How much unused finger movement too much?

[niclas1047]

Hello all,

My question involves how much movement in the fingers that are not currently being used is too much. Say I was doing a 1-2-4 pattern, how much sympathetic movement in the 3rd finger is too much?

I've been watching really great pickers just to watch the way their hands move for note fretting and such, to try and find an answer to the above question. So for some illustration, here is a YouTube clip of John Petrucci.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHb5nMUUJs&context=C4c56a03ADvjVQa1PpcFMuXBOYWZ4iZm11mWjZVfb-zk6Eg7Tkx50=

around 3:53 : check out the 2nd finger...It definitely moves along with the others though it isn't fretting notes.

also around 4:00 : That 3rd finger of his is really jumping up and down between the 2nd and 4th fingers.

also around 6:00-6:10 : His fingers are flapping around like crazy, and yet those notes sound clean, fast and dead on to me. His fingers always seem to get where they need to be on time despite the flapping around.

So again, I guess my question is, how much sympathetic movement in unused fingers is too much and how much is okay? Or is it kinda a gray area with the answer of "not too much that you start missing notes and tensing up", something like that.

Thanks for your responses

[GAA43]

It's a good question and I look forward to answers from some others, notably Jamie and N e y.

In the meantime - my 2 cents: I find that unused finger movement is a function of speed. I might be able to keep things very very still at say 60/16ths , but not at 80/16ths. Of course he's playing much faster than that. My point is, don't judge your own spurious movement at lower speeds in view of his efforts at very high speeds.
Also I'll say that I don't know that its the extra movement that is the problem, causing poorly executed notes. Rather its symptomatic of underlying issues that lead to poor notes when the mechanism is pushed harder. I could play various passages (blues/rock stuff) fairly well, even with lots of spurious extra movement, but was stalled out at that level, having a hard time getting faster and with certain specific moves. Referring again to the video you linked to, perhaps his extra movement, while not inhibiting the playing that he was demonstrating, represents problems with the underlying structure that would prevent him playing faster. But since he's already operating at supersonic speeds, he need not worry about it!

It seemed also to me that some of the worst of his extra movement happens when he's doing pull-offs, and FWIW I find the same thing. So again, a particularly high bar.

Quite recently I started putting a very significant amount of effort and time into reducing excess movement, mainly but not only my pinky, and the results have been very very positive. I had been conscious of problems before and sort of tried to work on them, as a secondary thing to other practice, without much success. I put this subject at the forefront of my focus and was able to make quite a lot of headway. It has really helped my playing overall. As a byproduct of working on this, I came to a much better grasp of many of Jamie's learning techniques, namely no-tempo and really focusing awareness.

So if I'm any example, you really can't do too much in this area. If you're facing obstacles, and have extra movement, even extra movement within the limits demonstrated by very good players at a high level, I don't think you'll waste your time if work on the extra movement.

[N E Y]

Hello Ryan and Greg


There are two sides to the answer in my experience:

The practical side:

The absolute side:

The practical side dictates economy of motion, but not theoretical economy. I mean applied economy to a given specific task. That means that you want your unused fingers not to tense up and become immobile as a result of forced tension. The immobility of an unused finger is not ergonomic. The entire body must move. The arm and hand and unused fingers. However we must not have sympathetic tension of a static nature. The type of antagonistic tensions that fight the rest of the hand motions and causes conflicting pulls in the tendons of the hand. The hand must work as a harmonious set of forces including the unused fingers motions which should be minimised but not paralyzed. But these motions are not the type that spazzes all over. I did not see any wild motions in the examples shown..in fact quite the contrary.

I think that the misunderstanding is in accepting the idea that unused fingers have to be immobile or nearly so.

The absolute side of the answer shows that any excess motion or bad habit can be overcome, but only by very exceptional individuals. It is tantamount to overcoming a physical handicap. It is possible and a few of the great players in history have done exactly that. Therefore the intelligent artist will not chose this path of enormous and unneeded work.

The intelligent artist will not put more hardship and obstacles in front of him/her than absolutely necessary, even if he can eventually overcome them. Hence the choice of the pragmatic answer: minimise motion that is not necessary. But minimise does not mean paralise your fingers into motionlessness.


Ideological mistake: I recently pointed out in my interview with abstractlogix.com that ideology, false moralisms, etc can interfere with your technique. For example the concept of unnecessary motion does not mean make your motion always as small as possible...as "economical" as possible. That is an absurdity, if you stop and think intelligently. By that "rule" there would be no rock and roll, no opera, and no jazz or country and no classical music either!

All these genres necessitate a wide range of motions to convey the musical vibe which is what matters (not bad science application or blind ideology) So these energy saving/ economy of motion theories are false and ineffective when applied unintelligently. What is economical for one lick or chord is often not economical for another and will actually get in the way of ease, grace and power!

One needs economy relative to what one must do and not a blind absolutist application of economy, otherwise you get ineffective expression. You look like the guy who can't dance because he has to make his body motions "economical". Of course if the guy choses to jump up and down and off the balcony on the 43rd floor into broadway that is excess motion..for dance... but very economical for suicide with a touch of showmanship to it!

One needs minimal motion but only as minimal as possible for the expression to come through...so that does not mean paralyzing our bodies into a near motionless state.

