Fast and clean arpeggio

[Terpfan]

Trying to make alternation little as possible, and if possible it should be between I and M. The maker of the video has AMI arpeggio but he does it differently using Alternation between A and M. Which is a no no in most guitar schools.

[guitarrista]

AMI arpeggio:
A contracts
M contracts
I contracts and AM extends
A contracts
M contracts I extends
I contracts AM extends
Etc...

What’s the theory behind extending AM together? Allen Mathews never really explains that in the video linked above.

Richard

I don't think there is a solid theory behind it that would withstand challenges. Holding a finger in (like for A and M above) means your flexor muscles keep firing, after the stroke, to hold it flexed, thus contributing to the feeling of tension. This is especially bad when people are trying this out slowly.

[Crofty]

The routine outlined above - which seems to have a lot of followers - just seems bizarre to me.

I can't get past the first - and most obvious - question: why ??????????

As guitarrista implies, the fingers already have a perfectly functioning return method - literally available at hand - almost as though designed specifically for the right hand of classical guitarists in particular and musicians generally......

Making it obsessively complicated for them seems both pointless and somewhat perverse.

Paul

[Terpfan]

Making it obsessively complicated for them seems both pointless and somewhat perverse.

Paul
[/quote]

This method is way more simple, the mechanics of what you are suggesting is lot more complicated because it changes as tempo change.

[Nick Cutroneo]

AMI arpeggio:
A contracts
M contracts
I contracts and AM extends
A contracts
M contracts I extends
I contracts AM extends
Etc...

What’s the theory behind extending AM together? Allen Mathews never really explains that in the video linked above.

Richard

I don't think there is a solid theory behind it that would withstand challenges. Holding a finger in (like for A and M above) means your flexor muscles keep firing, after the stroke, to hold it flexed, thus contributing to the feeling of tension. This is especially bad when people are trying this out slowly.

Actually, the part that is missing is the development of how to hold a finger in the hand with a minimum amount of tension. This step must be done before you really go into sequencing an arpeggio. There's a difference between keeping the fingers in the hand and squeezing with dysfunctional tension.
This sensation should really be developed first before. Also, as the sequence develops - there needs to be a point where you constructively review if you are forcing out the release of the fingers and if you are tightening up holding the fingers in the hand. This is exactly how the hand works when you play single note scales and alternate between I and M, just done across strings in an arpeggio fashion.

The reason why AM are grouped together is due to physically being connected muscularly/tendon wise in the hand. The I finger can move independently and so can the thumb, which is why when we sequence the fingers move contrary to each other. Different muscle/tendon groups control the P, I and MAch (ch is for pinky). Muscles work like light switches - on or off. Going between I and MAch you aren't using any double muscle action (flexing and extending at the same time). This is the reason why it's so hard to alternate between M and A. While independence can be developed (I've seen great players have scale with A and M be as quick as their IM scales), it's more efficient to alternate the fingers using different finger groupings (IM or IA scales, PI or PM scales, etc...).

The most important concept, is that this type of sequencing is about fast playing. This is how the hand functions at fast speeds. There isn't enough time for each finger to play and release before the next one plays, this is why this type of grouping works. It minimizes extra moves, and uses the concept of sympathetic motion to aid in finger movement. To the player who has never done it, it's a lot of work to develop - however the pay offs are extremely beneficial to developing speed and more importantly endurance. If I were playing a slow arpeggio, holding in each finger doesn't work because you are holding the tension for too long. This an important distinction to make. For the arpeggio pattern in question (in the initial video) triplet AMIs at q=140, the sequence will provide the speed, accuracy, endurance needed to execute it. In addition, sequencing keeps the arpeggio even because we aren't placing all the fingers down at once thus encourage a non-rhythmical roll of the notes.

[Desperado]

What’s the theory behind extending AM together? Allen Mathews never really explains that in the video linked above.

Richard

I don't think there is a solid theory behind it that would withstand challenges. Holding a finger in (like for A and M above) means your flexor muscles keep firing, after the stroke, to hold it flexed, thus contributing to the feeling of tension. This is especially bad when people are trying this out slowly.

