study take classical lessons. You don't have to become a classical guitarist or even like classical music. The things you will learn you can apply on whatever guitar and play whatever music you like.
Its not a good idea to do a bit of everything.

GREAT advice ^^^^^^^

The time spent on learning classical technique first will pay huge guitar playing dividends in the long run.

[rick-slo]

I started out playing a flattop for fingerstyle, and then added a classical guitar for classical guitar music, and then switched to just classical guitar for many years, and the last few years switched to just flattop guitar fingerstyle.
You will be somewhat better player in a particular area if you specialize in it, but in the big picture who cares. Play what you like to play.

[emil1369]

I'm not really into classical music on the guitar, I must say. I enjoy classical music in general, and usually start my days with Pandora set to my classical station. After that I move onto more down to earth stuff, to get me through the day. Blues, folk, some rock, rap, Cuban- African, country, Israeli(live here), Russian oldies(born there), and anything that's not outright cacophonic.

But playing classical, other than for the novelty of it, is not really my cup of tea. I'd be thrilled to be able to play Fur Elise or something on the guitar, but that's not what i'm aiming for. It's just a means to an end.

Now, Spanish stuff on a nylon string - that'd be great.

So the only reason I decided to buy Noad's book is for technique, note reading, discipline, etc'.

So to sum up what you guys have said :
1) Doesn't really matter, probably won't clash, and can be done together
2) Play what you enjoy most - So no reason to waste time on classical?
3) Classical might make me a better guitarist overall

Sound about right?

[rina1504]

Originally Posted by emil1369

Hello all

Short version - when learning acoustic guitar primarily and classical "on the side", which technique should prevail? Do the collide, necessarily? Must I choose one?
Is it a bad idea to learn both styles at the same time?
By technique I mean the position of the guitar, for example : right leg vs left leg.

Thanks
Emil.

Hey Emil,

The members who've chimed in have a great perspective on this, and I find myself agreeing with those who doubt you can do both.

I started off learning acoustic just strumming chords and patterns but then I received formal classical guitar instruction throughout high school where I also played in the jazz band. I used that very same book while in high school and it's a good one, as long as you're very disciplined with putting in some time each day to slog through it because it's a dozer. My teacher had me doing a different book series, Berklee's Modern Method for Guitar, and that was much better. He also had a list of progressively graded pieces for me to play through with goal dates on them, which were related to the techniques we covered.

The things I learned in my classical lessons were very helpful with my jazz band performances and translated well into acoustic playing, with some limitations. It's great for finger style since you develop the same required dexterity and endurance with classical guitar playing. However, my strumming skills were not up to par and I suffered a crutch of not being able to play without my nails being filed the right way, classical nails and acoustic nails do not necessarily go together. Those were just a few drawbacks I could think off.

However, my classical upbringing gave me a solid foundation of music theory, notation sight-reading, and "clean" technique awareness (playing a piece while striving for tonal quality). I could not have done it without a guitar teacher though because it's very hard to stay focused when learning the classroom aspect of guitar playing. Also, a good classical guitar teacher can help you develop good practice habits which is crucial in advancing to intermediate pieces and techniques. If left to my own devices or if I had also fiddled around with an acoustic, I don't know if I would've ever finished Bach's Bouree in Em let alone play it properly. My teacher did allow for different styles but it was very clear they were just to add something to the mix, classical took priority. He would assign something like the intro to Satriani's "Always with Me, Always with You" (I had an electric and acoustic too), while we were studying the middle part of "Cavatina".

It's a bad idea to split your attention, you do need to have an idea of what pieces you want to play, what skills you would like to possess. Work on a primary focus or you'll be like a person training for a marathon and weightlifting meet at the same time, you might be okay but won't be very successful at either.

If you want to be a jack of all trades, then you will be a master of none. And that's all right if that's what you want to be, it is a lot of fun to be able to play a lot of styles.

One thing I'd like to mention is that it could get quite expensive to try to play different styles. You eventually outgrow your guitars and want something more advanced. A conservatory level classical guitar is upwards of $2000 once you outgrow the starter models. Throw in a solid body acoustic and we're talking some serious money when you feel like upgrading again.

[emil1369]

Hey Rina(?)

Thanks for your detailed response.

I don't think I'm ever going to be a master of the guitar, in any style. With children and work, and a generally balanced and rounded lifestyle, I can't really expect to achieve greatness.
True greatness implies and requires true imbalance in my opinion, and being a "regular Joe", so to speak - who wants to enjoy his kids and family, his books and his friends, his bicycle(s) and his cooking, and who has to walk his dog three times a day - doesn't really facilitate becoming Great in anything.

So a jack of all trades is fine by me. I think I'll give Noad's book a go, just to see what it's like. He seems to throw you right into note reading, and that's the next step I was going to take, anyway. As far as my technique is concerned, I'm sure it won't suffer, at this stage.

If I don't like this book, I'll try your suggestion, so thanks for that.

Also, I do realize that it is a costly hobby, but I can't really base my choice on that. It's too limiting, in my view. I'll play what I'll play, and I'll become better and better, and I'll invariably have to make my choices along the way, as far as spending money on guitars. If I'm fortunate enough to buy the guitars of my dreams for every style I play, then great. If not, I'll make do with whatever I can put my hands on.

Thanks again, to you and everyone who answered.

[Dalegreen]

with Mr.Beaumont on that call. I spent 8 years studying classical and all theoretical aspects of it. Still thought I had so much more to learn, but then turned left and went into the jazz world with Berklee. As much as I thought classical had its "limitations" it really allowed me to sail thru the berklee program. Structurally it is such a great foundation to have, and those 16th / 17th century classics are a real pleasure to play ( and challenge). I find it only enhances whatever realm of music you choose to play in

[panrzem]

I started playing and trying to learn 5 months ago. It is acoustic and started with Justin Guitar as well. I then went for lessons and did not have a teacher that helped at all. "What song do you want to play?" Kind of hard to answer that when my chord changes were fast and sloppy.

I switched teachers and then mentioned that I saw the Noad book used and shoudl I buy it. I mentioned I wanted to learn fingerstyle. Well, now we are working with the Noad book exclusively and I am looking to buy a cheap Classical guitar instead of the dread I have.

I love it. I feel like I am getting the proper training (he has a MS in Music from SMU) and learning sight reading and fingerstyle for classical (although slowly). I just want to keep getting better.

I also work on chord changes and strumming patterns on my own (never songs) to just practice.

I love the instrument.

Perry