by Simon Powis

For the majority of classical guitarists, income derived from performances and CD sales is far from sufficient to pay monthly bills. Teaching, administration positions, and jobs unrelated to music are often the pillars of a classical guitarists’ financial base. These facts are hardly revelatory for many of us, but they are important to understand and accept.

In the United States there are two institutions (that I know of) that offer full tuition scholarships to all of their guitar students. Yale School of Music (which offers graduate programs) and the newly minted guitar department at Curtis. Wonderful as they are, Yale and Curtis represent a small sliver of the ubiquitous guitar programs around the country and many of the students in those programs would be very lucky not to graduate with a substantial amount of debt.

With yearly school fees ranging from $5000 in state to $30,ooo and up, for out of state and private institutions, classical guitar graduates are left with often staggering amounts of debt. So the question is: are these expensive degrees worth the large amounts of money we pay for them?

Universities can offer a wide range of services and an invaluable educational experience, however, if the goal of any given music school is to prepare their graduates for a career in music performance, how can they reasonably grind their students into decades of debt? Debt that will prevent these young musicians from taking many opportunities that are vital to their career, that often necessitate travel, financial investment, and above all, time.

Graduates are not only hindered by financial woes after they graduate but also from a universal watering down of degrees. Doctoral degrees are becoming more and more common, (in my experience), and if one of the country’s coveted teaching positions do happen to become available, there is a wave of CVs that get sent in all bearing the regular fare of acronyms… BMMMADDMA

Can I buy a vowel?

In the end, a job appointment will depend on the quality of the applicants musicianship, teaching experience, and above all, industry connections and reputation. In many respects the same can be said for any given performance/teaching opportunity.

So really, we are back to square one. You need to play well, teach well, and have good networking.

Do we need to go to university to get these skills? And do we need to fork out 100k+ for these skills?

There are so many occasions where I have either done something reluctantly or not at all because I was afraid of damaging my hands. While non-guitarists/musicians will most likely understand that you are opting out of an activity because of your precious digits there are those times when many an eyebrow will be raised at your less than gracious excuse.

Moving house is just one example of a potential nail breaking situation. I went through a long period during my early conservatory days trying to find a sport that wouldn’t damage my hands or break a nail. The obvious ones that were crossed off the list first were rock climbing, basketball (which I still get roped into every once and a while), rugby, and martial arts. In a quest to find guitar friendly sports I went through quite an extensive list of increasingly obscure sports. The most embarrassing moment came when I retired from a club fencing tournament because I had snapped my thumbnail off. Hardly a Zorro moment.

In the end, I have ended up playing soccer for the past five years and when I get near a beach I will surf, but to be honest, even in these hand safe activities I have still had the odd mishap now and then. In addition, there have been many instances where I have damaged my hands (swinging on a rope in a waterfall was one of the more stupid ones) and promised myself that ‘it will never happen again, next time I will just sit out’. But yet again, after helping my friend move, I find my hands throbbing and sore.

So the question is, where do we draw the line?

Any daily activity could end up damaging our hands. Should we simply sit idly by with our hands in cashmere gloves, denying any over-zealous hi fives? Or is it foolish to deny a more ‘normal’ lifestyle because of our paranoia?

Pavel Steidl

Pavel Steidl was born in Rakovnik (Czech Republic). Since he won first prize at the Radio France International Competition in Paris, he has become one of the most widely celebrated soloists of his generation. His highly expressive performances of rare 19th-century guitar literature on authentic instruments add a wonderful dimension to his already exceptional performances.

Pavel Steidl also composes himself and his own compositions are often played on his concerts.

P. Steidl played in more then 30 countries of the world from among Canada, Cuba, Spain, Poland, Austria, Costa Rica, Mexico, Guatemala, Australia, Japan, England, Scotland and many others.

On demand of Italian Guitar Magazine Guitart his name appeard between eight most important guitarist of the year 2003.

Discography:
Hudebni Mladi – Supraphone 1983
Tyden Nove Tvorby – Panton 1984
Pavel Steidl Debut – Panton 1985
Guitar / Music of the 18 th and 19 th centuries – Panton 1993
Masters of the Czech Classical Guitar – Pehy 1994
Kdyz mam nohy o mesic opreny – Panton 1994
Cantabile – Erasmus 1995 (Jan Opsitos violin)
L. Legnani – 36 caprices op. 20, Fantasia op. 19 – Naxos 1998 / Cat.8.554198
N.COSTE – Guitar Music Vol.3 – Naxos 2000 / Cat.8.554353
N. Paganini – Sonate&Ghiribizzi for guitar – Frame 2001 Italy
J. K. Mertz – Bardeklange, Frame 2003

Guest post by

M. P. Rønnei

Anyone who knows me is aware that I’m a big fan of Argentinian composers. Ástor Piazzolla, Alejandro Igesias-Rossi, Máximo Diego Pujol, among others. I think my fascination can be traced to the fact that Argentina’s population is overwhelmingly of European-decent – a later mass entrance that started around the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. This mixture of European and Latin-American history makes for an extremely beautiful and  colourful culture, and no art within it reflects that fact more than music.

