Carguacountii

Thanks!

So I take it you're saying that those states who want to make it harder are interested in illegal status migrants?

I hear a lot that the Dems or Biden admin (and therefore, presumably, the various capitalist interest groups they represent) haven't actually changed anything about the border issue - is this true? If it is, it seems like the Dem capitalists also want illegal status migrants for their own industries/sectors, so therefore what is the fight about?

And for example, California (which I think has a big agricultural sector) hasn't joined the new Confederacy, is that because its going with the party line, or is it that its a richer state so can afford to subsidise that sector more and still compete, i.e. not be reliant on undocumented or illegal status migration?

I understand the process of exploitation you describe, it happens where I live too, but I was wondering more about the sectors, factions etc involved and what they're trying to achieve, if you see what I mean?

edit: to clarify, would it be accurate to say (from what I've inferred from your reply) that the poorer states that are concerned more with labor intensive industry are joining this coalition, and that the purpose is to make it harder to attain 'legal status'? Or is it more complicated than that (obviously there are labor intensive industries in big cities and other state too)? What is the unions position on migration, or are they not involved? You mentioned the agricultural sector, what's the positioning of other ones like construction and hospitality, if you happen to know?

My bet is it'll pass. US, Germany, and possibly (less likely) UK & Australia (less likely than UK still) will vote no, the rest yes.

I think the wording of some of the requests by SA will be altered slightly, and some might not be mandated, but most will.

Although it's supposed to be without predujuce to the merits of the case, these preliminary judgements de facto are an indication of the merits, lawyers always fight a preliminary ruling even though its supposed to make no difference to the final one because actually it obviously does.

I hope I'm right, but I'm prepared to be mocked as a fool if I'm wrong.

In terms of what happens next, Israel will ignore it in practice but also do a propaganda blitz pretending to abide by it, the US will continue to pretend its 'influencing' or 'pressuring' Israel to play nice. But it'll open up other legal and diplomatic attacks, and also raise SA's standing and create a good precedent for others, so its good.

edit; obviously ignoring the two ad hoc judges, who will vote yes and no respectively.

Hi, apologies for the delayed reply, work got in the way.

I've tried again with the exercise, and it didn't give me an error this time, but the tab didn't work at all, it messed all the spacing and sizing up when I posted it.. not sure how to fix that unfortunately.

I have played a lot with others yes, not so much at the moment. I think its maybe better to develop your own kind of time discipline, so that if you're playing with people who go out of time (excited or drunk usually) they can follow you. As before, I can't comment on the utility of a metronome, having never used one, but I expect it must be helpful - however its clearly not vital. If I'm playing rythym, I often need to tap my foot, but with fingerstyle or lead I don't need to, maybe because the notes being more broken up than chords helps you keep beat better? I'm not sure its an 'innate' thing, though it might be that people's differing experience helps, but rather that I learned by practicing (on my own, and with other people).

Yes, I think tableture is a lot better for guitar, since sheet music I think is developed or at least refined for orchestras, where they're expected to know the piece they're playing anyhow so it emphasises the beats/timing more than the notes, and isn't tailored for a particular instrument.

Hope the practice is going well, and good luck with it - anymore questions let me know.

With palm muting, try first playing a three chord sequence (or one to start with) muted entirely (that kind of 'chunky' sound like in Cecelia), then lifting then mute on and off with different beats, or different chords, to make a pattern.

With left hand muting, try playing one (or three) chords, and alternating pressing and relaxing your fingers, with a simple rythym so you're not doing too much at once.

With the metronome, many people reccomend it, presumably for a good reason, but I will say that I've never used one, but its presumably helpful.

With the fret markers, its kind of like stabilizing wheels when learning to ride a bike, so that you can learn pedalling etc first before worrying about balance. I don't use them anymore (I kind of feel what fret I'm on not so much visually but by relative distance and the feel of the strings more), and I don't think they impeded me learning that, but of course different things work for different people - they do make the initial counting frets easier!

Yusuf Islam is great for fingerstyle!

I will try to write the excersise again, as a new reply not in this thread, because its frustrating reformatting over and over - I keep getting an invalid_body_field error when I try to post, idk if it thinks I'm trying to write code?

