# Do you take the guitar seriously as a musical instrument?



## themusicismymaster

I am a musician,i play two instruments.one,the piano,is instantly recognised and respected,the other,the guitar,is not.The guitar is by far my favourite instrument,it is incredibly personla,there are hundreds of different inflections you can put onn a single note!Experimental tunings,multiple strings,various slides,such a wide array of sounds is possible!And yet it is unappreciated in the classical world!I feel the guitar is more expressive than the piano as i favour it's tone and the amount of control over the notes,the personal aspects of it!I could ramble on for hours... but i'll try to stick to the point,I also love electric guitar which is NOT as violent as it seems but that is a matter for another day,the point is I am appealing to those who dislike my instrument,who here doesn't like guitar!?


----------



## david johnson

?
i don't know anyone who doesn't like guitar.
more expressive than piano? no, not more.

dj


----------



## Capriccio

Not sure how to quantify expressive, though there certainly is a lot you can do on it. Depends.. are you talking acoustic or electric? I find the range of things you can do to be greater on an electric than acoustic, though the acoustic has something the electric can't seem to get no matter how much sound engineering comes out. Likewise with piano, though it's all in how you use them. The sound of a piano too is naturally expressive, in my opinion. I think the main problem is that many guitarists don't know how to use distortion well, or that's all they play it with, but properly used, you can get some amazing things on out an electric. Of course, I don't play piano, so feel free anyone to correct me based on experience.


----------



## Mr. Terrible

I gave myself a hernia trying to bend notes on a Steinway once....
Finger vibrato doesn`t work too well either.

The "guitars arent proper musical instruments argument I think died out long time ago.
The knotty part since the repertoire for classical guitar was rediscovered is whether or not the other sorts of guitars are socially acceptable in polite (read classical) circles.

Not sure it is really relevant, personally.
People like what they like, respect what they respect.

And try taking a piano on holiday with you.


----------



## Atabey

Music should not be as light as you can carry to holiday.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

There is a LOT you can do on a guitar. Try Einojuhani Rautavaara's Serenades of the Unicorn:


----------



## Mr. Terrible

Atabey said:


> Music should not be as light as you can carry to holiday.


And of course you have a valid, rational argument to back that up?


----------



## Elaryad

Jesus Christ of course the guitar is considered a serious instrument (I'm sorry but I cannot think otherwise)! On the classical world I think the classical guitar do the trick. There's a wide repertoire being explored and/or waiting to be played. I play both guitars (classical and electric), I love metal music, but I have a special love for my classical guitar, for the studies I play by Dionísio Aguado, Carulli, Pujol, the wonderful and sad songs composed by Tarrega... No need to mention Villa-Lobos, who wrote wonderful pieces for classical guitar. A real shame if someone still thinks the guitar is just used to play rock/pop songs and to entertain groups of teenangers by the fireplace.
I think you wont get answers if you ask if someone doesn't like the guitar (the intrument). The guitar is present in lots of crap you ear these days. Probably you get the bad reactions to the guitar because of that and because people doesn't know classical guitar repertoire or don't ever care to search further.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

The classical guitar IS used in classical music. Try Joaquín Rodrigo - Fantasia para un Gentilhombre, or Concierto de Aranjuez that you can see here:






By the way, the theme from second movement was used by the Japanese jazz singer Kimiko Itoh for her tune "Follow Me" featured in Ghost in the Shell: Innocence anime film.


----------



## Atabey

Mr. Terrible said:


> And of course you have a valid, rational argument to back that up?


No,i do not and I am in no need to find one.That is my subjective view on music.This is music we are talking about,there is nothing harmful about being subjective making it and talking about it.If you need every single statement in a forum backed up by valid and rational arguments then i suggest you take a look at a maths forum.


----------



## Niku

themusicismymaster said:


> I am a musician,i play two instruments.one,the piano,is instantly recognised and respected,the other,the guitar,is not.The guitar is by far my favourite instrument,it is incredibly personla,there are hundreds of different inflections you can put onn a single note!Experimental tunings,multiple strings,various slides,such a wide array of sounds is possible!And yet it is unappreciated in the classical world!I feel the guitar is more expressive than the piano as i favour it's tone and the amount of control over the notes,the personal aspects of it!I could ramble on for hours... but i'll try to stick to the point,I also love electric guitar which is NOT as violent as it seems but that is a matter for another day,the point is I am appealing to those who dislike my instrument,who here doesn't like guitar!?


Classical guitar (not acoustic, electric, bass) is a great instrument, i play spanish guitar by myself and i love it. I would say that then you play a piece to an unexperienced listener he is wondered how you can make so much sound from that piece of wood. I know because i felt the same.


----------



## Mr. Terrible

*Youur humourectomy*



Atabey said:


> No,i do not and I am in no need to find one.That is my subjective view on music.This is music we are talking about,there is nothing harmful about being subjective making it and talking about it.If you need every single statement in a forum backed up by valid and rational arguments then i suggest you take a look at a maths forum.


----------



## Atabey

*Your wonderful word-building*


----------



## Elaryad

The Portuguese Guitar...

... and music played by one of our best guitarists, Carlos Paredes:






I don't know how to play this one... Not for my skills, unfortunately. Definitely, a serious instrument


----------



## browny

classical guitar is a great music instrument, we have the polyphony, the harmony and a large choice about the sound's color. Me too, I play the guitar and the piano, and I think the guitar is better than the piano about the musical expression, but it's a guitarist view point ^^
The classical guitar repertoir is too unreconized, it's a pity. So LISTEN TO CLASSICAL GUITAR lol


----------



## Mark Harwood

The Classical guitar is capable of wonders. I'd urge anyone to listen to Carlo Domeniconi's "Kuyunbaba". Aaron Brock's version is particularly wonderful to my ear.


----------



## WalterJ

Actually I take the Classical guitar very seriously, I use to play it and I am working at getting myself back to the high level mediocrity I once had. 

However the classical guitar itself, to me, is absolutely amazing based on it capabilities and in the hands of a competent player (meaning not me) it is one of the most beautiful instruments to listen to, IMO.


----------



## Methodistgirl

I like playing the guitar because it sets many moods. It's the way you play the instrument
that it's soft jazz, classic, spanish, and in my neck of the woods country and gospel.
I have a video of an unusual guitar.



YouTube - Impossible guitar
judy tooley


----------



## Mattd

If I see some teenager with an electric guitar I do not take them seriously until I hear them play (and there are times after that where I still don't). But for classical guitar it's not an instrument that everyone wants to learn, so the second i see one i see someone that is a real musician, or at least attempting to be. Classical guitar takes so much talent to play that you know someone is not in it just to "impress the chicks."


----------



## Capriccio

Mattd said:


> If I see some teenager with an electric guitar I do not take them seriously until I hear them play (and there are times after that where I still don't). But for classical guitar it's not an instrument that everyone wants to learn, so the second i see one i see someone that is a real musician, or at least attempting to be. Classical guitar takes so much talent to play that you know someone is not in it just to "impress the chicks."


That's a very interesting outlook. If you take the classical guitar out of the picture, you have my musical perspective. It's actually a rather difficult instrument to play and takes dedication, as there are many different ways that you can play the same thing, so it takes a while (in my opinion) to begin sounding like you know what you're doing. I'm not a classical guitarist by any stretch, but it does take a particular person to play that style, someone who's more detached than others from the modern scene, or at least explorative of other realms of music.


----------



## Mark Harwood

I used to be a high school teacher. If a pupil in my class had an instrument with them for a lesson, I'd often have a chat with them about it, especially if it was a guitar. None of the kids could name a famous guitarist or composer for the instrument. None listened to Classical guitar music. All were interested in playing the instrument, of course, but not in the music. Strange.


----------



## confuoco

I feel deep respect to this instrument and guitar players, but I have to admit probably it never be my favorite instrument. There are quite significant limits in dynamics and in my opinion also in expression (yes, I see much bigger expressional potention in piano). On the other hand, not so many solo instruments have harmonic aspect as guitar has.


----------



## Tal

Hi everybody.
I am a new user here and I am very happy to see such a nice forum about Classical Music.
My insturment is classical guitar and I think that there is no doubt that this is a serious instrument.
Composers like Tedesco, Tansman, Rodrigo, Pagnini, Villa-Lobos, Walton- wrote for guitar. 
Though, the guitar became popular instrument as classical music instrument a century ago and this is the reason why the composers of previous periods didn't wrote for guitar.

This is really great instrument. Check up some guitar music. 
Julian Bream, John Williams, Marcin Dylla- are some examples of "warth-listen-to" guitar players.

Enjoy ;-)
By the way: confuoco- about the limits in dynamics- nowadays guitar are more powerfull...so this problem is less serious. You must remember that the guitar isn't ment to be "strong\powerful" instrument. The guitar is an intimate instument. However the range of dynamics is rich because the guitar can be very silence or some kind of loud thanks to "Rasguado" tachniques.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Completely valid, but ,<subjective>I don't like it</subjective> and it is an <objective>extremely limited instrument.</objective>


----------



## Mark Harwood

Limited instrument? Hmmm.
Unlike the piano, notes can be bent, ie. subtle nuances of pitch are available. Vibrato too. There is a lot of expressiveness there.
The same note can be played on different strings and by plucking different parts of the string, with different parts of the fingertip (even with the fretting hand), so the range of timbre is much greater than on the piano.
Yagan, I disagree!