Hopefully this will help with your question...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ney_mello
http://www.youtube.com/user/NeyMelloOfficial?
http://bit.ly/aSUSw6
http://www.facebook.com/pages/NEY-MELLO/8702485599
http://www.twitter.com/NeyMelloGuitar

[alcoyot]

So would you say that if it sounds great, feels good, without excessivenesss or injury causing, then its ok. Or knee slides and stage diving could also be considered fine

[N E Y]

So would you say that if it sounds great, feels good, without excessivenesss or injury causing, then its ok.

As long as they are done right ( consult your master teacher of the guitar for what that means ). Any physical motion follows the same principles. Like ballet and martial arts and the athletic disciplines.

We come back to the reality that most of us cannot know what that means without the guidance and supervision of a master teacher who can perform and explain what to do . Not just perform for you and not just talk about vaguely or in the theoretical realm. Even in theoretical disciplines, you would not chose a mathematics teacher who kind of explains things vaguely and skips steps or or one who talks brilliantly about math but cant solve any math problems that you need solved.



Or knee slides and stage diving could also be considered fine

Are you asking if those are fine to be added to a musical performance? In my mind yes. It is in fact done in rock and musical theater, but that is an artistic decision you must make yourself according to what you want to express in your stage show or film/video. You decide. Don't let anyone decide for you or you will never be an artist or stay as one for very long.

[niclas1047]

Thank you for the responses!

From reading the above thoughts, I suppose that there is a big difference between "bad" motion and "good" motion. As long as you can minimize tension, and the excess motion is controlled and not hampering you from getting to the notes or expressing the music it is okay.

For an example of "bad motion", when working on the 1-3-4 pattern and your 2nd finger is stiff and keeps pulling up away from the fretboard, that is the sort of motion that needs to be minimized/relaxed away, as it hampers the other fingers and it causes missed notes, etc.

After reading Ney's comment, I watched again and the movement of the non-used fingers does seem to be within a level of control and relaxation, if that makes sense. This seems like an example of "good motion" or at least motion that doesn't detract from playing.

[alcoyot]

I think I see what you mean, by movements done in the correct way. I was watching a documentary on swords, and they were talking about how sword fighting manuals from the late medieval ages when this was still the height of military technology. They compared the european fighting manuals from the masters of those skills, with the Japanese manuals at the height of the Samurai, and found that while they were developed independently, the movements, motions, techniques, attacks etc. were all exactly the same for both eastern and western, and this is because the mechanics and physics of the human body, are going to be what determines technique, being the most efficient way to kill your opponent.
Interestingly, even the weapons used were the same, and they found the best way to fight was with one long and one short in both continents.

[N E Y]

I think I see what you mean, by movements done in the correct way. I was watching a documentary on swords, and they were talking about how sword fighting manuals from the late medieval ages when this was still the height of military technology. They compared the european fighting manuals from the masters of those skills, with the Japanese manuals at the height of the Samurai, and found that while they were developed independently, the movements, motions, techniques, attacks etc. were all exactly the same for both eastern and western, and this is because the mechanics and physics of the human body, are going to be what determines technique, being the most efficient way to kill your opponent.
Interestingly, even the weapons used were the same, and they found the best way to fight was with one long and one short in both continents.

Fascinating! Thanks for that Lex!

Ney




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ney_mello
http://www.youtube.com/user/NeyMelloOfficial?
http://bit.ly/aSUSw6
http://www.facebook.com/pages/NEY-MELLO/8702485599
http://www.twitter.com/NeyMelloGuitar

[N E Y]

Thank you for the responses!

From reading the above thoughts, I suppose that there is a big difference between "bad" motion and "good" motion. As long as you can minimize tension, and the excess motion is controlled and not hampering you from getting to the notes or expressing the music it is okay.

Yes.One has to also not try to control that type of movement pas a certain ( variable ) point because we can get caught in the "control" mindset and begin to stiffen the finger in an attempt to control it. Once you are shown what the latitude is for a given situation, you will know exactly what to do.


For an example of "bad motion", when working on the 1-3-4 pattern and your 2nd finger is stiff and keeps pulling up away from the fretboard, that is the sort of motion that needs to be minimized/relaxed away, as it hampers the other fingers and it causes missed notes, etc.

Yes Ryan, that is a very good example of inducing conflicting motions within the hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ney_mello
http://www.youtube.com/user/NeyMelloOfficial?
http://bit.ly/aSUSw6
http://www.facebook.com/pages/NEY-MELLO/8702485599
http://www.twitter.com/NeyMelloGuitar

[Jamie]

It is important to appreciate the difference between "sympathetic movement" and "sympathetic tension".

John Petruccii's unused fingers are moving somewhat with sympathetic movement, but they contain very little tension that would prevent their use if required. They are also kept very close.

Your fingers are all connected to common structures. It is not possible to eliminate movement in unused fingers in all cases, nor necessary. Getting your fingers where you need then, when you need them is the challenge that all great players figure out how to overcome. They "find their way to the notes". The more you practice for an ideal of minimum movement and tension, the more likely you will meet that challenge yourself when you need to.

There are also many other factors beside "fingers" that make for superior playing ability. Fingers are only a part of the whole. Here's a hint...notice the great "stretch and space" he has between fingers. Many people cannot develop that because they are holding their neck and scapula muscles tense!