Some book recomendations, these aren't 'how to play' (though they do have tips), but more just pieces (in tableture and sheet music) that are well arranged and with a lot for begginers. Obviously if you can find them free its better, and I don't want to tell you to spend money if you end up not being into fingerstyle, but for your consideration. On that subject, before even thinking of perhaps getting a nylon string, or maybe a steel string better made for fingerstyle, go to a guitar shop and ask to try them first, so you can get a feel of them (ask them to tune them or bring a tuner, they're always out).

1. Fifty Easy Classical Guitar Pieces, Guitar Tableture Edition, Amsco Publications
2. Fifty Great Pieces for Easy Classical Guitar, Amsco Publications

These two are good for learning, arranged well and in order of complexity. A lot are called 'study no.2' or similar (like Etude), because they are exercises for students. You'll end up realising a lot 'oh this is just C chord with variations' as you play, and they're good for learning scales, chords, and timing in a 'doing' or intuitive sense.

3. Fingerpicking Beethoven, Hal Leonard

There are a whole range of these by this publisher, of different composers like Bach or Mozart (good because they're orchestral or piano pieces transcribed for solo fingerstyle guitar, so it helps with learning), and also of different styles, like Latin or Jazz Standards or Film Score and so on. Unfortunately, they tend to have only around 15 or so pieces. But they're generally well arranged, and not too difficult - not 'studies' but also not some kind of advanced concert level piece. You'll also be more familiar with the songs, from films and shows and so on.

4. 30 Easy Spanish Guitar Solos, Cherry Lane Music Company (distributed by Hal Leonard)

This is great for starting with Spanish style - its not complicated like flamenco, again well arranged and for beginners.

5. Classic Rock for Classical Guitar, Hal Leonard

This is more your genre to a degree, and its good because (while being probably more complicated arrangements than the above reccomendations), you'll be a lot more familiar with the songs, their timing and style and so on. And, as I mentioned, its a lot easier to get a satisfactory level of fidelity to the 'whole band' sound with fingerstyle, compared to strumming.

6. 100 Most Beautiful Songs Ever for Fingerpicking Guitar, Hal Leonard

These are mostly more 'pop' songs, again good because of familiarity. Despite the effusive title, they may not be songs you'd enjoy listening to, and the quality of arrangement does vary more than the previous ones, but they're generally relatively simple, and also there's a lot of them.

7. Celtic Guitar Encyclopedia, Fingerstyle Guitar Edition, Mel Bay Publications INC.

This is an excellent resource of arrangements of Irish/Celtic 'folk' music, which is good as it will be a difference in style and manner of playing. The arrangements vary a lot more in difficulty, but there are lots of easy ones to start with.

Of course, there are many more, for different genres and styles and regions. But these are all good for starting to learn fingerstyle, and even though many are easy (and you'll end up disliking some), there are pieces in there that you'll end up playing indefinately. And some pieces you'll learn the simplified version of, like Canon in D, and then as you progress you can find published the actual concert level music (often individually rather than as part of a collection), to make it sound even better. I tend to avoid the ones that are specific to a band, because I found that the arrangements aren't always so good - its more kind of 'merchandise'. Also, because I can't read sheet music, I always make sure they have the tableture as well, which I can read. The ones with just chords aren't worth it imo, but then again if you can 'play by ear' you can probably use them to figure stuff out.

Hi, I think its used to refer to a guitar, because it is a machine (the tuning pegs are called Machine Heads, like the band name), that is it uses mechanical action (vibration of strings) to achieve a result, same as a piano is a machine. I guess you mean, its not a modern electrical, fossil fuel, or steam related machine, but it is still definately a machine! Whether it kills fascists is another question entirely of course.

Ah ok got it, yes that for the right hand will be precision that comes from practice, something you have to make your hand learn by repetition (I saw that he keeps his hand very close to the guitar, the movements aren't big except on certain chords, so I expect this is a way to achieve that control by forcing some of the movements to be smaller on the upstroke). But, since I'm not good with picks at all, if I had to approach it, I think I would try to replicate it if using a pick by using the left hand, muting the strings I didn't want played in a given chord on a beat. Its something worth practicing in any case, left hand (and right hand - 'palm muting' which he may be doing some of given how close his hand is to the strings, but sticking with left for now) muting - you can achieve it by maintaining less pressure on a given string at a fret, so it doesn't sound properly (but not so little pressure that it makes an annoying sound). You can apply this to neighbouring strings with a finger, by pressing on the string you want to ring, and sort of flattening the rest of your finger a bit in the direction of the string you want to mute, so it presses one and also covers another (sort of counter-intuitive to how you're supposed to want to use your fingers, i.e. very precisely pressing). For chords that don't use one or more bass string, you can curl your thumb around the other side of the fretboard to mute those.