----------



## Tal

Mark Harwood said:


> Limited instrument? Hmmm.
> Unlike the piano, notes can be bent, ie. subtle nuances of pitch are available. Vibrato too. There is a lot of expressiveness there.
> The same note can be played on different strings and by plucking different parts of the string, with different parts of the fingertip (even with the fretting hand), so the range of timbre is much greater than on the piano.
> Yagan, I disagree!


So true.
The one who said that this is extremly limited, you don't really know what the abilities of the guitar. Try to search and check a littel more information before you decide.


----------



## mueske

I take it seriously, I just don't like it. 

And I agree with Yagan, it is limited compared to a piano, something to the scope of Beethoven's piano sonatas just isn't capable on a guitar.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> <objective>extremely limited instrument.</objective>


It's manifestly not a limited instrument - in fact, it has more possibilities than most orchestral instruments!

Its dynamic range is no more limited than that of most other instruments. Listen to 'All in Twilight' by Takemitsu (preferably played by Julian Bream).

Also check out the Bach transcriptions for the guitar - mainly lute, violin and cello pieces. If the myriad possibilities are still not apparent to you after all of this, listen to some piece of a 'Spanish' character. Also check out some Dowland transcriptions! Melancholy late Renaissance/Early Baroque, contrapuntal magnificence, exuberant Spanish, opaque modern, the guitar can do everything!


----------



## Atabey

Yagan Kiely said:


> Completely valid, but ,<subjective>I don't like it</subjective> and it is an <objective>extremely limited instrument.</objective>


Agree...(Both objectively and subjectively)


----------



## Tal

mueske said:


> I take it seriously, I just don't like it.
> 
> And I agree with Yagan, it is limited compared to a piano, something to the scope of Beethoven's piano sonatas just isn't capable on a guitar.


So what?
Beethoven is one of my favorite composers. 
Each and one of Beethoven's piano sonatas is brilliant, and Beethoven wrote them for piano so why should it be suitable for other instrument?
You can say the same about every instrument that is not piano.

I can't get your point.
It is true that guitar is limited compared to a piano, but piano is also limited compared to a guitar..

There are alot of pieces that were written for guitar which you can play on the piano.


----------



## JTech82

Do I take the guitar seriously as an instrument? I guess I do since I've been playing it for 20 years. Like the piano, the guitar really shines playing chord voicings. Anyone can learn the arpeggios, scales, modes, etc., but knowing about harmony will make you an even more valuable musician.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

mueske said:


> I take it seriously, I just don't like it.
> 
> And I agree with Yagan, it is limited compared to a piano, something to the scope of Beethoven's piano sonatas just isn't capable on a guitar.


A Beethoven piano sonata played on a classical guitar:






The same played on a bass guitar:






The same played on an Indian sitar:






The Kairosz quartett playing "Toxicity" by System of a Down:






The original "Toxicity" played on electric guitars:






Piano music can in fact be transcribed to guitar and heavy metal pieces sound surprisingly good on pianos and strings. If you think the classical guitar is too quiet and lacks edge, try Spanish music:






It is far too easy to make a quick derogatory statement about any instrument or virtually anything. But what's the point in doing that? How would that enhance our experience of listening to or making music?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Piano music can in fact be transcribed to guitar


And?

Oh I'm talking about 'Classical' or Acoustic guitars. Just the basic simple guitars. I don't know enough bout the rest to comment (plus I despise mics).



> The one who said that this is extremly limited, you don't really know what the abilities of the guitar. Try to search and check a littel more information before you decide.


Please don't bring personal attacks into this just because I hold different ideas than you.



> Its dynamic range is no more limited than that of most other instruments


Okay, now that is just a flat lie. All common wind and strings are louder, piano is obviously much louder too.

It's harmonies are limited also, strumming is a very limited way of play 5 note chords. If by some way there _is_ a way to play 5 note chords on the guitar without insensate arpeggios, it will not believe that it can be done quickly. Countering that a violin can't do it also, it has the power of being able to sustain notes, that which the guitar fails miserably at. It as a very quick decay.



> Each and one of Beethoven's piano sonatas is brilliant, and Beethoven wrote them for piano so why should it be suitable for other instrument?


If you actually read what he said, he said 'something of the scope' not an arrangement.

I made a mistake with my coding!:



> Completely valid, but ,<subjective>I don't like it</subjective> and it is an extremely <objective> limited instrument.</objective>


This is what I meant.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Quoting from different people without acknowledging the name of each poster may be rather confusing but anyway, I wrote about transcribing piano pieces to the guitar and the other way round and you said:



Yagan Kiely said:


> And?
> 
> Oh I'm talking about 'Classical' or Acoustic guitars. Just the basic simple guitars. I don't know enough bout the rest to comment (plus I despise mics).


Nor do I. However, if Moonlight can be transcribed to the guitar and it does not sound largely inferior on the guitar if played well, then the whole idea of the guitar being inferior to the piano and other instruments does not seem to have much merit. Of course you can compare instruments and say "this one can do this and this one can't" but that still does not change much in the enjoyment factor as each instrument has its own character and can specialise in different things.

The dynamic range or being "louder" also does not change much in my opinion - electric guitars are also "louder" than other instruments - so what? Does it make them "better" than cellos? By the way, if I am not mistaken many of the symphonic instruments, especially the piano were made louder around the time of Beethoven - I read somewhere that it was partly to compensate for Beethoven's hearing loss and made at his request - please correct me if I am wrong.

So, since there is plenty of repertoire for the guitar and it IS included in classical pieces including some famous ones like Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, I do not see any point in making it "worse" than other instruments. It may not be as prominent in the classical, but is also present in many great pieces with ethnic flavour like Spanish music. One may like it or not be very fond of it, that is totally understandable. And although I completely disagreee with you on this one, the part about what each instrument can do was indeed very interesting.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> However, if Moonlight can be transcribed to the guitar and it does not sound largely inferior on the guitar if played well, then the whole idea of the guitar being inferior to the piano and other instruments does not seem to have much merit.


You can't base an objective argument purely on subjective meaning..... And moonlight is written for piano, it will never sound as 'perfect' on another instrument. Nobody was comparing arrangements as it puts the guitar in a default 2nd - which is obviously silly.



> can specialise in different things.


So it is limited?



> I read somewhere that it was partly to compensate for Beethoven's hearing loss and made at his request - please correct me if I am wrong.


Done.



> The dynamic range or being "louder" also does not change much in my opinion - electric guitars are also "louder" than other instruments - so what? Does it make them "better" than cellos?


I means you can here it in a room larger than 4-5 and still hear subtleties.

This instrument is about guitar so I haven't bothered to list other instruments that have major limits.

The main thing I am saying, it doesn't have the ability to produce melodies as well as instruments that have an extended delay (Flute, Violin), nor does it have the contrapuntal, colouristic or dynamic qualities of the piano. Ergo, it is lacking in both (4?) departments. What the piano lacks in it's short delay it makes up other ways, what the clarinet lacks in counterpoint and harmonic colour it makes up in longer notes which are able to span and hold onto melodies more efficiently. There are very few things the guitar makes up for with it's deficiencies.


----------



## Herzeleide

This discussion is so ridiculous! As though there's some sort of hierarchy of instruments. EVERY instrument has limitations! Even the so-called super instrument - the organ - can not do what other instruments can! The guitar has more colouristic possibilities than the piano - slides, bends, vibrato, picked (apoyando and triando), slurred (i.e. pull-offs and hammer-ons, impossible on a percussive instrument like the piano), artificial and natural harmonics (I'm aware the piano can create harmonics but they're barely audible), sul tasto, sul ponticello, rasgueado, tambour.

So essentially it's like the violin in its colouristic possibilities, though with many more contrapuntal possibilities, but like the piano in that the notes decay (though like the piano, a continuous melody is obtained by fast tremelos, as in _Recuerdos de la Alhambra_).
Lastly, guitarists tend to play with a microphone - which makes very apparent the infinite number of subtleties inherent in the guitar. I've actually played the (classical) guitar in front of a large audience with a microphone (which, incidentally, did not in any way affect the sound other than to amplify it) and felt that I was dealing with a far more sensitive instrument than the piano (which I've also played to people) largely because whilst it's the keys of the piano which hammer the strings, with the guitar one actually manipulates the strings oneself.

Check out this:






Anyway, after all of that, I feel the whole concept of one instrument being better than another is an absurd attitude to take - any sane, curious composer takes each instrument for what it is, rather than idiotically bemoaning its so-called limitations (though, as I have pointed out, saying an instrument has 'limitations' is redundant because every instrument has limitations. Except for the orchestra.  )


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Lastly, guitarists tend to play with a microphone - which makes very apparent the infinite number of subtleties inherent in the guitar.


Oh, so Berlioz played it with a Mic? I don't care what they play with it now, it isn't designed for it. And I specifically said an un-mic-ed(?) acoustic guitar. Please read what I actually say.



> As though there's some sort of hierarchy of instruments. EVERY instrument has limitations!


Thank you for backing up what I was saying! I'm glad to see that you read that I actualy said this and that you agree wiht me. Good to see.



> (i.e. pull-offs and hammer-ons, impossible on a percussive instrument like the piano)


This is just plaingly not true, it's possible on both....



> So essentially it's like the violin in its colouristic possibilities, though with many more contrapuntal possibilities, but like the piano in that the notes decay (though like the piano, a continuous melody is obtained by fast tremelos, as in _Recuerdos de la Alhambra_).


