z6 -> RE: How important are finger nails? (Jun. 4 2012 12:30:59)
|
Of course you can play with flesh. But it is very difficult. (I will try to explain what I mean, specifically, by this later in this post.) I played classical guitar for years with nails but chopped them in order to 'tap' my ztar (midi 'guitar-like' controller without strings). Then I became interested in flamenco. It never occurred to me for a second, before that, to ever cut my nails. My tacit assumption had always been, like many of the responses here, that the sound would be 'soft'. I still have a thumb nail (although some of the confident assumptions here about the 'quality' of the sound might not be aware that most of us, no matter how long the nail, use predominantly flesh when we play with the thumb). I also have a nail on my right-hand pinky. I've been playing without nails for around 18 months. There are both advantages and disadvantages... but they have nothing to do with some notion of flesh only managing to produce some kind of wishy-washy sound. It hurts like hell until you develop callouses. (And it still hurts after that.) Using nails is much easier to learn with. I use a pumis then rub with successive levels of micro abrasive and the tips of the fingers have what feels like a hard coating on them: all the way round to the nail tip. However, learning, for example, picado, becomes much clearer. It is easier, in my personal experience, to 'find' the technique. Arpeggios are eventually much easier to do but the road to them may be longer. But I expect that the people who 'assume' (and then tell you how crazy it would be to try to use flesh) have never spent many months playing with flesh. Of course, golpes do sound different. You will never get that high-pitched click that a nail provides. It may be thwack or a thump or whatever. But it is not just flesh either. I cannot perform a 'nail-only' golpe, but neither can I play a golpe without the nail making contact with the top. I would say that there are a thousand things more important, in general, than whether one uses nails or not. That is to say; chop off your favourite famous players' nails and have a listen and the guy will sound as marvellous as ever. (No need for jokes here... Paco with no nails is still Paco.) Rasguedos: I have heard a guy, on this forum, playing rasguedos with no nails that sounded 'brushy'. I know it is possible not to sound like that. It is in the attack, and the control, where the sound is formed, not because of the nail. We all have different nails, and while an ideal nail may, in principle, produce, a 'better' (whatever that means) sound than callouses, I just don't know But I never play 'flicked' rasguedo (it was only here that I learned that people consider such flicks 'modern') I don't like 'wrapping' my thumb around the strings and I simply cannot do a continuous roll with flicks... so I tend to use my pinky with them... it has a nail, the others don't but it doesn't sound or feel 'gallopy' in any way that I could contribute to the nails themselves. In general, if you have good nails (no hooks and can stand some punishment) then it makes perfect sense to use nails. It's what almost everyone does and works very well for that vast majority of players, including probably every professional you'll ever hear. But don't listen when people simply dismiss the idea of chopping the nails off. For a start, one no longer has to ponce around with nail products or ping-pong balls, or glue or fret over them. The whole nail angst thing gets solved in one fell swoop. On the other hand, these days almost nobody does it without nails. Lutenists and guitarists, historically, played with or without nails. And I'm sure that the historians here will put me right but Segovia might even have had a strong hand in pushing nails (i. e. the dogma of nails demonstrated by those who have never properly 'researched' it by playing for a long time then judging that playing against one's own playing... not someone else's that might be achieved in some fantasy world). So, using nails makes a lot of sense, but not using nails doesn't make nearly as little sense as some would have you believe. Personally, I love it. The feel is wonderful. It eliminates a whole slew of places where problems and 'misdiagnosis' of problems can occur. I find it much easier to relax without nails... much easier. In all my previous years of playing I was never able to isolate my problems as my nails always got in the way. (But I was never aware of that until I had spent thousands of hours playing without nails.) For reference: No, I won't be posting sound examples, but thanks for asking. Sound samples of such things are worse than useless, like trying to judge a guitar from a Youtube video. And I know enough to know it's different for everyone. No, I'm not a pro. I play at home. I play on a double top. I like sustain. But I'm not a novice either. I've played in masterclasses and have a degree in music. This is not the place for it but the reason I play flamenco (techniques) is that I find it so evolved compared to classical. It simply works. So yes, use nails. But don't be frightened not to. And if you do chop them, know that it will take a lot longer than a few months before you're really able to judge anything. I hope these words help a little. I've learned so much lurking here but had nothing useful to offer before. I have seen the idea of no nails being dismissed so much that I thought I'd better post my experiences. Without nails I've actually been able to develop my technique. Before that it was stagnant for years.
|
|
|
|