Actually, the part that is missing is the development of how to hold a finger in the hand with a minimum amount of tension. This step must be done before you really go into sequencing an arpeggio. There's a difference between keeping the fingers in the hand and squeezing with dysfunctional tension.
This sensation should really be developed first before. Also, as the sequence develops - there needs to be a point where you constructively review if you are forcing out the release of the fingers and if you are tightening up holding the fingers in the hand. This is exactly how the hand works when you play single note scales and alternate between I and M, just done across strings in an arpeggio fashion.

The reason why AM are grouped together is due to physically being connected muscularly/tendon wise in the hand. The I finger can move independently and so can the thumb, which is why when we sequence the fingers move contrary to each other. Different muscle/tendon groups control the P, I and MAch (ch is for pinky). Muscles work like light switches - on or off. Going between I and MAch you aren't using any double muscle action (flexing and extending at the same time). This is the reason why it's so hard to alternate between M and A. While independence can be developed (I've seen great players have scale with A and M be as quick as their IM scales), it's more efficient to alternate the fingers using different finger groupings (IM or IA scales, PI or PM scales, etc...).

The most important concept, is that this type of sequencing is about fast playing. This is how the hand functions at fast speeds. There isn't enough time for each finger to play and release before the next one plays, this is why this type of grouping works. It minimizes extra moves, and uses the concept of sympathetic motion to aid in finger movement. To the player who has never done it, it's a lot of work to develop - however the pay offs are extremely beneficial to developing speed and more importantly endurance. If I were playing a slow arpeggio, holding in each finger doesn't work because you are holding the tension for too long. This an important distinction to make. For the arpeggio pattern in question (in the initial video) triplet AMIs at q=140, the sequence will provide the speed, accuracy, endurance needed to execute it. In addition, sequencing keeps the arpeggio even because we aren't placing all the fingers down at once thus encourage a non-rhythmical roll of the notes.

this makes sense to me. however, if yiu play the extended arpeggio pimami how do you control the sympathetic movements between mam. sympathetic movement must be confined to either ascending or descending movement. i guess a full plant on the ascending part.

[Nick Cutroneo]

Here's a video from a series I did back from the end of the May through June showing my process of learning a piece from scratch. The piece is Dyens' Saudade No. 3.

The opening of the piece has a AMI arpeggio lick which I demonstrate how I go about practicing it. You'll notice that towards the beginning of my practice of this lick the sequence is pretty sloppy, especially with the I finger releasing to early. The result is an uncontrolled arpeggio in which I not only miss notes BUT the rhythm isn't clear or even. As I practice it slowly and going through multiple tempi my control over the sequence increases, and it becomes sharper. My I finger starts to be grouped properly, releasing out of the hand and preparing on the string AFTER M has played (alternating between I and M like scale technique). This in turn leads to be a cleaner and more accurate performance of the Arpeggio lick.

The practice section lasts for about 5-6 minutes, the YouTube slow-down function is great to see especially at the faster speeds that hand is functioning just as I've trained it. Is it perfect in this video, no. Because this video and practice excerpt represent day 2 of working on this passage - however there is a noticeable improvement of the accuracy and control over the execution of this AMI Arpeggio.

[Nick Cutroneo]

this makes sense to me. however, if yiu play the extended arpeggio pimami how do you control the sympathetic movements between mam. sympathetic movement must be confined to either ascending or descending movement. i guess a full plant on the ascending part.

Great question. When you get into multi-direction arpeggios, obviously things become more complicated. I never use full plant unless it's for a specific reason. For example I'll do it in the triplets in Leyenda when you're playing over the E minor chord because of the double E's - I want the support to strike through the 2 strings, but the rest of the time during the arpeggio it's a sequenced arpeggio. Same thing for the 6tuplets in VL Etude 11.