Damn... getting of to a good start as well. You completeley white washed everything I said.... Shame.



> (though, as I have pointed out, saying an instrument has 'limitations' is redundant because every instrument has limitations. Except for the orchestra.  )


You have pointed out that your opinion is that, nothing more. You've got to stop confusing subjective and objective.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> This is just plaingly not true, it's possible on both....


Do you actually know what hammer-ons and pull-offs are?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Something to do with the pedal.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Something to do with the pedal.


A guitar doesn't have a pedal.

Why bother arguing about this when you're clearly ignorant about the guitar, its possibilites, technique and repertoire?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Is it the keys then?


----------



## Tal

Yagan Kiely-


> Please don't bring personal attacks into this just because I hold different ideas than you.


I am not attacking you.
However I really want to offer you to check some more opinions here seriously.
You wrote about the fact that a guitar can't produce as loud sound as string instruments or the piano can. You maybe right. But when you are speaking about range of dynamics it is not enough to check who can produce the louder voice..
Moreover, with nowadays tech it is not really an issue. A little microphone changes everything.
Even in piano concerts you can see sometimes use of mics..
Who care that you spoke only about un-mic guitars- by doing that; you ignore reallity.



> The main thing I am saying, it doesn't have the ability to produce melodies as well as instruments that have an extended delay (Flute, Violin), nor does it have the contrapuntal, colouristic or dynamic qualities of the piano.


Again, it is WRONG!
It is a shame that you think so..I will be happy to know what brought you to do this funny comparison.
For sure it doesn't has the colouristic of piano because guitar isn't piano!
You are basing your opinions on ignorance.
I know very well some of the piano repertoire- I LOVE the piano sonatas of Beethoven which you mentioned. Please tell me what part of the guitar repertoire you really know?
If you just check some more information, you will discover that the guitar has so many sorts of diffarent sounds(colours), range dynamics(not just loud but rich amount of diffarent volumes).
_____________________________________________________________________________

I think you confuse the classical guitar with the electric guitar too. It is really not the same instrument.

Try to listen to a good guitar composers\players and than tell what your opinion.
Players: Julian Bream, John Williams, Andreas Segovia, Marcin Dylla, Aniello Desiderio.
Composers: Agustin Barrios, Manuel Ponce, Tarriga, Tedesco(wrote alot for guitar), Aguado Dionisio,Fernando Sor, Leo Bruower. Try Pagnini's pieces for guitar too..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*IN SHORT: IT IS A SERIOUS INSTRUMENT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!*
Even *CHOPIN* who dedicated his life to the piano wrote about the classical guitar:

_"Nothing is more beautiful than a guitar, save perhaps two." _

_"The guitar is a wonderful instrument which is understood by few."_
*- Franz Schubert*


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I am not attacking you.


You did, you aren't now.



> You wrote about the fact that a guitar can't produce as loud sound as string instruments or the piano. You maybe right. But when you are speaking about range of dynamics it is not enough to check who can produce the louder voice..


I didn't.



> Even in piano concerts you can see sometimes use of mics..


To record.



> Who care that you spoke only about un-mic guitars- by doing that; you ignore reallity.


The reality being the there were microphones when the guitar was invented? When Schubert said what he said? My history must really be shaky...



> For sure it doesn't has the colouristic of piano because guitar isn't piano!


I said harmonic colours.


> I LOVE the piano sonatas of Beethoven which you mentioned.


No I didn't.



> Please tell me what part of the guitar repertoire you really know?


I know a lot of renaissance, spanish 20th century and a few of the later works. I hear the pieces live all the time almost every week at my uni.



> has so many sorts of diffarent sounds(colours)


Don't remember saying it didn't.


> , range dynamics(not just loud but rich amount of different volumes)


Are you trying to say that the loudest note on the guitar (without a resulting 'snap pizz' (do guitarists call this differently?) as it changes the tone too much to be an accurate comparison) has the same decibels as a piano playing its loudest? And I never said it doesn't have different volumes.



> I think you confuse the classical guitar with the electric guitar too. It is really not the same instrument.


No, I made it obvious in my second (?) post that I know very little about electric guitars so I can't comment on them. I also can't believe you came to this conclusion when you even commented on my (subjective) dislike of amplified instruments.



> Players: Julian Bream, John Williams, Andreas Segovia, Marcin Dylla, Aniello Desiderio.
> Composers: Agustin Barrios, Manuel Ponce, Tarriga, Tedesco(wrote alot for guitar), Aguado Dionisio,Fernando Sor, Leo Bruower. Try Pagnini's pieces for guitar too..


I have heard a lot but not all of these performers/composers. Any in particular you suggest?



> *IN SHORT: IT IS A SERIOUS INSTRUMENT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!*


You do realise that this is one humongous logical fallacy and it is not an argument and it contributes very little to helping your argument at all? It's quite a ludicrous statement. If you said "...It is a serious instrument in my opinion whether you like it or not!' in which case it would be perfectly valid. I am not trying to change your opinion. Nor did I ever say it is not a serious instrument. My first post explicitly said I believe it is. In short: why don't you read?



> Even chopin who dedicated his life to the piano wrote about the classical guitar:
> 
> _"Nothing is more beautiful than a guitar, save perhaps two." _
> 
> _"The guitar is a wonderful instrument which is understood by few."_
> *- Franz Schubert*


Again, two different (but related) fallacies in this argument.


----------



## Bach

The guitar is pretty but it can't be compared to the piano, violin, cello or oboe. I would compare it to the recorder - beautiful in it's own right and highly flexible but limited in it's emotive and dynamic scope.


----------



## Herzeleide

Hmm... who to believe, Schubert and Chopin or Yagan Kiely... 



Bach said:


> The guitar is pretty but it can't be compared to the piano, violin, cello or oboe. I would compare it to the recorder - beautiful in it's own right and highly flexible but limited in it's emotive and dynamic scope.


As you should know, being Bach himself, some of your music is played on the guitar. Is this music of yours limited in its 'emotive scope'? Oh, and regarding the dynamics, this piece/performance goes from very quiet to very loud:


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Perhaps we could make this thread into a "guitar recommendations thread". Some users expressed their opinions about its limitations, some made statements to the contrary, let's just acknowledge that and move on to something more useful. 

After all the whole point of this forum and any forum about music is to enhance the experience of listening to music by providing background and explanations as well as inspiration to find new recordings to listen to. 

Let's take Abeniz's Asturias as the first official recommendation of a guitar piece and provide some more. And let it be only classical pieces ORIGINALLY written for the guitar as transcriptions and non-classical pieces are very numerous and beyond the scope of this forum I guess (having their separate threads in the non-classical section).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> chubert and Chopin or Yagan Kiely


Why are you attempting saying that I have different opinions than those? Not a fair comparison. I'm not talking about what they said. Please read what I say, then you would understand that. I guitar can be beautiful in it's own right. I reserve to right to not find it the most impressive instrument, but that is my opinion, like Schubert's. Neither of those were talking about the limits of the instrument. Please don't _deliberately_ misrepresent me any more!

Coincidentally, I find the clarinet very expressionless (one of the main driving forces of music), yet it is one of my favourite instruments.


----------



## Bach

Herzeleide said:


> Hmm... who to believe, Schubert and Chopin or Yagan Kiely...
> 
> As you should know, being Bach himself, some of your music is played on the guitar. Is this music of yours limited in its 'emotive scope'? Oh, and regarding the dynamics, this piece/performance goes from very quiet to very loud:












All Bach that's played on the guitar will be a transcription. Compare the emotive scope of these two performances of the same piece.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> All Bach that's played on the guitar will be a transcription.


What I think is kind of contradiction is that you (not you Bach) are saying that Beethoven's piano sonata isn't for piano and it's an unfair comparison (which I absolutely agree, it give my point of view an unfair and unreal advantage), but then you go ahead and give other transcriptions when you think it suites you. That is also unfair (actually on yourself), but it is just really contradictory....


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> All Bach that's played on the guitar will be a transcription. Compare the emotive scope of these two performances of the same piece.


What precisely do you mean by 'emotive scope'? I find it a peculiar objection, considering on another thread you've professed to finding just as much intellectual pleasure in music as well as emotional. Surely the fact that the full contrapuntal potential of the piece is only fully realised on the guitar intellectual appealing?
Anyway, it's the same piece and sounds utterly wonderful either way.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Surely the fact that the full contrapuntal potential of the piece is only fully realised on the guitar intellectual appealing?


Piano is more more contrapuntally variable.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Piano is more more contrapuntally variable.


And the organ is more 'contrapuntally variable' than the piano.


----------



## Tal

Yagan Kiely said:


> What I think is kind of contradiction is that you (not you Bach) are saying that Beethoven's piano sonata isn't for piano and it's an unfair comparison (which I absolutely agree, it give my point of view an unfair and unreal advantage), but then you go ahead and give other transcriptions when you think it suites you. That is also unfair (actually on yourself), but it is just really contradictory....


I think you wrong.
Since Bach is one of these composers who didn't thought too much about the instrument they writing for- there are more options to do a good transcriptions.
Beethoven wrote his piano sonatas for piano only, and he really took into consideration the unique abilities of the piano.