With hammer-ons, don't worry about it being slow to start. Again, with 'classical' guitar, Baroque music happens to have a ridiculous (over) use of them, called 'trills', where they shove a hammer-on pull-off combo onto the end of so many parts, and its a good way to practice them, by taking any given individual note and repeatedly hammering on or off to produce that kind of 'trill'. A good riff to practice them is the intro to 'Layla', because minus the effects its quite simple, so you can slow it down to start with and build up to the correct speed.

Another useful thing about other genres (including classical) is that playing them teaches different timings, since most music of the genre you're talking about is in 4/4, and it helps to understand that timing by also using different ones, like 6/8 or waltz etc.

Here is another area where I think 'fingerstyle' helps more, because you're playing individual strings, you kind of 'hear' and 'feel' better the effects of hammer-ons or offs compared to incorporating them into strumming patterns. I mean that your brain is, I think, better able to get what you're trying to do, because the chord + strum is comparatively 'chaotic' or a finished product, whereas with individual notes, you're showing your brain the building blocks first, so to speak.

On playing the whole song through - its partly to get a sense of the broader 'flow' of the music, but its also so that your brain doesn't get backed into a corner with a specific problem that it (or it in combo with your fingers) isn't currently able to solve, so I think its best to move on from persistant roadblocks to give your brain something it can solve (an easier part) to prevent it getting too frustrated. While you're sorting the easier parts, your brain will still be working on the greater problem, but the easy parts may help it with a new perspective on the difficult bit, I hope that makes sense. So its good to switch back and forth, and also give your brain a sleep cycle to make progress on a particularly difficult roadblock. Again, switching styles (genres, and ways of playing) helps because the differences will help your brain work out the roadblock, give it new ways to approach the problem, and keep it from getting too frustrated and giving up or going too far down a 'wrong' path solution. Brains need sensory data, the more the better, to solve problems. Of course, going back to a difficult part multiple times isn't a terrible idea, because it also teaches your brain that its a crucial problem that must be solved, as long as you're not getting frustrated or fatigued with it.

One thing I remembered that somebody told me, applicable to pick users, is to try to practice a pattern when picking individual notes, of alternating each string. So you'd play the E string (bass) with a down pick stroke, and the next string (A) with an up pick stroke, and so on. I was told this is a good habit to force yourself to learn (it'll be slow at first) because it will allow for greater speed and finesse later on, if you're picking out notes in a riff or chord for example.

A final note on theory - you often get people tell you that its crucial to learn this stuff. I wouldn't disagree, and I think theory can help you 'shortcut' some stuff that might take longer to appreciate by 'doing', and also give you a better understanding of the subject as a whole, which will no doubt be useful for the 'doing' part.

However, personally (and I don't want to contradict hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge here), I wouldn't overemphasise it. I've never tried to learn music theory in a formal sense, just picked bits up here and there from general reading, but mostly its just intuited from playing. Like I learnt chord shapes, and some scales, but I found out that there isn't really a 'D Scale' but rather arrangements of notes in sequences to create patterns that is dependent on style and cultural tradition - that is, most music theory is basically aesthetic, not ontological. Like you don't need to learn theory to paint, but there are certainly colour arrangements that people have proposed as 'canon' or recommendations, to create an aesthetic they find pleasing (like with fashion). But of course, it isn't really a hard and fast thing, and in fact different cultures have their own aesthetic rules - like a minor scale or chord in Western European tradition is considered 'sad' or 'meloncholy' but in other places (some of Eastern Europe and Balkans) it can be considered the opposite - happy and uplifting, or celebratory. People argue over the correct tuning (in hertz) of the A string.