However, in a normal situation, I'd break the arpeggio into 2 sections. Each section represented by what I call a "release point". So I group the arpeggio PIMA and MI. I choose to group IMA together in this case to help with the release of MA when continuing through the arpeggio for an extended period of time. You could choose to have ready P and I first, and when I plays release MA as well...that way is a bit more complicated. So when P plays, IMA release out of the hand together, each finger individually preparing on the string using sympathetic motion to bring the next finger to the next string. At the point the A finger plays, I release M and I together. The A finger in this case acts as the release point (just as the thumb did in the ascending part of the arpeggio). This is where I always get tripped up in the hand because of the necessary independence of A and M. So when A plucks, M and I release, and again using sequencing and sympathetic motion the fingers will play and bring us back P playing and starting the whole arpeggio all over again.

This arpeggio is a great example of why independence needs to be developed between M and A. With that said, I spend time practicing the 2 groupings. I'll practice playing PIMA and stopping after I pluck the A finger making sure at M and I rerelease properly before I complete the arpeggio. What is happening during this step is that I'm creating 2 mental groupings within this arpeggio. Thus mentally creating a disconnect between M and A. This mental grouping helps out a lot as I've trained my hands to play a PIMA arpeggio, as well as MI. So now it's not MAM, but rather MA, then MI as 2 separate moves. As my body/hands get used to this, I can execute the two patterns faster due to anticipation of movement. During the practice where I stop between the two groupings (PIMA and MI) I'm able to be aware of excess tension, rid myself of it and ultimately execute the groupings with decreasing the excess tension to the point of when I stop, I feel no excess tension.

[guitarrista]

What’s the theory behind extending AM together? Allen Mathews never really explains that in the video linked above.

Richard

I don't think there is a solid theory behind it that would withstand challenges. Holding a finger in (like for A and M above) means your flexor muscles keep firing, after the stroke, to hold it flexed, thus contributing to the feeling of tension. This is especially bad when people are trying this out slowly.

Actually, the part that is missing is the development of how to hold a finger in the hand with a minimum amount of tension. This step must be done before you really go into sequencing an arpeggio. There's a difference between keeping the fingers in the hand and squeezing with dysfunctional tension.

Yes, however in the first case you still have to keep firing the flexor muscle (which is the case I was referring to); in the latter you, in addition, are also firing other muscles that do not even participate in the motion/action. However, my point is that even in the first case, i.e. even without adding even more tension from tensing unrelated muscles (as beginners frequently do), one still has to keep firing the flexor digitorum muscles. Are we on the same page on this or is there a misunderstanding of what each is referring to?

Going between I and MAch you aren't using any double muscle action (flexing and extending at the same time). This is the reason why it's so hard to alternate between M and A. While independence can be developed (I've seen great players have scale with A and M be as quick as their IM scales), it's more efficient to alternate the fingers using different finger groupings (IM or IA scales, PI or PM scales, etc...).

Right; I am aware of the partial MAe dependency; though some people have physically separate tendons. All this means is that if you flex M, say, then A and e (your 'ch') may move along passively a bit, which is better than forcing them to stay extended (and vice versa). Notice there is nothing in this about ACTIVE muscle use to move the outside finger(s) along or to keep them flexed (or extended) - such as would be required in the instruction to hold MA together flexed.

Yes, M-A movement is not as independent as for I-M (in most), however the effect is not at its maximal when fingers are at their mid-range - as they typically are in a normal guitar hand posture. And we still manage to do non-grouped M-A movement where required in arpeggios. Even in the instruction above thread, only the extension is done as a MA group; the flexion is still done as individual fingers even though the argument for extension grouping as you presented it is a more general one which would apply to both flexion and extension of M and A.

Separately - I've seen this mentioned before - avoiding "double muscle action (flexing and extending at the same time)" - and it makes sense when applied to the SAME finger. However here you seem to be using it more generally to apply to different fingers. If so, I don't understand the argument. Flexion and extension involve different muscles as well as different fingers (one finger extend, the other flexes) - where is the overlap or counter-productive function?

The most important concept, is that this type of sequencing is about fast playing. This is how the hand functions at fast speeds.There isn't enough time for each finger to play and release before the next one plays, this is why this type of grouping works.