Bach wrote 4 suites for Lute. These pieces are extremly hard to play in the Lute and sometimes even impossible. However they suites perfectly well to the guitar. 
Moreover(sorry violin players), the great CHACONNE is wonderful on the guitar. It is very problematic to make chords on the violin clear enough. I don't want to imagine this piece on the piano (without vibrato)---> The guitar, in my opinion, is the perfect instrument for this piece.
The guitar has the suitable tone,vib, and harmonic abilities:


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Since Bach is one of these composers who didn't thought too much about the instrument they writing for- there are more options to do a good transcriptions.


Regardless of how much they thought about the colour of the instrument. The technicality they did think of. Every above average composer that is.



> Beethoven wrote his piano sonatas for piano only, and he really took into consideration the unique abilities of the piano.


Bach never had a chord with over 5 notes did he. And organ pedals never existed.



> Moreover(sorry violin players), the great CHACONNE is wonderful on the guitar. It is very problematic to make chords on the violin clear enough.


It is had to make them clear enough but it is easily possible and the violin allows the melody to actually shine rather than die out almost instantly.


----------



## Tal

> The technicality they did think of


I didn't say he didn't.


> Bach never had a chord with over 5 notes did he. And organ pedals never existed.


Try to play 5 notes togther in violin...


> It is had to make them clear enough but it is easily possible and the violin allows the melody to actually shine rather than die out almost instantly.


In the begining of the Chaccone most important is the harmony. About the melody I just don't agree- but it is ok that you think so.


----------



## JTech82

I think this is a silly argument. Is the guitar a serious instrument? Yes it is.

The guitar is not the piano, so of course it has a limited range, but your imagination and creativity help put the idea of that to rest.

No instrument sounds like the guitar, just like no instrument sounds like the piano or saxophone. Every instrument has its strengths and weaknesses, but each of them produces a unique sound, but to get beyond the instrument itself, it takes a serious musical mind.


----------



## Bach

Yes, I agree with JTech82 - however, I also think there is a hierarchy of instruments in terms of their technical capabilities and level of difficulty to master.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> And the organ is more 'contrapuntally variable' than the piano.


Never said it didn't amazing perception on your part.



> I think this is a silly argument. Is the guitar a serious instrument? Yes it is.


Agreed. Silly argument and silly question. That is why I ignored the question and went on from there.



> No instrument sounds like the guitar, just like no instrument sounds like the piano or saxophone. Every instrument has its strengths and weaknesses, but each of them produces a unique sound, but to get beyond the instrument itself, it takes a serious musical mind.


Let us put this mathematically: Piano has + 1 & -1, Violin has +1 & -1, Guitar has -1 & +1 & -1. The fact that it has a limited dynamics & a sort decay & more limited counterpoint than the piano contributes to a more limited instrument. But I agree, it is easy to get around that. As I said, I ignored the argument of 'is it serious', I also ignored 'is it a bad instrument' because, no it isn't.


----------



## Tal

> Agreed. Silly argument and silly question. That is why I ignored the question and went on from there.


Why silly? There are people who think the guitar is not a serious instrument for classical music.
There are people on the other hand, like me, who think that the guitar is the most superior instrument ;-)
Although it is not the most sophisticated question and I agree that this is even childish quetion. However it is still good question.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Well, one must only point out out many people take it seriously and how many play it and how much music is written for it. Bingo, it is already serious; I doubt every piece written for guitar is a scherzo. It's seriousness can easily be accounted for, and I don't believe that is really what is meant by the title of this thread.



> There are people on the other hand, like me, who think that the guitar is the most superior instrument ;-)


Then there are me, who don't believe there is such a thing. Just because you play an instrument doesn't mean it is superior. IMO the ultimate instrument is the voice, but I don't believe it is superior _or_ better by any means. Arguable every other instruments (through evolution) aims on mimicking the voice, and the voice certainly is the most expressive (due to its inherent link to humanity), and expressivity is arguably the soul reason for music (and all the arts really).

Waffled a bit there (it's late), but I hope you get my point.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Yes, I agree with JTech82 - however, I also think there is a hierarchy of instruments in terms of their technical capabilities and level of difficulty to master.


Okay, Bach, what's this so-called hierarchy of the most difficult instruments?


----------



## Bach

Well, I haven't exactly compiled it, but I'll start.

Most difficult to master:

Piano (because of the cerebral and technical demands of the repertoire) 
Violin (because of the innate musicality and dedication required to make it sing)
Cello (similar reasons to the violin)

Most difficult to start (become proficient on)

Oboe (because of the reed, breathing, musicality required to keep it in tune and create beautiful tone)
Horn (because of the impossibly tight embouchure and close proximity of notes)
Voice (because you might not have one in the first place)

Technical Capabilities

Piano (harmonic, dynamic, contrapuntal, timbre)
Organ (harmonic, contrapuntal, range)
Violin (timbre, effects and manipulation, range)
Voice (timbre, effects and manipulation)


----------



## Herzeleide

Why is the violin harder than the viola? Is the horn harder than the digeridoo? Why is the piano harder to master than the guitar? Have you tried to master either instrument?

I'm afraid the answers to such question can never be found, and indeed, don't exist, mainly because everyone has different aptitudes and some people may find playing the clarinet (for example) easier than the trumpet etc.


----------



## Bach

The viola repertoire and requirements are easier. (other than that, it's the same I suppose - I'll admit to an oversight - but the solo repertoire on the viola is generally considerably easier than that of the violin) 

Guitar repertoire is A LOT easier than piano repertoire. Compare a piece of difficult guitar music by Albeniz or Rodrigo to the Hammerklavier by Beethoven or Boulez's second piano sonata. No comparison.

I'm an amateur (fairly rubbish) guitarist and a professional pianist. Guitar music is often very chordal, and if you know 'em then you can probably play it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Compare a piece of difficult guitar music by Albeniz or Rodrigo to the Hammerklavier by Beethoven or Boulez's second piano sonata. No comparison.
> 
> I'm an amateur (fairly rubbish) guitarist and a professional pianist. Guitar music is often very chordal, and if you know 'em then you can probably play it.


The guitar piece _Kurze Schatten_ by Brian Ferneyhough is harder than either the Boulez or Beethoven.


----------



## Bach

I doubt it. It takes a ridiculously adept pianist to offer a convincing interpretation of the Hammerklavier. Any inaccuracies stand out like black on white. Drawing from my knowledge of Ferneyhough's style I would say you could play any old tripe and convince the average audience you were note perfect.


----------



## Octave Box

themusicismymaster said:


> I am a musician,i play two instruments.one,the piano,is instantly recognised and respected,the other,the guitar,is not.The guitar is by far my favourite instrument,it is incredibly personla,there are hundreds of different inflections you can put onn a single note!Experimental tunings,multiple strings,various slides,such a wide array of sounds is possible!And yet it is unappreciated in the classical world!I feel the guitar is more expressive than the piano as i favour it's tone and the amount of control over the notes,the personal aspects of it!I could ramble on for hours... but i'll try to stick to the point,I also love electric guitar which is NOT as violent as it seems but that is a matter for another day,the point is I am appealing to those who dislike my instrument,who here doesn't like guitar!?


I am a classical guitarist myself. I do have an assortment of electric guitars that I haven't picked up in years. I feel that the guitar has a lot of power to it. It's a very capable instrument from solos to concertos. It's a unique sound that does have varying degrees of flexibility and is largely looked down upon because of it's abundance in popular music.


----------



## Tal

> I doubt every piece written for guitar is a scherzo


So you don't really familiar with the guitar repertuar again!

And about the "superior instrument". I called the guitar so just to defened my instrument.
I really think that it doesn't matter what instrument you play as long as you are good musician and I really mean it.
For me there is something sepacial about the guitar. I am adicted to this instrument and that is why I am a guitarist. However there is no really "superior instrument"- I agree.



> Guitar repertoire is A LOT easier than piano repertoire. Compare a piece of difficult guitar music by Albeniz or Rodrigo to the Hammerklavier by Beethoven or Boulez's second piano sonata. No comparison.


I am sorry but this sentence come from ignorance. Do you know all the guitar repertuar that you are talking?
The Hammerklavier is wounderful but what is it connected to Rodrigo's music? Did you ever tried to play Rodrigo's music on guitar?
It is just stupid comparison (sorry). And all your theory about what is the hardest instrument is illogical and tasteless.
Moreover, Rodrigo is not the only composer that wrote for guitar and in fact albeniz never wrote for guitar. Albeniz just admited that the arrs of some of his pieces to the guitar are better from the source(in his opinion).


----------



## Bach

The guitar is indeed a very beautiful instrument with a great many qualities. Perhaps it's greatest is freedom. It's an instrument which lends itself very well to improvisation - more so than the piano and far more so than violin or cello.


----------



## Tal

Bach said:


> The guitar is indeed a very beautiful instrument with a great many qualities. Perhaps it's greatest is freedom. It's an instrument which lends itself very well to improvisation - more so than the piano and far more so than violin or cello.


I think that it is again untrue and just come from tha image that the guitar has. Maybe because of the contact of the electrick guitar or other uses of the guitar.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> So you don't really familiar with the guitar repertuar again!


So every piece written for guitar IS a scherzo? Odd, the scores I have aren't....

Actually I read your sentence again, and it confused me. Are you saying that I am not familiar with the guitar repertoire?


----------



## Tal

Yagan Kiely said:


> So every piece written for guitar IS a scherzo? Odd, the scores I have aren't....


No...Sorry I read your post wrong..Sure that not every piece written for a guitar is a scherzo


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I can't remember why I said it now....