It brings to mind for me when Ho Chi Min apparantly remarked about peasants in his country having a far better grasp of communist ideas than French intellectuals (I think this is correct, I may be misremembering) - because those peasants were doing, while the French intellectuals (aside from usually being fools) were just theorizing. Or a recent case, where a tiler discovered a particular pattern of tiles that eluded theoretical mathemeticians and was considered too difficult to solve, and of course the articles written about the breakthrough had a sort of "oh a talking dog" tone about the tiler, but really the tiler by doing understood geometry better than a theoretician.

So I don't want to dismiss it, and there is value in it, but I wouldn't worry too much about learning music theory (again, often what is meant is Western European theory - for example Jazz theory was a reaction against that classical teaching) if you don't enjoy it - you can always come back to it, and it isn't necessary to learn to play and get good at playing. The best way to learn imo is with a guitar, not with books about guitars.

I did intitally try in this reply to write you an exercise for hammer ons & offs plus descending bass line, but I think the formatting was causing issues so it didn't post with that, so sorry about that.

Edit: I forgot, but another tip that really helped me learning, is that where guitars have dots to denote particular frets (usually 5th, 7th, 12th and sometimes 9th), I found these reference points too sparse in a visual sense, so I bought small circular stickers (the kind you get in arts & crafts stores, or for children, in packs with different shapes) and stuck them on each fret, so I could better visually see the difference between frets - I don't know if this would help you, but it did for me, being able to have a bright coloured marker showing each fret, otherwise they all kind of blend and you can lose your place. I mean, its easier to quickly count four bright stickers than the alternative. If you care about your guitar's aesthetics you might not want to do this (though you can gently wash them off with soapy water), but I am function over form mostly. If I was trying to learn piano, I'd write in marker the notes on the keys, for example.

So, I don't know how to play that song, but I just watched him perform a bit of it on youtube... I don't think he's using broken chords (I mean by this arppegios, or when you break the chord up into multiple more separate notes, in the same way that when you strum a chord you sound the bass first, or the treble first in reverse, and it continues ringing with the slightly later notes - but more slowed down or in a different sequence to the one you get when you strum, which is achievable when you pick instead of strumming - I hope this makes sense). The chords are broken in the sense that he changes their notes (and therefore the chord) partway through, but he's still using the full chord each time in the sequence you get when you strum really.

He seems to be strumming throughout, but achieving a more complex pattern by 'hammer-ons' and 'pull-offs' and also some degree of differing emphasis (via the right hand) on striking bass and treble strings with differing force (like when he goes to the G7, he emphasises the bass a lot more). I haven't checked the tab, but from what I could see he uses hammer-ons/pull-offs a lot on the D and C, which is common because they're a lot easier to use on those chords due to the fingerings.

If I were going to learn that song, I'd first omit all the more complex techniques, and focus on a slowed-down correct strumming pattern, and transitioning between the chords smoothly - perhaps starting with a much more basic strum pattern to get transitions and timing correct first. Then I'd try to learn the hammer-ons and pull-offs (if you don't already know them, this is where your left hand, usually one finger, changes the chord by lifting off a note or pressing on a different one mid-note - you can practice this best by starting with one note, and plucking it once letting it ring, then lifting your finger off the fret and putting it back, to get a feel of the sound change and basic idea), and start by just holding the D chord, and finding all the changes you can make to it using those techniques - like if you lift your middle finger off the second fret on the highest pitch string during a strum, you get Dsus2 (I think thats the right name) and if you put your little finger onto the third fret on the same string (hold the usual D shape with your other fingers so you can lift it off again and change it back to D) you get Dsus4 (I think). Or you can lift your second smallest finger from the third fret (forgot its name) and get D6, and there are others of course, but while holding one chord like he's doing you can produce a complex pattern even if you're strumming rather than picking. From what I could see, he's doing a lot of this in that song. You'll also see that when he's doing the more complicated stuff, he doesn't sing and has to look, but when he's singing, he's strumming more basically - for obvious reasons.