I don't know why it would be that specific sequence with MA grouping instead of individual sequencing, but this is where I agree and where I am aware of misinterpretations of an instruction like that posted above thread. At fast speeds it looks like just alternating/sequencing fingers - flex; extend;.. in smooth trajectory - as the time to be relaxed between flexion and extension, for the same finger, diminishes (I still think it exists if done right but is not apparent from observing on the outside). But it seems so many students actually practice in the same way slowly, holding-in their fingers flexed (whether as an MA group or just single fingers) or holding them extended, which seems a very bad idea and developing bad technique.

It minimizes extra moves, and uses the concept of sympathetic motion to aid in finger movement. To the player who has never done it, it's a lot of work to develop - however the pay offs are extremely beneficial to developing speed and more importantly endurance. If I were playing a slow arpeggio, holding in each finger doesn't work because you are holding the tension for too long. This an important distinction to make.

Yes, but so many instructors (especially on video) just skip over that. I guess I am advocating for being extremely clear about the context and all relevant assumptions of a particular instruction, to minimize misinterpretation (and its consequences) by the student.

For the arpeggio pattern in question (in the initial video) triplet AMIs at q=140, the sequence will provide the speed, accuracy, endurance needed to execute it. In addition, sequencing keeps the arpeggio even because we aren't placing all the fingers down at once thus encourage a non-rhythmical roll of the notes.

Oh, I agree about sequential placement and to avoid block plant ("full plant"), but I'd go a step further to a complete sequential planting without MA grouping. Even though it is less of an issue, the non-rhythmical roll argument re: AMI grouping also applies to any 2-finger grouping.

P.S Hopefully my response does not sound combative. I am honestly just interested in the arguments, in knowing more about the whys of various prescriptions in order to critically evaluate them. Always eager to learn. I appreciate you indulging me, Nick.

[Nick Cutroneo]

Lot to discuss - so I'm going edit while I go. Getting rid of the excess quotes.

Yes, however in the first case you still have to keep firing the flexor muscle (which is the case I was referring to); in the latter you, in addition, are also firing other muscles that do not even participate in the motion/action. However, my point is that even in the first case, i.e. even without adding even more tension from tensing unrelated muscles (as beginners frequently do), one still has to keep firing the flexor digitorum muscles. Are we on the same page on this or is there a misunderstanding of what each is referring to?

In all honestly, I'm confused with what you are trying to say. My point is 2 fold. The first is before we even discuss the concept of sequencing the fingers, the player must first learn to release the fingers out of the hand and also hold the fingers in the hand with as little tension (which I'll refer to as "energy" for the sake of clarity between necessary tension and dysfunctional tension). There is very little energy needed to keep the fingers in the hand, but first we must explore how much (or rather how little) we need to hold the fingers in the hand. Just like how we explore how little pressure to use in the left hand to fret a note. Second, during this exploration we have to learn how to release the fingers. This meaning learning how to deactivate the muscles holding the finger in the hand, allowing the fingers to come back out to playing position. I'm confused with the point you are making in this case.

Right; I am aware of the partial MAe dependency; though some people have physically separate tendons. All this means is that if you flex M, say, then A and e (your 'ch') may move along passively a bit, which is better than forcing them to stay extended (and vice versa). Notice there is nothing in this about ACTIVE muscle use to move the outside finger(s) along or to keep them flexed (or extended) - such as would be required in the instruction to hold MA together flexed.

Yes, M-A movement is not as independent as for I-M (in most), however the effect is not at its maximal when fingers are at their mid-range - as they typically are in a normal guitar hand posture. And we still manage to do non-grouped M-A movement where required in arpeggios. Even in the instruction above thread, only the extension is done as a MA group; the flexion is still done as individual fingers even though the argument for extension grouping as you presented it is a more general one which would apply to both flexion and extension of M and A.