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I doubt it. It takes a ridiculously adept pianist to offer a convincing interpretation of the Hammerklavier. Any inaccuracies stand out like black on white. Drawing from my knowledge of Ferneyhough's style I would say you could play any old tripe and convince the average audience you were note perfect.


The same could be said about the Boulez if we're applying that old irksome, platitiudinous criticism of atonal music, where the 'right notes' can not be distinguished from the 'wrong'. This isn't the place for vulgar and glib insults of Ferneyhough.

I think the problem is that we need to define what 'mastery' of an instrument actually means. And since there are no pieces of the length of the Hammerklavier for the guitar, it's an unfair comparison. So, tell me, why if a guitarist learns several pieces in the time it takes for a pianist to learn one, it still means the piano is for some reason harder to master? Arguably the Hammerklavier takes more stamina, though since it is a self-contained composition built from the same material (and interrelated material) it would be easier to remember than an assortment of different pieces.

Anyway, mastery of an instrument can only ever been seen on its own terms. It's like languages - there is no such thing as a 'most difficult' language, because which ever language is most difficult depends on what your mother tongue is - Westerners may find Chinese very hard, but it would not be so hard for, for instance, a Korean (assuming the Westerner and Korean are of a similar intelligence).


----------



## Herzeleide

Tal said:


> I think that it is again untrue and just come from tha image that the guitar has. Maybe because of the contact of the electrick guitar or other uses of the guitar.


Yes - the solo piano is much easier to improvise on than solo classical guitar.


----------



## Bach

Herzeleide said:


> The same could be said about the Boulez


Not really, the Boulez is better known. I do like Ferneyhough, but I don't think he's the future of music. Too convoluted.

I don't really see the point in this argument - I know I'm right. The piano has harder and more serious repertoire written for it than the guitar. Nobody would make a 'Do you take the piano seriously as a musical instrument' thread - that should be indication enough.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I don't really see the point in this argument - I know I'm right.


LOL

Poor, callow, Generalissimo Bach.  You're not in the position to make such a judgement, whereas I play both the piano and guitar. And BTW, the concept of 'the music of the future' is meaningless. The music of the future doesn't exist because it's in the future.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Poor, callow, Generalissimo Bach.  You're not in the position to make such a judgement, whereas I play both the piano and guitar. And BTW, the concept of 'the music of the future' is meaningless. The music of the future doesn't exist because it's in the future.


I agree with this. (Doesn't mean I agree with you...)


----------



## Tal

Bach, listen, I really think that there is no easier instrument to improvise.
I think that we came to an understanding that the guitar is an instrument like other instruments, with adventages and disadventages. It is serious for those who take it seriously like every instrument and in fact everything.
This was intresting thread but I think that we "squeezed the subject".

It is really important issue for me and I am glad that we opened it.


----------



## Bach

I like the bloody guitar, I just think it's easier than the piano, violin and oboe - most people would agree with that!


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I like the bloody guitar, I just think it's easier than the piano, violin and oboe - most people would agree with that!


Not if they've actually played the instrument.


----------



## Bach

Including people that have played the instrument. My mother is a professional guitarist and she would agree with me.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Including people that have played the instrument. My mother is a professional guitarist and she would agree with me.




Does she also play the piano, in order to know that it's harder? Let me guess - she does.

Funny how you only mention this now. Enough of this nonsense - I'm off.


----------



## Bach

She doesn't play the piano.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I think that we came to an understanding that the guitar is an instrument like other instruments, with adventages and disadventages. It is serious for those who take it seriously like every instrument and in fact everything.
> This was intresting thread but I think that we "squeezed the subject".


No-one is saying that they don't like it or think it isn't serious... stop bringing that up, we've moved past that silly question.



> Funny how you only mention this now. Enough of this nonsense - I'm off.


All of the guitarists at my uni also, believe what we are saying. So does a Professional Guitarist with a doctorate on it and CDs... but this doesn't mean anything at all, that is why we didn't bring it up.



> Does she also play the piano, in order to know that it's harder?


It is not a requirement that you play the piano to give a comparison. You are setting up false parameters. I'm sure that's a fallacy, I just can't remember the name.

By default, piano has more notes and more complex counterpoint, it is automatically more difficult (once the technique of the instrument has been mastered - not before) to improvise on because there is much more to think about. An organ ever more so; stops, pedals etc.


----------



## Tal

Yagan Kiely said:


> No-one is saying that they don't like it or think it isn't serious... stop bringing that up, we've moved past that silly question.
> 
> All of the guitarists at my uni also, believe what we are saying. So does a Professional Guitarist with a doctorate on it and CDs... but this doesn't mean anything at all, that is why we didn't bring it up.
> 
> It is not a requirement that you play the piano to give a comparison. You are setting up false parameters. I'm sure that's a fallacy, I just can't remember the name.
> 
> By default, piano has more notes and more complex counterpoint, it is automatically more difficult (once the technique of the instrument has been mastered - not before) to improvise on because there is much more to think about. An organ ever more so; stops, pedals etc.


This question is the main theme of this thread and we finished with it so lets lock this thread.
It is silly to say what is harder. For who?
What is harder - to learn lenguage or Math? It is individual question.
Moreover it is required to play both instruments to compare.
Overall it is stupid comparison so it is not intersting for me to continue with it.
I reccomend to stop it here.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> What is harder - to learn lenguage or Math? It is individual question.


Bad bad bad... Humans have an in built 'mechanism' (so to speak) that makes them pre-disposed to learning 'a' language. Specifically 2-4 year olds; second languages around 16.



> Moreover it is required to play both instruments to compare.


Arguably you would never be able to master both instruments if you play both to your comparison is also just as lacking as if you only play one. Stop putting up false barriers that only help in stopping others from questioning your opinion. That is cheating so to speak.



> This question is the main theme of this thread and we finished with it so lets lock this thread.


Why? We deviated _slightly_ from the childish question to a strongly related question. Locking this thread up just because you don't like what some are saying is... silly...



> Overall it is stupid comparison so it is not intersting for me to continue with it.
> I reccomend to stop it here.


I wasn't.


----------



## Tal

Yagan Kiely said:


> Bad bad bad... Humans have an in built 'mechanism' (so to speak) that makes them pre-disposed to learning 'a' language. Specifically 2-4 year olds; second languages around 16.
> 
> Arguably you would never be able to master both instruments if you play both to your comparison is also just as lacking as if you only play one. Stop putting up false barriers that only help in stopping others from questioning your opinion. That is cheating so to speak.
> 
> Why? We deviated _slightly_ from the childish question to a strongly related question. Locking this thread up just because you don't like what some are saying is... silly...
> 
> I wasn't.


Lets begin:
I talked about new lenguage to learn. It is known that there are people who have the talent to learn new lenguage easily and they are people who find it very difficult. Regarding Math it is the same. As I said, it is silly to compare it generally.

I don't belive I am putting up false barriers by writing my opinion. I really belive that a person who doesn't play both instruments can't tell what is harder instrument to play. And it is connected to my previous claim because it is again individual.

I think that this thread is not devloping any kind of discussion from which we can gain something. It started from childish question, however it was important question in my opinion. 
Now it is even more childish because we are drawning to personal replies and illogical statements(from my poin of view).

I think that this thread need to be finished in the same subject.
Want to check what is the so called hardest instrument? --> open new thread...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I talked about new lenguage to learn.


You said language, not a new language.



> I really belive that a person who doesn't play both instruments can't tell what is harder instrument to play.


Did you know that myth busters do not need to do there 'experiments' to find out whether A can do B? It can be worked out without explosions.



> And it is connected to my previous claim because it is again individual.


Not what we are talking about. If you want to bring it down to that level, maybe you should start a new thread.



> Now it is even more childish because we are drawning to personal replies and illogical statements(from my poin of view).


Because someone dares to say that the guitar isn't perfect.



> I think that this thread is not devloping any kind of discussion from which we can gain something.


Because some think guitar isn't perfect... wow.



> however it was important question


Is the piano a serious instrument? Is that an important question? It is just as important as this question. What about Timpani? Do we really need the tambourine?



> Want to check what is the so called hardest instrument? --> open new thread...


You are completely missing the point of that discussion, it is very much related to the (slightly deviated) topic thread.


----------



## Tal

> You said language, not a new language.


And you are a petty..Do you always have to reply about everything. What do you want to achive through these remarks?



> Did you know that myth busters do not need to do there 'experiments' to find out whether A can do B? It can be worked out without explosions.


This is nice story. However it is not relevant.



> Not what we are talking about. If you want to bring it down to that level, maybe you should start a new thread.


When I am saying that other people have different difficaulties and therefore there is no "harder instrument", I "bring down the level"?


> Because someone dares to say that the guitar isn't perfect.
> 
> Because some think guitar isn't perfect... wow.


This is just teasing. 
I never said the word "perfect". 
Like every instrument the guitar has limitation, and so what?

There is no such a thing "pure perfect". And your reaply is just inappropriate.



> Is the piano a serious instrument? Is that an important question? It is just as important as this question. What about Timpani? Do we really need the tambourine?


I said that this is an important question because unlike piano there are many people who decry this instrument.

I find your reactions generally arrogant and disrespectful.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Do you always have to reply about everything.


1) I do what I hate other not doing - ignoring sentences that they don't like. 2)I'm defending myself because, how was I supposed to know you mean a new language when everything suggested otherwise?