One such musician from that culture is the composer-performer Narciso Saúl. I was listening to a work of his for guitar called “Boulevard San Jorge.” The beginning of the piece has the guitarist tap the fretboard within the  melody line to establish a rhythmic pulse:

I think it’s a great compositional technique, especially for the guitar. However, Saúl gets ready for the end of the piece by having the guitarist do a finger-sliding glissando on the 6^th string. Then, all of a sudden, SLAP! – the tonic-note string is pulled up and away from the fretboard, then let go like a water balloon off the Eiffel Tower. Whilst that might sound dramatic and interesting, as a guitarist it kind of disturbed me a bit. As I start to practice this piece myself, I’m wondering if I want to do that to my guitar.

Modern and post-modern composers seem to be more guilty of these techniques than their colleagues of   previous centuries. Granted, they’re composing for audiences (and critics) that have an ever-shrinking attention span. If a piece sounds new or radical, they may tell you that’s half the battle to win acclaim. Now, I’m not about to get into a debate of what “good music” is because I doubt that’s possible. But I will say that it’s not unheard of for a composer to create a piece that is even more outlandish than the previous attention-getting work the audience was listening to the year before. And there are plenty of works that are demanding rather questionable performance techniques.

Some of these techniques are with the piano. The composer Henry Cowell was gaining attention in the 1920′s by coining the term “String Piano,” referring to his method of having the performer use the strings (under the lid of the piano) to play instead of the keys. String Piano often meant striking the strings with the fingers or palm, plucking them, or even scraping the wound strings of the lower-registers with fingernails. Another example of newer methods is with a piece by post-modern composer John Cage entitled “Prepared Piano.” This piece requires the pianist to “prepare” the piano by placing pencils, erasers, bits of rubber, wood, or even metal on or between the strings. Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever priced a Steinway lately, but they’re pretty spendy. Putting a handful of nuts and bolts on the strings might not be high on the list of its owner. And if you tell a concert hall technician that you’d like to play an “all Cowell” concert on their $30,000 Bösendorfer, you’ll mostly get laughter (followed by a door slamming shut).

Other instruments include the standard strings of the orchestra. Some scores call for Col Legno Tratto which means to drag the wooden side of the bow across the strings, Col Legno Battuto which has the player hit the strings with the wooded part of the bow, and Sul Ponticello which means to bow the part of the strings that rest on the bridge. All of these can raise some eye brows when you consider that a professional bow can cost anywhere from $200-300 dollars to as much as $15,000 dollars and up. Performing Col Legno in a piece such as Gustav Holst’s The Planets (Mars) annoys some professional string players so much that they will take measures to protect their investment. They either bring a cheaper bow with them to use for this part (then switch back mid-piece), or they will pull out a pencil or a stick to slap against the strings. I’ve even heard of players only pretending to hit the strings, thinking they can get away with it since they’re surrounded by a whole group of players doing it anyway. (Remember junior high choir?)

Of course the guitar is not immune. The “SLAP” in the Saúl piece I mentioned at the beginning of this article is a (now) legitimate technique called the “Bartok Pizzicato.” Additionally, because some modern guitar composers cross-breed genres for new sounds, there are some flamenco techniques infiltrating the classical guitar repertoire. Golpe is the act of tapping on the soundboard. Tambora is another one that emulates the sound of a snare drum by bumping the palm of the hand against the guitar, as in “Suite Andina” by Agustín Barrios Mangoré. These techniques might seem alright to do on occasion, but what if the piece called for golpe to be played at fortissimo? Are you prepared to nick your guitar’s finish for the sake of modern art? What about the use of tambora for an extended period of time? Imagine the countless hours in the practice room using that technique, along with the performance time (not to mention hot lights beating on your guitar from the stage). The braces in your guitar are only glued on to the soundboard. The chances of one coming loose are not impossible if you keep whacking at it.

We’re not quite at the point where we need to strategize a revolt. Yet, if we start to see compositions come out asking for more of these potential technical abuses, I don’t think it unreasonable for guitarists to rise up and flat out refuse to play them. Pushing the envelope is generally welcomed in the arts, I know I encourage it. But what if it means to pluck the strings with your teeth à la Hendrix?