I think the difference of opinion is best stated in the bolded section. A proper follow through to activate the string downward toward the guitar to achieve the best and also loudest sound is allowing the fingers to follow through into the hand past the point of mid-range. When we play we do not stay in the mid-range position, we start there. Dealing with how to ultimately minimize this motion is a whole different topic which I'm glad to elaborate on, but for the sake of keeping this reply on topic I won't here. Because the M or A finger will pluck and go past mid-range of motion into the hand, we need to group the fingers properly and also allow for sympathetic motion to aid in bringing the fingers to the string.

Separately - I've seen this mentioned before - avoiding "double muscle action (flexing and extending at the same time)" - and it makes sense when applied to the SAME finger. However here you seem to be using it more generally to apply to different fingers. If so, I don't understand the argument. Flexion and extension involve different muscles as well as different fingers (one finger extend, the other flexes) - where is the overlap or counter-productive function?

How do you alternate your I and M fingers? One finger plays (comes in) the other extends (goes out). This happens simultaneously, no? The process is exactly the same with an arpeggio but again grouping MA due to their linked tendons which limit their independence.

I don't know why it would be that specific sequence with MA grouping instead of individual sequencing, but this is where I agree and where I am aware of misinterpretations of an instruction like that posted above thread. At fast speeds it looks like just alternating/sequencing fingers - flex; extend;.. in smooth trajectory - as the time to be relaxed between flexion and extension, for the same finger, diminishes (I still think it exists if done right but is not apparent from observing on the outside). But it seems so many students actually practice in the same way slowly, holding-in their fingers flexed (whether as an MA group or just single fingers) or holding them extended, which seems a very bad idea and developing bad technique.

Because of the physical link and limitation of exchanging between M and A it's better to group the release together. Note that I'm not advocating to place both fingers down on the string (like the initial demonstration video). Each finger places separately on their own. Thus, when M plays, the A finger is brought to the string via sympathetic motion preparing on the string ready to play. Thus eliminating the need to exchange between the two fingers and creating an easier/more fluid movement at extreme speeds.

Yes, but so many instructors (especially on video) just skip over that. I guess I am advocating for being extremely clear about the context and all relevant assumptions of a particular instruction, to minimize misinterpretation (and its consequences) by the student.

I agree. There's an assumption that everyone's developing their arpeggios for fast usage. If I'm playing a slow arpeggio my hand will be more relaxed by me releasing the fingers individually. But the difference is that I have the time for that to happen with each finger. It takes more time to individually pluck and release each finger than it does to group the fingers for releasing out of the hand, thus why we do this type of sequence for FAST playing.

Oh, I agree about sequential placement and to avoid block plant ("full plant"), but I'd go a step further to a complete sequential planting without MA grouping. Even though it is less of an issue, the non-rhythmical roll argument re: AMI grouping also applies to any 2-finger grouping.

Here I think again, we are misunderstanding each other. I'm not advocating for M and A to PLACE together, but rather to only release out of the hand together. Their motions to prepare on the string and pluck are separate movements. The only linkage they share are to 1) release out of the hand together so they are ready to be used and 2) sympathetic motion to bring the fingers to the string (IE M plays, A finger sympathetically moves to the string and prepares to pluck OR A plays, and M sympathetically moves to the string and prepares to pluck) Obviously the plucking motions are independent from each other.

[Nick Cutroneo]

P.S Hopefully my response does not sound combative. I am honestly just interested in the arguments, in knowing more about the whys of various prescriptions in order to critically evaluate them. Always eager to learn. I appreciate you indulging me, Nick.

No worries - your reply doesn't sound combative at all. Hopefully I helped clarify some of my points. Obviously feel free to continue asking questions if you have any!

[Thorn Hill]

This is an interesting and helpful thread with much info. to glean. A first glean, from Nick Cutroneo's post:

" 1) release the tension out of your hand while playing.

2) Individual finger release simply doesn't work with speedy arpeggios (or scales...but that's something different). Understanding finger grouping and learning how to release the fingers out of the hand in a relaxed tension-free way is important."

Just stripping down the ideas; I hope I didn't strip away any meaning; I don't think I did. What I appreciate from this post by Nick is that it goes after 'meaning' in a different way. Releasing tension from your hand will help with arpeggio technique. Working with all the fingers will help. It must be all in the head (maybe!).