Once I was happy with the smooth transition between chords (and knowing the chord fingerings themselves), the basic strum pattern, and the ability to add or remove notes to chords, I'd try to put it all together one part at a time and work up. But I would try all the separate parts first. At that stage, I'd not stop or fixate on a part I was getting wrong, but try to get the whole song through even with mistakes, even with slow downs or at the wrong temp, then maybe go back to parts again to get them better, then back to the whole song even with mistakes, if you see what I mean. And if I was getting annoyed, I'd try one more time, then drop it for something else.

Keep in mind as well, that every chord shape can be moved down the fretboard by 1 fret to make the next chord in sequence - D to Dsharp or E and so on - although you will need to change (add, or omit by muting the string) the notes that are left 'open' when the chord is in its usual top of the fretboard position. He does that in this song with the C shape, which he moves down the fretboard to get a different chord.

If you liked Kottke, check the song 'morning is a long way home' (this is on 12 string)!

edit: it's d6 not d7... apologies

I can't, not to the extent I think you mean like with some professional players, because of my work - I'd break a lot of nails!

What I do is let them grow sort of longer than somebody who doesn't at all, and it means that I experience a kind of cycle of playing - when they're short I have to adjust and use fingertips, and when they're longer I get a louder sound and can do certain more 'aggressive' styles easier. But it makes it a slightly different play style depending on how long they've grown. Also, I think those players grow their nails so long also shape them to be more pointed than normal, but I'm not sure. Broadly speaking, it isn't necesarry for most styles of playing, and you can satisfactorally approximate the ones where its most common without doing it. With a steel string, I would buy the plastic fingertip things rather than relying on nails, or just play quieter.

Even if you don't get a nylon string, you can start with breaking up chords on the steel string - start with just playing the notes up and down (in pitch) in a row, then change the chord varient (like C major to C7 etc) and do the same, then start trying more complicated patterns. A basic one is just to play the bass note first (with thumb) and then the rest as a chord, or broken up. Try playing songs you know chords to, with the same timing, but broken up into individual notes. You can also try reducing the amount of notes in a chord, like strum most as usual, then pluck a two or three note chord for some to give it a different pattern. A lot of melodies and so-called 'riffs' are just broken up chords anyways.

Yes, there is a huge amount of different traditions, and with very different styles, both in rhythm and melody, it keeps you interested and its a nice feeling to learn something completely different, like if you're used to blues to learn for example 'latin' or arabic styles. Unfortunately you then end up encountering different tunings and it gets complicated... though you also encounter that with Country.

I can understand the love for the steel string, its a very nice sound, especially for 'Americana' kind of genres like blues and country. Of course, there's plenty of Americana that will sound just as good on a nylon, like Guthrie for example, and a personal favourite (though advanced in terms of techniques) is Leo Kottke.

Its good to continue your familial tradition! Although sad to hear of the athritis, I'm sure he's proud to see you picking it up again!

yes, they are all quite heavy!

Its two aspects, having to press on the fretboard (individual notes or chords like with 'bar chords'), and also strumming if not using a pick. Your hands will get used to them over time either way, but lighter is better to start because it takes time to build muscle and callous. But really even if you start with lighter, and later try heavier, you'll have built up the required hands to not find the heavier ones too difficult. But if starting with heavy, to the point where you can't even comfortably press hard enough for long enough to get a note to sound, then its too heavy and you should start lighter, if that makes sense. You'd get too frustrated if you had to put too much effort into pressing a string, it'd slow everything down.

edit: I should add, that for me my occupation helped a lot since I use my hands a lot, but from your other comment, I'd expect a computer based occupation would give the dexterity & speed, with some adaptation, but the muscle development required would possibly be different. There are finger strengthening exercices that would help (you can find online), or I'd expect another simultaenous hobby that requires you to use your hands would also build that. If the strings are difficult to press to the point of it getting in the way of learning either go lighter, do exercises, or (as elsewhere) nylon strings are easier.

No problem!