> Do you always have to reply about everything.


Oh, let me introduce you to the word analogy. People use them sometimes.... I really can't believe you didn't recognise that; or are you just being stubborn?



> This is just teasing.
> I never said the word "perfect".
> Like every instrument the guitar has limitation, and so what?
> 
> There is no such a thing "pure perfect". And your reaply is just inappropriate.


What is childish, is that you accuse others of illogical childish statements purely because they have a different pov.



> I said that this is an important question because unlike piano there are many people who decry this instrument.


Regardless of whether people dislike the guitar or aspects about it, none actually believe it isn't serious. By default it is a 'serious' instrument because it is one of the most popular instruments. Case closed. Same goes for piano. Whether people dislike it or not has nothing to do with its seriousness.



> I find your reactions generally arrogant and disrespectful.


My reactions to what? You calling people childish and illogical because they bring up arguments against guitar? At least when I accuse people of illogical statements I back it up....



> When I am saying that other people have different difficaulties and therefore there is no "harder instrument", I "bring down the level"?


If you want to discuss the psychological differences in people and reasons thus that they may have trouble with an instrument, I don't believe that is in any way connected with this threads topic.


----------



## anacrusis

"Guitar repertoire is A LOT easier than piano repertoire"

That isn't true. There are plenty of pieces composed for the guitar that are comparable (in terms of relative difficulty) to much of the piano repertoire.

Berio-Sequenza XI
Koshkin-Sonata
Ferneyhough-Kurze Schatten II
Maw-Music of Memory
Sandstrom-Away From
Kurz-I Giardini del Sogno
Lindberg-Mano a Mano
Henze-Royal Winter Music
Rak-Terra Australis

I'm working on I Giardini del Sogno right now, and the score is extremely dense, across two staves in constantly changing meters, RIDICULOUS time signatures(often a different one in each staff), all types of strange harmonics, quarter tone bends, retuning during the piece, extended techniques etc. It is also VERY challenging to play physically, and interpretively.

Although it's true that the guitar does not have anything like Sorabji's "Opus Archimagicum", Rzewski's "The Road" or Finnissy's "History of Photography in Sound"...yet.


----------



## Argus

anacrusis said:


> "Guitar repertoire is A LOT easier than piano repertoire"
> 
> That isn't true. There are plenty of pieces composed for the guitar that are comparable (in terms of relative difficulty) to much of the piano repertoire.
> 
> Berio-Sequenza XI
> Koshkin-Sonata
> Ferneyhough-Kurze Schatten II
> Maw-Music of Memory
> Sandstrom-Away From
> Kurz-I Giardini del Sogno
> Lindberg-Mano a Mano
> Henze-Royal Winter Music
> Rak-Terra Australis


Do you know anywhere online where I can read the sheet music for any of these. I have never heard of any of them but your description of the techniques involved intrigues me. I'm particularly puzzled by the two staves aspect. Why is that necessary?


----------



## anacrusis

e-mail me: [email protected], I'll explain the techniques, score etc.

You can see a small clip of Marcin Dylla playing Music of Memory on youtube, but keep in mind the whole piece is about 20 minutes.

You can everything else on youtube as well, aside from I Giardini, and Away From.


----------



## Rasa

I can just contribute this: At my conservatory, Guitar Piano and violin are the three instruments that require the most practice hours. Singing is technically equally difficult but allows for less practice. Woodwinds are relatively easier.


----------



## handlebar

Of course. It is an instrument and a serious one at that.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Yes, of course I take guitar seriously as an instrument. However, I don't appreciate those who are interested in the instrument simply so that they can learn the "tabs" to their favorite "metal" tune, and in that respect, I don't take it seriously.


----------



## handlebar

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> Yes, of course I take guitar seriously as an instrument. However, I don't appreciate those who are interested in the instrument simply so that they can learn the "tabs" to their favorite "metal" tune, and in that respect, I don't take it seriously.


Indeed. I agree. One should learn to read music IMHO.But then again to play by ear also has my respect. I read and play by the printed notes AND by ear but I don't begrudge others and how they want to learn.

All depends on the genre of music I think.

Jim


----------



## David58117

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> Yes, of course I take guitar seriously as an instrument. However, I don't appreciate those who are interested in the instrument simply so that they can learn the "tabs" to their favorite "metal" tune, and in that respect, I don't take it seriously.


Well, figured bass has a history within classical music too, so it's not just the guitar playing "metalheads."

I wonder how many guitar players realize that...


----------



## Argus

anacrusis said:


> e-mail me: [email protected], I'll explain the techniques, score etc.
> 
> You can see a small clip of Marcin Dylla playing Music of Memory on youtube, but keep in mind the whole piece is about 20 minutes.
> 
> You can everything else on youtube as well, aside from I Giardini, and Away From.


Thanks. I'll have a listen to them on Youtube before I get back to you and see which pieces I find the most interesting. I don't really play too much modern classical on guitar even though I do enjoy listening to it, mainly because scores by Sor, Giuliani, Mertz, Carulli, Bach et al are in the public domain, so are easier (read cheaper) to find, whereas you have to really root for the modern stuff.



> Well, figured bass has a history within classical music too, so it's not just the guitar playing "metalheads."
> 
> I wonder how many guitar players realize that...


 Figured bass doesn't really have anything to do with tabs. Tabs tell you the fret position on the fretboard, whereas figured bass tells the musician what harmonic intervals to play over a bass note. One is far more difficult to learn to read well than the other.



> Yes, of course I take guitar seriously as an instrument. However, I don't appreciate those who are interested in the instrument simply so that they can learn the "tabs" to their favorite "metal" tune, and in that respect, I don't take it seriously.


I wouldn't categorise metal players as being like that. A lot of them get more into the mindset of music as a sport ie. trying to play the fastest, most complicated solo with as many sweeps and taps as possible without really thinking of keeping the actual music interesting by taking into account basic things like melody and rhythm. It becomes about showing off their 'mad skillz' rather than music for music's sake.

Anyway I can't knock tabs, as like most guitarists I started out on them before graduating to standard notation. It's a good way of allowing beginners to feel like they're making progress on their instrument without the rigmaroles of jumping in the deep end and learning to read sheet. Also, I find standard notation alone rather poor for genres like rock and blues, where there is no concrete notation for techniques like bending strings, pinch harmonics, slides, whammy bar divebombs, tapping and all external effects like wah-wah.


----------



## David58117

Argus said:


> Figured bass doesn't really have anything to do with tabs. Tabs tell you the fret position on the fretboard, whereas figured bass tells the musician what harmonic intervals to play over a bass note. One is far more difficult to learn to read well than the other.


Really, you don't see guitar tabs as a simplified version of figured bass? I know there's MORE to figured bass (such as a need for improvising, a requirement to know music theory, and it telling the rhythm as well) - but they're both short hand notation that uses numerical figures to identify "what to play." The differences occur because one's written following a staff, while the other is on a representation of a fretboard.


----------



## Rasa

David58117 said:


> Really, you don't see guitar tabs as a simplified version of figured bass? I know there's MORE to figured bass (such as a need for improvising, a requirement to know music theory, and it telling the rhythm as well) - but they're both short hand notation that uses numerical figures to identify "what to play." The differences occur because one's written following a staff, while the other is on a representation of a fretboard.


The thing is though, what is done with guitar tabs isn't half as crafty/ingenious/fine/exquisite as what people tend to do with figured basses


----------



## Argus

David58117 said:


> Really, you don't see guitar tabs as a simplified version of figured bass? I know there's MORE to figured bass (such as a need for improvising, a requirement to know music theory, and it telling the rhythm as well) - but they're both short hand notation that uses numerical figures to identify "what to play." The differences occur because one's written following a staff, while the other is on a representation of a fretboard.


I'll have to disagree there David. The closest thing to figured bass would be chord charts or slash notation, where the the chords are pre-determined but the voicings and rhythms are left up to the performer.


----------



## anacrusis

The Koshkin Sonata is probably the most accessible, but they will likely all require multiple listens to really "get".


----------



## jurianbai

Most of my guitar resources use TAB and Notation at the same time. It is a standard in Guitar Player and Guitar World magazine. So not much worry about tab right?










Guitar is a very succesful instrument in many style, certainly a serious instrument.


----------



## PWCom

Is guitar a serious instrument? Yes. 

Does it have non-serous practicioners that lower its esteem in the classical world? Yes.

Is it hard to master? That is harder to answer. I would say guitar is one of the easiest instruments to learn to play well (along with piano actually), but I'd say that it would be difficult to master it. 

I'll be honest, I think that the three hardest instruments to master are the french horn, the trombone, and the trumpet. None of these instruments are technically capable of what the guitar and the piano are capable of. They cannot play chords, they play cannot for longer than the performer can breathe, and they are the instruments with the largest physical endurance factor. Additionally, they have a limited range, tuning issues, they require large amounts of tone work to be listenable, and in the case of the trombone, they require ridiculous amounts of muscle memory in order to play something considered easy on other instruments. 

And that's not even counting what it takes to accurately hit high notes on a french horn, do a trill on trombone, or play a note lower than low F# on the trumpet. However, they do not just have limitations. All of them can all change their sound in a nearly limitless number of ways, such as mutes, pitchbends, alternate fingerings, different types of vibrato that can be applied seperately and in combination; or even something as simple as changing the air flow. 