I leave the topic open to you. How far are you willing to go with your guitar for contemporary works? What about the other string player’s approach of making substitutions; would you bring an extra guitar to a performance to go all Pete Townsend on it?

In a time when classical music is being given a smaller and smaller share of the recording industry, are its practitioners becoming their own worst enemy by holding classical music on such a high pedestal? Or is the classical repertoire a collection of timeless and profound works that deserves more respect and devotion than other genres?

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

I digress…

Here are some of the most contentious guitar topics on the web…

The bestest mostest of all time(est)

Arguments about opinion seem to be a little pointless, but that’s just my opinion. The best guitarist, the best guitar, the best string, Spruce vs. Cedar

Historical accuracy

I once uploaded some program notes that I wrote when I was in my first years of university. The content was written on a little known work by J.S.Bach entitled Chaconne BWV 1004. Wow. Big mistake. I received so many messages from everywhere saying that the information was ‘bogus’ and that the article itself was ‘deplorable’ that I took the article down. Admittedly, the article was of a poor scholarly level and I did not want to spread mis-information, but my first experience with the internet’s very particular style of scrutiny was a little shocking. I kept thinking, can’t we all just get along?

Apoyando vs. Tirando

This epic tug of war was started by guitar heavyweights in 19th century Paris (More like 7th century Uganda, check your facts mate!) and it still rages in the guitar forums of today. Which way do you tug?

Censorship

Specifically tied to the Delcamp forum is a particularly perturbed pluck of guitarists that feel they have been victimized on the forum. In some cases they claim to have posts removed and in others they have been banned entirely. The cases for and against censorship on the Delcamp forum are strong, but you cant argue with the Mod. Because he has the delete button.

Big Personalities

Some people get a kick out of stirring up trouble, some are passionate, and some just feel the need to abuse but there are a certain few who regularly appear amidst the flames… you know who you are.

Got any good flame stories to share?

Leave them in the comments below.

Rant. No 1

I own a very lovely Paul Sheridan guitar, which is a lattice-braced instrument. After a concert there is always someone who wants to admire the guitar and asks some questions. Fine. The very human instinct to touch things when we see them is understandable and for most that ‘do not touch’ sign in a museum is like a red rag to a bull. But, when I am standing there face to face telling someone that the soundboard is very thin , so thin that you could easily puncture it with your finger, and they proceed to bang on it like a drum, I can’t help but get a little peeved.

Rant no.2

As I am writing this I am 27 and I have spent the last 8 years in higher education receiving a bachelor degree, masters and doctorate. So when I am performing for a private concert and after playing a Bach sonata the organizer comes up to me and says “we really just wanted some Gypsy Kings, could you play something like that?” I can’t help but get a little miffed.

Rant no. 3

Things that are not funny after the 100^th time

“What have you got in that case? A machine gun? Hahaha”

“What do you mean you don’t know Hotel California?”

“Do you mind doing it for free? It will be good practice for you!”

“Ewwwwww, look at your nails!”

“Oh that’s a nice hobby, but what do you really do?”

“It cost your life saving huh? Can I have a go?”

Let off some of your own steam below…

Ask 100 different guitarists what they think is the best classical guitar and you will get 100 different answers. Unlike the violin or the piano, the fundamental construction of the classical guitar is still being developed and experimented with by hundreds of luthiers around the world. Whether it be by using new materials like carbon fiber,  changing bracing patterns, moving the sound hole or even adding another one, modern luthiers are forging new paths in classical guitar building techniques.

What is the best classical guitar?

It would seem, in an effort to cater to larger performance spaces and help in chamber music situations,  that many luthiers are searching for new ways to improve the instrument’s ability to project.  Greg Smallman was one of the leaders in the late 20th century in guitar innovation and made great developments in guitar projection. His lattice bracing technique, that has now been adopted widely throughout the world, gives a substantial boost in projection, but the resulting change in timbre is too much of a trade for some guitarists who preferred a more traditional , Torres style, sound. Other innovations like the Contreras double top, the Humphrey Millennium Bridge, the Steve Connor sound portal and the Smallman arm-rest are further examples of the new ideas that are being used in guitar building.

With so many differing approaches we are presented with a diverse array of instruments that have very unique and distinct qualities and, in my humble opinion, I think this is more of a blessing than a curse. Hypothetically, it would be nice to have a Stradivarius of the guitar, a singular maker that was renowned to produce a world class instrument. In place of having a consensus on the best classical guitar, however, we are left with an individual mission to find a guitar, a luthier, that suits us.