Your first point is one reason that I'd reccomend 'fingerstyle', because I've personally found that you can play 'the beatles' with higher fidelity with one guitar using that technique, than with a pick on steel string, simply because transcriptions for fingerstyle expect you to imitate both rhythm and melody aspects - this is true of rock and pop music. You can't play Blackbird by strumming chords and have it sound good enough that you want to play it, and while you can't get the exact studio sound from one guitar, you can get a lot closer with 'fingerstyle'. Even duets, like Dire Straits Sultans of Swing (I think is two guitars I might have the wrong one) can be somewhat accurately produced on one guitar with fingerstyle, compared to the alternative. Of course, it will always have the usual 'nylon string' sound, but again, starting from nylon means you can fingerstyle on acoustic (for limited periods at least before it hurts too much). In the case of songs that are just chords, you can with fingerstyle technique turn them into something more complex and interesting. I've found that singers find being accompanied by fingerstyle somewhat easier too, since it often gives better note and timing cues/calibrations, compared to multi-note rhythm chords.

I see what you mean about elitism, I should clarify my terms - while the nylon string guitar is called 'classical', really I don't mean 'classical' music, there is a huge range of music that isn't 18th/19th century orchestral pieces that is commonly played on nylon strings, such as Spanish, Portuguese, Balkans, Greek, Irish, and so on, more kind of 'folk' music, not so much the conservatoire of the European elites. And even with traditionally 'classical' in the common sense of the term, theres a fair amount like the Baroque period, or Bach for example, written for Lute (which is very close to nylon string guitar). And also, as I mentioned, replicating piano or even violin and wind instrument pieces is easier with fingerstyle than with a pick. Its more accurate to describe it as 'fingerstyle', and I do think that broadly speaking its a more versatile method than using a pick and an acoustic or electric, since those are recent inventions and we've been using 'fingerstyle' for a lot longer.

Yes, I mean the 'acoustic' strings exactly, they're harder, but also a nylon stringed guitar has the strings and frets placed further apart (to accomodate fingers rather than a narrower pick), and there are some other differences in the neck and other pieces, all of which are tailored to the style. You can play fingerstyle on an acoustic but it tends to be harder not being built for the style - although I would be surprised if you couldn't find acoustics built with that style in mind, since electric guitars vary in string placement for styles, though I haven't looked. I understand not wanting to buy another guitar, but it will be more challenging to learn fingerstyle without a nylon string. However, there are players who produce very complex results with picks, it isn't necessarily such a barrier, or combinations of picks and thumb (for the bass line), and also finger attachments you can buy that are essentially plastic nails so that you can pick on a steel string (though again, string placement will make this more difficult even with such picks, and it also is a style in and of itself to learn).

In terms of keeping up motivation, I acquired a wide range of different materials, including transcriptions of music styles that I was a lot more into, but also including those that I wasn't so into in terms of listening, so that if I got too bored I could switch to an entire different style. I'd reccomend (again, budget permitting) getting materials for jazz, pop, rock, folk (of differrent kinds and traditions, like Spanish, Samba etc etc), classical 'elite', and so on, becasue 'variety is the spice of life' and it both helps you improve and keeps interest up, and even a favourite song will get tedious if its all you know or play. I also didn't treat it like a kind of structured or targeted thing (some of my favourite songs I can't play on guitar, because I can't find good transcriptions or because a single guitar just can't replicate them), or give myself particular goals or times, but that does work for some people. Its sort of different enjoying listening to something vs playing it sucecssfully - sort of like if you hate watching golf and even the idea of it, you'd still be pleased with yourself if you learnt how to get a hole in one or whatever its called. Or even if you hate soccer, but you learnt how to do a backflip kick and score with it. Or if you find sculpture fundamentally boring, but learnt to produce a lifelike bronze horse or something. I suppose I'm interested in the process/mechanics/technique, so that I don't mind so much what the aesthetics of the result is - I'll happily play songs that I would never listen to, as long as they have something interesting about the arrangement that isn't just strumming three chords if you see what I mean. But then I don't sing, which I think is where it becomes fine to just strum chords, because you've got two instruments so it can be more complex.

I think fingerstyle helped me keep up motivation, because of the wider array and complexity of the techniques being learned, compared to strumming which I started with but was hard to keep interest in, like I said because its harder to reproduce music satisfactorily, and also because there is a limit (to a degree, there are advanced techniques like rhythm flamenco too) to learning once you've got rythm guitar nailed.

Music is a very good pursuit for your whole life, since you get better with age, compared to lots of sports where you inevitably decline to the point where it becomes somewhat pointless. The best players I've seen have been completely outside the music industry (either elite or pop), playing traditional music in street cafes, and have always been very old, just playing with friends.