My point is that an instrument shouldn't be judged merely by the number of classical concertos written for it, or by the number of notes it sees on the average page. If an instrument can be played to such a level that people will pay to listen to it, then it must have some merit. If an instrument is the most popular on the planet, then it must have value. And if someone could devote a lifetime to it, then it must be taken seriously.


----------



## linsey

First off, of course guitar is a real instrument, both electric and acoustic. The classical guitar definitely gives it respect in the classical world, and electric started entire genres of it's own. One thing I think is also relevant to this is metal music's similarity to baroque music. One wouldn't be able to see it unless they trained their ears to identify chordal progressions in metal music which definitely takes practice. But that shows how that music theory is still applied to the guitar, and I think furthers the argument that it is a legitimate instrument. I actually have a friend who knows his baroque music theory really well through formal classes and he uses it to write songs for his metal band. He does things like writing his songs out in figured bass notation, then coming up with riffs over that. I don't think there's many people left who would say all guitarists aren't musicians.

If what you mean by "more expressive" is that the guitar is able to change it's sound and texture more than piano, then I don't think anyone could argue that that's incorrect. Any electric guitar literally has infinite possible sounds that can come from it and most serious guitarists spend their a good part of their lives just trying to get exactly what they're looking for and still never quite find it. There are millions of different pickups, pedals, amps, etc. So guitar does have more possibilities in that way, because piano's can't change their actual natural sound without changing their construction itself and that's virtually impossible to do. Guitarists can just turn a know or plug a different pedal and completely change they're sound. I even know one guy who's so good at electric guitar he can play complicated piano pieces on guitar and he uses that for composing instead of piano. And from there he can experiment with different levels of distortion.

But expression has different definitions, there's definitely certain tones and feelings that you can only portray on piano. And expression can be thought of as a general portrayal of emotion as well which in many cases may work better on piano. For instance, portraying happiness or sadness is as easy as playing a minor or major chord with different dynamics. Although the same is true for guitar, I personally think it can often come across better on a piano. So I guess the argument of guitar being more expressive is really subjective.


----------



## leevshan

Beethoven, "guitar is a miniature orchestra." 

I think that says it all.


----------



## parsa

the answer is yes. its steel an instrument and its not only pop and rock and jazz and... i play classical and there are technical pieces composed by bach and albeniz and....


----------



## Yoshi

It used to be hard for me to take it seriously, because of the ridiculous amount of kids at school that would bring their guitars and claimed to be able to play. All they did was hitting the same chords over again, because supposedly that's how their favourite pop song sounded.
Also, right now my sister is one of those kids that wants to play guitar because it's 'cool'. All she does is going on youtube, check for tutorials, imitate the position of the fingers and play Hannah Banana or whatever her name 'songs'. She thinks that's playing music and calls herself a guitarist! If playing guitar was this, I would never take it seriously. But I know it isn't, therefore... yes it is a serious instrument.


----------



## Hermitus

Please read this, and than compare instruments of the same group, that could make sense in a way maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_instruments


----------



## Phidias

leevshan said:


> Beethoven, "guitar is a miniature orchestra."


Source please. I've seen that sentence attributed to so many people without any proof that i no longer believe anyone.

The only one who has said that for sure was Aguado, he wrote it on his method.


----------



## Tero

I don't understand the word "serious" in connection with music. It is all the same to me.


----------



## Phidias

Tero said:


> I don't understand the word "serious" in connection with music. It is all the same to me.


 Yup, all the same.


----------



## millionrainbows

The guitar's history is as a folk instrument, for accompanying singers. It's portable. It's cheaper than a piano. Its open strings limit it to certain more effective keys with open strings.

In fact, keyboards are more adapted to our key signature system, so keyboards have certain advantages.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Phidias said:


> Yup, all the same.
> 
> View attachment 20624


Who's that lady?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

leevshan said:


> Beethoven, "guitar is a miniature orchestra."
> 
> I think that says it all.


I believe he said that Giuliani makes the guitar sound like an orchestra.


----------



## millionrainbows

So, yes, I do consider the guitar as a serious classical instrument, as long as it's written for idiomatically, like Leo Brouwer. Segovia did a great service, but still, limitations arise. That Galbraith dude with 10 strings seems hell-bent on transcending those limitations. Good luck to all you guitar classical wanna-be wig-heads. I'll be listening to _De Cameron Negro_ and smoking a cigar, content in the knowledge that no-one has attempted to "stuff a horse into a suitcase." :lol:


----------



## starthrower

Does the guitar take Beethoven seriously?


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Does the guitar take Beethoven seriously?


 ...but can he play "San Antonio Rose?"


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That Galbraith dude with 10 strings seems hell-bent on transcending those limitations.


Galbraith's guitar is an 8-string--has an extra bass and an extra treble string.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kontrapunctus said:


> Galbraith's guitar is an 8-string--has an extra bass and an extra treble string.


Uh-huh. And the point is...I really didn't care enough to get up & look at the CD. I wish him, and all the 9, 10, 11, and 12 string players the best of luck with their Mozart transcriptions. Although Bill Kannengeiser is quite convincing, it still strikes me as trying to "stuff a horse into a suitcase." :lol:


----------



## mtmailey

I think they are both popular the guitar is popular in other cultures like in spanish/latin music.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't know if Segovia did the guitar any good or not, giving it "respectability." He was sure a pompous old coot. Maybe he should have just left it to the gypsies.


----------



## Jord

I play Guitar and Piano, guitar being my main instrument, i grew up playing Rock and Metal, not so much anymore, and out of everyone i know my age who plays guitar, i'd say about 2 - 3% of people that i know, probably not even that much can read anything other than tab, a few can't even read tab, they don't know their chords, scales, anything, all they can play is rock, badly, if that's even possible, so i'd say guitar can be taken seriously as a musical instrument when real musicians are playing


----------



## senza sordino

I love my guitar. While the classical repertoire may not be as extensive as the piano or violin, it doesn't make it less respectable. Rodrigo's Concerto de Aranjuez is beautiful.


----------



## Gilberto

themusicismymaster said:


> I feel the guitar is more expressive than the piano as i favour it's tone and the amount of control over the notes,the personal aspects of it!


"More expressive"? Both instruments can be expressive but by volume alone, the guitar is dead in the water. So there is that limitation. Control over the notes; perhaps.

I studied classical guitar for more than a decade. Used as a solo instrument or in a small ensemble, it is suitable. I think this is why I love the baroque era so much. And the whole concept of a guitar concerto makes me ill. I have never ever heard one that didn't bore me to tears. Out of its element...like a cap pistol at a shooting gallery.


----------



## GreyEclipse

I love the guitar for its musical versatity. It's not the guitars fault that everybody under the sun tries to pick it up and ends up giving it a bad name. Ill say it again, I love the guitar!


----------



## ClassicalGuitarist

I play guitar and Piano


----------



## pirastro

"A real shame if someone still thinks the guitar is just used to play rock/pop songs and to entertain groups of teenangers by the fireplace."
Well.
I try not to take guitar seriously and really envy those that could do the above.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I play the guitar, but I'm not amazing at it. I do take it seriously, but I do not really like electric guitars.


----------



## Guest

I think the problem with guitar is that every Tom, Dick and Harry plays one and only one in 10 took any lessons and even then stopped after maybe a year. So, it's become an everyman's instrument played by people who prefer tabs to notes. Also many guitar-players have crappy technique. I see a lot of guitar guys that parallel everything. A lot guitarists prefer the barre chord to the open chord and that's generally the wrong way to go. You should change hand position as little as possible instead of jumping from a 3rd fret barre chord to a 10th fret barre chord or whatever. But a lot of people do that not realizing how much more musical it is to get away from paralleling. It's pretty bad in the U.S. That causes the serious music circles to regard the guitar with suspicion. However, I play guitar and I enjoy it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I raraely get interested listening to classical guitar - I love rodrigos guitar concerto - and some pieces - such as the tarrega tremolo piece - but beyond that ...

I thought the harp was a boring instrument though - until I heard a piece live the other night - must be painful on the fingers


----------



## pianolearnerstride

I love listening to classical guitar. Plus there are so many great players today.


----------



## Jos

I take it seriously in pop and jazz.
In classical music it usually bores me to tears, maybe because I was one of those Tom Dick and Harrys who picked up the guitar to give it a go (well, I played seriously for over five years) and wasn't very good at it.
Not enough volume, and it usually just noodles on and on. 
Sorry guitarists.


----------



## Guest

Jos said:


> I take it seriously in pop and jazz.
> In classical music it usually bores me to tears, maybe because I was one of those Tom Dick and Harrys who picked up the guitar to give it a go (well, I played seriously for over five years) and wasn't very good at it.
> Not enough volume, and it usually just noodles on and on.
> Sorry guitarists.


And pop and jazz doesn't "just noodle on and on"?


----------



## Jos

Kontrapunctus said:


> And pop and jazz doesn't "just noodle on and on"?


Euh, yes. Correct, in some jazz it can be extremely longwinding too. 
And those twenty minutes Carlos Santana solos are not for the fainthearted either.......


----------



## EDaddy

In the right hands, you bet I do! Listen to these and then tell me with a straight face that the guitar isn't an instrument to be taken seriously.







Scott Henderson Live - Check out _Sultan's Boogie_







Jeff Beck - Live At Ronnie Scotts - Check out _Brush With The Blues_







Shakti with John McLaughlin - Check out _Face To Face_


----------



## Couac Addict

...only when fireworks are shooting out of the headstock.