[Julian Ward]

Way too many over-thought processes on this thread...

[Desperado]

Here's a video from a series I did back from the end of the May through June showing my process of learning a piece from scratch. The piece is Dyens' Saudade No. 3.

The opening of the piece has a AMI arpeggio lick which I demonstrate how I go about practicing it. You'll notice that towards the beginning of my practice of this lick the sequence is pretty sloppy, especially with the I finger releasing to early. The result is an uncontrolled arpeggio in which I not only miss notes BUT the rhythm isn't clear or even. As I practice it slowly and going through multiple tempi my control over the sequence increases, and it becomes sharper. My I finger starts to be grouped properly, releasing out of the hand and preparing on the string AFTER M has played (alternating between I and M like scale technique). This in turn leads to be a cleaner and more accurate performance of the Arpeggio lick.

The practice section lasts for about 5-6 minutes, the YouTube slow-down function is great to see especially at the faster speeds that hand is functioning just as I've trained it. Is it perfect in this video, no. Because this video and practice excerpt represent day 2 of working on this passage - however there is a noticeable improvement of the accuracy and control over the execution of this AMI Arpeggio.

Just watched this video. I know your a good player but imo opinion this is bad practiceand certainy shouldn't be encouraged to students. Why not isolate the right hand and practise slowly until you can play the arpeggio correctly. If you can't play it with one hand your not going to be able to play it with both hands. Viceversa with the Left hand. The other thing I don't understand is practising mistakes. You have fantastic technique but surely playing it perfectly ten times slowly would be nmore beneficial than practising fast with mistakes.
I don't know how motor memory works but I'm pretty sure it doesn't know right from wrong only remembers what it's programmed to do?
Perhaps you can enlighten?
I do enjoy your videos ans comments so don't be offended!

[Nick Cutroneo]

Just watched this video. I know your a good player but imo opinion this is bad practiceand certainy shouldn't be encouraged to students. Why not isolate the right hand and practise slowly until you can play the arpeggio correctly. If you can't play it with one hand your not going to be able to play it with both hands. Viceversa with the Left hand. The other thing I don't understand is practising mistakes. You have fantastic technique but surely playing it perfectly ten times slowly would be nmore beneficial than practising fast with mistakes.
I don't know how motor memory works but I'm pretty sure it doesn't know right from wrong only remembers what it's programmed to do?
Perhaps you can enlighten?
I do enjoy your videos ans comments so be offended!

I'm on the way out, so I apologize in advanced for my shortness in reply. I'll elaborate when I'm back at my computer (if needed).

1) I suggest you go back, watch the 6 minute clip again and read the subtitles. There is a specific purpose to my practice, I accomplish 3 performances "properly" before I move to my next speed. The raw technique is already accomplished, it's a matter of reliability. What you aren't seeing is my development of arpeggio technique from the beginning. This is an important concept, while a bit sloppy - I can play the arpeggio fast and at tempo with minimal problem. So the process you are seeing is continued refinement, not initial learning.

2) You'll notice at different tempi that I go to slow practice to drill out specific movements/etc... I believe I provide subtitles explaining the purpose throughout that clip as well. To me 10 times correctly verse 3 times IN A ROW correctly are two different beasts. I'm looking for consistency, not ability. The raw ability is already in my technique. (Also mind you, this is day 2 of practice on the piece...and that's where my technique is ALREADY at.).

3) RH alone is great and I use it regularly. However, I didn't use it that day in this specific practice example.

The purpose of the video in this thread is to show the sequence, that the sequence is useable and how it develops. Also to show how I practiced it to increase ability for myself. There's a lot unspoken going on in practice that the causal watcher doesn't see. Mainly because you don't know what I'm analyzing in my head. Super slow practice, RH alone, stop practice, and rhythmical variations are ALL valid and wonderful recourses that I use on a regular basis. Remember you are seeing a 5 minute session on the development on this arpeggio. There is a clear development and accomplishment in that single practice session. But again, my point of using the video was more to show how the sequence works in the hand rather than demonstrating a "singular way" to practice.