After being to many guitar festivals, I think I can say the some of the most popular ice breakers are: “what guitar do you have?”, “what strings do you use” and of course… “oh really, can I try your guitar?” It seems like some guitarists are on a mission to either replicate someone else s sound or at least get peer assessment of their own setup. In the end, its not such a bad thing, after all curiosity is a virtue, however, I believe that the sound that is produced from a guitar has more to do with the player and how they wield that guitar, than the guitar itself. It is tempting to think that if we were just to obtain a Smallman we would sound like John Williams, or perhaps a Dammann then we would sound just like David Russell. But its just not the case (I have tried David’s Dammann and, sadly,  my sound was not transformed into something like his . A good instrument will help to create a good sound and you should always aim to have the best instrument you can afford but in my experience a master guitarist can make even the most basic guitar sound amazing.

In response to a comment posted on this site:

Why are so many artists so reserved about recommending guitar brands or makers?
Is it because they are really not all that taken with what they are playing?  I am currently looking for a classical guitar in the 5-6K price range.  I would really appreciate help from more experienced players of classical music.
Can anyone help me?

I will offer some recommendations of what I think are some of the better classical guitars available. Of course, these recommendations are limited by the fact that I have not played all the classical guitars out there, and like I said, ask 100 different guitarists what they think is the best classical guitar and you will get 100 different answers…

Please give your own suggestion by completing the statement:

I think the best classical guitar is …

Mid Price Range – 5-10k

Thomas Fredholm

Paul Sheridan

Joeren Hillhorst

Zbigniew Gnatek

Kenny Hill

Allessandro Marseglia

High Price Range 10k and up

Robert Ruck

Gernot Wagner

Simon Marty

Greg Smallman

Matthias Dammann

Steven Connor

Amplification has improved dramatically in the last decades and the recreation of the tone and tambre of the instrument is becoming ever more convincing. However, the process of amplification will always alter the sound of the guitar to a certain degree, if nothing else then by volume.

There are many staunch opinions on the use of amplification in performance and there are many first class performers who believe that it is a good solution to a real problem.

Some arguments for the use of amplification include:

• It is more important for the guitar and the music to be heard than to retain the original sound quality
• The guitar is often overwhelmed in chamber music and concerto settings and needs amplification to even be heard
• Performances are more engaging when the sound projected is louder
• Subtle amplification can give the volume boost that is needed without sacrificing the tone
• Modern amplification systems are advanced enough to create an authentic sound reproduction
• Recordings are using manipulated sounds so why do we accept that process of sound processing and not the live equivalent?

Some arguments against:

• The sound of the instrument and the performer is lost through the process of amplification and these aspects are integral to the quality and enjoyment of the music.
• The classical guitar can project enough to be heard above orchestras and other instruments. It is up to the performers to make sure the balance is right.
• The personal and intimate nature of a guitar recital is lost by using an amplification system.
• The un-amplified sound of a classical guitar is one of its defining features. Once we start distorting that aspect we lose the essence of the instrument itself.

Here is what John Williams had to say on the matter in the John Williams Interview

I feel that subtle amplification overcomes most of these problems, but it seems ironic that many makers are now aiming directly at producing much louder instruments. I feel that the wide range of options available today for amplifying the guitar means that you can focus on the warm, intimate sounds of the guitar even in a large auditorium. The end result will be musically much more satisfying than trying just to produce a large, possibly unmusical, sound output, even if it is totally natural.I know that to some critics any form of amplification is musical heresy, but I think that we have to go one step further. The guitar played in a large hall is not heard at its loveliest for most people in that hall; ideally, the guitar should not be played in a large hall if we want to experience the full range of its tone, because it doesn’t sound the same at a distance of 20 meters or more. This is because it’s a partly percussive instrument, and the percussive aspects carry more than its other dynamic and tonal qualities, so what we’re hearing is not really a true guitar sound. So it’s not whether you can hear a guitar at the back of the Sydney Opera House, but what you hear that counts. I find that amplification helps in that regard, but obviously it has to be well done.

High level musical interpretation is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify and rank so judges often have to resort so simply counting mistakes. This style of judging means that competitors strive to be mistake-free and offer interpretations that will please the majority rather than being individual and unique. This process is creating a generation of guitarists who display technical prowess but offer little that is unique or different from other players.

The pieces used in competitions are also homogeneous as it is difficult to compare a new composition that is unknown to the judges to a repertoire evergreen. This means that competitions will program similar repertoire over and over again. Even in competitions with free choice, competitors will take the safe road of well worn pieces over an unknown composer.

Competitions are great at providing goals, they offer performance opportunities for the winners and they have undoubtedly been part of the incredible overall advancement of guitar technique in the last decades. They do have these positive attributes, but at what cost?