----------



## tdc

Yes, but I take all the instruments seriously. 

That said I generally prefer polyphonic instruments for solo classical pieces, so I usually prefer keyboards, guitars, lutes etc. over solo violin, cellos, flutes etc.


----------



## Merl

Do I take guitars seriously? Yep, I love my guitars and all sorts of guitar music. I have 3 acoustics and 5 electrics at home....

Vintage V100








Legacy Classic Collection Emerald








Vintage VRS








And I also have a Legacy LP copy (beater) that's had loads of mods and upgrades and finally a Spear Relic LP copy (love that funky finish and those P90s)


----------



## realdealblues

Like Merl, I take it seriously as well. After taking piano lessons as a kid I eventually found my way to the guitar and have been playing ever since...

Here's one I put together a while back. It started out life as a plain black Stratocaster that I had done several modifications too. I did a Hendrix tribute with it one day and burned it with a few quarts of lighter fluid. I then sanded it all down, stained it and put some clear back on it.

Loved the way it turned out. I'll have to find a better picture of it put all together. It looks much better in person...
Oh, and the square cut in the back was a battery hole I routed out for a Clapton mid boost circuit I had installed in it. I eventually took it out and didn't feel like filling the hole but there is a nice polished piece of aluminum screwed over it now.


----------



## Merl

realdealblues said:


> Like Merl, I take it seriously as well. After taking piano lessons as a kid I eventually found my way to the guitar and have been playing ever since...
> 
> Here's one I put together a while back. It started out life as a plain black Stratocaster that I had done several modifications too. I did a Hendrix tribute with it one day and burned it with a few quarts of lighter fluid. I then sanded it all down, stained it and put some clear back on it.
> 
> Loved the way it turned out. I'll have to find a better picture of it put all together. It looks much better in person...
> Oh, and the square cut in the back was a battery hole I routed out for a Clapton mid boost circuit I had installed in it. I eventually took it out and didn't feel like filling the hole but there is a nice polished piece of aluminum screwed over it now.
> 
> View attachment 113057
> 
> View attachment 113058
> 
> View attachment 113059
> 
> View attachment 113060


That looks really nice, RDB. Very Rory Gallagher.


----------



## starthrower

Jos said:


> Euh, yes. Correct, in some jazz it can be extremely longwinding too.
> And those twenty minutes Carlos Santana solos are not for the fainthearted either.......


Santana has never played a 20 minute solo. Not even close. Seems there always has to be at least one troll in every thread talking nonsense.


----------



## flamencosketches

Hell yeah, I take it seriously. It was my first instrument and still my favorite, though I began playing long before I ever got into classical music. I certainly enjoy it more in popular music than in classical, though classical guitar is awesome too. A nylon string classical guitar has a very unique timbre in the right hands. I've got about six guitars and love em all; now I want a classical guitar though.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

Beethoven and Berlioz once said the the guitar is like an orchestra miniature. And Paganini mastered the guitar.


----------



## flamencosketches

ClassicalMaestro said:


> Beethoven and Berlioz once said the the guitar is like an orchestra miniature. And Paganini mastered the guitar.


Was Berlioz quoting Beethoven, or did he just experience the serendipity of having the same thought as him? Why did Beethoven never write much guitar music, if any?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I am going to burn a guitar today . It has been a beautiful and strange instrument .


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Truss rod retrieved from the ashes ... it's been tied to a tree's trunk .


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Isn't the guitar a musical instrument?


----------



## Merl

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Isn't the guitar a musical instrument?


Not in some people's hands......


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Haha! That was awesome...NOT. Nice to see Fred Durst and those hiphop guys make a fool of themselves. Here's a guy who can make music together with a real instrument. Must be taken seriously then.


----------



## starthrower

Funny that the OP thought the guitar is not respected. That might have been true 60 years ago but not anymore. Segovia raised the guitar's standing in the classical world followed by Julian Bream, John Williams, the Romeros and others. And there are so many great jazz, rock, folk, and blues players. And country and bluegrass too.


----------



## Larkenfield

_Do you take the guitar seriously as a musical instrument? _

Classical guitar? Of course! (Jazz and Country guitar too but for different reasons.) What's not to love or at least respect? But I feel that it sometimes does not get the respect it deserves because it's more of a chamber instrument with its more intimate, smaller volume of sound. But the literature written for guitar is rich, colorful, sensual and inventive, even if there's not enough of it and the guitarists sometimes have to rely on transcriptions. I find it hard to imagine any less effort and artistry going into playing it than any other classical instrument, and I consider it one of the most romantic of all for expressing intimacy, tenderness and love.






Beautiful!


----------



## Larkenfield

More outstanding Alexandra Whittingham...


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Having burnt my old guitar in the trash fire , I'm learning to play a new one . It's physical of nerves and bone and muscle , thus of new life .


----------



## Merl

I've got my eye on a guitar upgrade so I'm going to sell the two guitars below. I'm swapping out the pickups from the Legacy first (as I love the sound of the hot EMG pickups on it) and getting an earthing problem sorted on the Spear Relic. Nowt wrong with either guitar otherwise but I have my eye on a few others.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I've quite committed to an acoustic arch-top .

Commitment is serious , right ?


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

I play classical Guitar and it's my primary instrument. I'm also starting to play the Cello because I always loved the rich sound but that's another story for another time. Like Beethoven said the classical guitar is a miniature orchestra in itself. I also think its one of the most difficult instruments to master because you're using both hands with no other tools besides your nails. I think the downfall is the volume. It just can't produce the kind of volume and sustain like its distant stringed cousins. Improvements have been made to the classical guitar to create more volume but when played with an orchestra and even solo if its a large hall, amplification is needed to produce volume and unfortunately takes away from the natural tone of the guitar. The guitar is a very beautiful instrument and I encourage other musicians to listen to the great recordings of Segovia, Bream, Williams, and Parkening so they can hear too what the classical guitar is capable of and why it's so difficult to play. I'm glad I can read sheet music and learn so many wonderful pieces that are available to me.

And yes, I take it very seriously.


----------



## starthrower

I wish I had kept up my playing and reading. I've lost my skills for both. I got inspired to play after attending an Eliot Fisk concert in 1978. Hard to believe he's been at it that long. I also enjoy Sharon Isbin, and the LAGQ.


----------



## millionrainbows




----------



## EdwardBast

flamencosketches said:


> Was Berlioz quoting Beethoven, or did he just experience the serendipity of having the same thought as him? Why did Beethoven never write much guitar music, if any?


Berlioz actually played the instrument.


----------



## Guest

one of the rare instruments that can be polyphonic alone


----------



## consuono

I've dabbled in classical guitar. I don't take it a seriously as I did before I found out that many classical guitarists are convinced that Andrew York's "Home" is some kind of modern masterpiece.

To be brutally honest, the classical guitar's repertoire is lacking, and the instrument doesn't have enough ensemble pieces to fill the void. It has a lovely tone and can be harmonically interesting though.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I take guitar seriously as a musical instrument for non classical, in fact it is the main instrument in my book. But for classical, I am not interested in hearing guitar.


----------



## consuono

I'll say though that I greatly prefer the guitar to the lute, especially "extended range" guitars.


----------



## Musicaterina

Luigi Boccherini (one of my favourite composers generally) has composed lovely guitar quintets  .


----------



## Guest

I certainly do. I've played classical guitar for some 40 years. I do wish it had a richer repertoire along the lines of the piano, but there are plenty of fine transcriptions and original works to satisfy me. I'm currently working on "Manuel Ponce's Theme, Variations, and Fugue on La Folia." Here is what I hope it sounds like someday!


----------



## Guest

After posting that message, I find myself drawn more to the piano. I took lessons on/off for the past few years, but I got frustrated by having to learn a new instrument from the ground up. However, while I enjoy playing the guitar, I do far prefer listening to the piano and it's vastly richer repertoire. I'll probably continue to play the guitar, but I think I'll concentrate more on the piano for a while.


----------



## consuono

Fugal said:


> After posting that message, I find myself drawn more to the piano. I took lessons on/off for the past few years, but I got frustrated by having to learn a new instrument from the ground up. However, while I enjoy playing the guitar, I do far prefer listening to the piano and it's vastly richer repertoire. I'll probably continue to play the guitar, but I think I'll concentrate more on the piano for a while.


While the piano repertoire is incomparably vast, there is something to be said for being more closely involved in tone production with the plucked and bowed string instruments. You really do have a more intimate connection with the music you're playing. Although the piano is my primary instrument, I do feel that it can be coldly mechanical, comparatively. I've put piano and guitar on the back burner and now have been concentrating on the cello for a good while. A piano can't really sing; a cello can.


----------



## Flamme

Well ovcourse! Even Jesus Played it!!!


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> While the piano repertoire is incomparably vast, there is something to be said for being more closely involved in tone production with the plucked and bowed string instruments. You really do have a more intimate connection with the music you're playing. Although the piano is my primary instrument, I do feel that it can be coldly mechanical, comparatively. I've put piano and guitar on the back burner and now have been concentrating on the cello for a good while. A piano can't really sing; a cello can.


I do love the guitar's intimacy and tonal colors. I'll never play the piano as well as I do the guitar, and sometimes that frustrates me no end. Had I started playing the piano at the same age as when I began to play the guitar, and put the same amount of time into it, I could probably play Beethoven's "Hammklavier" Sonata these days! Oh, the choices we make.


----------

