Having spent a lot of time in the introverted world of classical guitar, I appreciate and respect Segovia's work and the world of many more like him. I also appreciate having such immediate access to this interview. That being said, I think this interview oversells the classical guitar's abilities as displayed in most practical performances. The guitar's timbre is not the primary and immediate reason why it is difficult for a non-guitarist to compose for it. I feel like discussing the timbres of a guitar is a poetic distraction from the real elephant in the room: the left hand's limitations in access to what notes at any given time. The topic of guitar timbre raises a secondary segue in place of the primary concern of what you are asking a performer's fretting hand to execute. I personally find the classical guitar a beautiful instrument and is capable of a great deal. However, its handful of shortcomings are unjustly compounded by the demands of our overstimulated and volume-obsessed modernity; for better or for worse. Claiming that it is a "tiny-orchestra-in-a-cedar/spruce-box" is setting it up for failure. This sentiment strikes almost like the hyperbolic romance between a young couple before reality sweeps aside that idyllic honeymoon season of life. In Segovia's day prior to our widespread access to recorded high fidelity recordings and DAW technology, perhaps the guitar was more of a siren that could lull a mind into a watercolor dream of portable philharmonic potential. I personally am happy when moments like this can happen in full piece of music, but that's the trick: getting them to be realized in full pieces. Therefore, a solution I propose would be to point out what the instrument can do in comparison to its mechanical peers. for merely one instance: *Isaac Albéniz: Torre Bermeja (1888), de Doce piezas características Op. 92, nº 12* ruclips.net/video/V7xuPiiGqio/видео.html THE PIANO in this corner (Esteban Sánchez) *Isaac Albéniz' "Torre Bermeja" performed by Jack Davisson on a 1971 Jose Oribe "Calidad Suprema"* versus THE GUITAR in this corner ruclips.net/video/GvT2cSIbi9c/видео.html Notice how the piano cannot perform the pizzicato-like technique as demonstrated by the guitarist in the video's mark at approximately 2:04 of the Jack Davisson performance. I noticed this while listening to a recording by Julian Bream, whose thumb seemed to almost over-emphasize this technique (I cannot find that Bream recording on RUclips; alas I heard it on a radio station). I'll let the listener decide whether they like the freed polyphony of the piano versus the colorful intimacy of the guitar strings in regards to the piece as a whole. However, I cannot deny that the pizzicato technique that was a tiny moment that brought a metaphorical grin to my imagination -- almost as if the guitarist could say to the pianist : "Maybe I cannot play that bass note at that octave... but I can do THIS!". Perhaps that's what Segovia truly meant and I am misinterpreting his intention of this poetic segue. After all, his answer to the question is a lot more intriguing than: "Well, here's the problem: I only have four fingers on the fretboard which are like a spotlight to available notes, minus the open strings. When a composer wants to think of the piano as a three-octave-plus-a-fifth piano that composer will fail to make something playable. Even worse, a thumb cannot compete with a pianist's left hand. Here's a lot more things that a guitar CANNOT DO!" Thus, Segovia was in the business of selling the guitar to the world and not informing potential hearers what it cannot do.
You have to go with what it can do. All of the slurs, hammers, etc.are unique to the guitar, and cannot be done on a piano. The most expressive characteristic is that it can be tuned, and you don't have to stay in tempered tuning- you are forced to use "key coloring", which was used on pianos untill they finally gave it to equal temperment, around 1850. Equal temperment has been called atonal, due to its having lost the tonal gravity of harmonics.
Isn’t focusing primarily on what the guitar can’t do (vs. its possibilities) a sort of discontented poetic distraction?? I don’t think Segovia’s point of view here is just the business of selling guitar. I believe he is sincere and his career and impact of guitar has validated his approach.
Yo pienso que ambos instrumentos son extraordinarios y auténticos reyes en su género. Cada uno tiene limitaciones. Finalmente, cada uno destaca en su campo. En cuanto a color, desde luego la mecánica interpuesta de un piano no puede rivalizar con un instrumento como la guitarra. Ni en muchos otros recursos expresivos y sonoros. Evidentemente, en cuanto a posibilidades polifónicas, el piano manda. Para mi son ambos dos cumbres, cada una en lo suyo. OTros instrumentos necesitan siempre ser acompañados, dan poco de sí, o cansan al poco rato. El piano y la guitarra, no. Son maravillosos.
Segovia was the father of the guitar by right of merit. He earned this title. He understood the instrument more than anyone else. He was also very charismatic in communicating his knowledge. He may have no time for beginners and untalented but as a guitarist today if you listen to what he says and do his practicing routines you'll realise how far ahead of his time he really was.
I'm whatever the musical equivalent of illiterate is, but I still experience the sounds of great composers/players deep inside my soul. My grandfather was the same and had Segovia's - and Pablo Casals' - recordings. He was a tough old dude, but his eyes would mist as the albums popped on the turntable. Am digging a lot of these comments - posted by those who have a depth of knowledge I lack ~ yet passion shared. Paz y luz
30 seconds - 1:30 spot on explanation . IMHO the piano is probably close in color or timbre . " Not really listening to music ...... dreaming with music " , that was beautifully spoken .
Sólo en muy contadas y extraordinarias ocasiones he asistido a esas veladas memorables en las que la inspiración del músico ha logrado el milagro del verdadero arte. Entonces creo que he experimentado ese sueño del que habla Segovia. Generalmente escucho a la vez que estoy pendiente de (tengo formación en guitarra clásica) del detalle, la técnica, el fraseo, la pulsación, los errores, las cosas que no me gustan, el timbre, el instrumento, la postura, el estilo... Pero cuando un artista logra alcanzar lo sublime, ya no escucho, ya no critico, ya no estoy pendiente de nada, sólo de la música y la belleza, en un especie de ensueño desconectado del mundo y del entorno. Quizá sea es el sueño del que habla. Y sucede tan pocas veces (incluso con los más grandes músicos) Un concierto con Jordi Savall en San Felipe Neri, en Barcelona, éramos cuatro gatos un mediodía... fue uno de esos ensueños.
He was not the first to play a mixed repertoire out of Spain. He was just the first to segregate the flamenco repertoire, excluding it for reasons which research shows to have been, lets say politely, complicated.
@@AndSendMe Would you be willing to elaborate in a frank manner? My current impression is that you're saying the man didn't like flamenco and wanted to play classical guitar otherwise. EDIT: or perhaps that the world of flamenco rejected him.
This is fascinating, as it reminds me of the approach of Romantic pianists like Horowitz or Moiseiwitsch, who sought to "orchestrate" at the piano. Segovia was such an imaginative colorist..
Please forgive the sales pitch but we have a good festive deal on our Segovia films, on DVD, if you’d like to permanently own a copy: allegrofilms.com/collections/the-films/products/andres-segovia-at-los-olivos-the-song-of-the-guitar
He plays beautifully and explains sound color very well, but this does not explain why the guitar had very little repertoire up to this point. If anything, the variety of colors available on the guitar would make it more appealing composers. It has a lot more to do with classical tradition and the cultural status of the guitar.
Segovia is correct, but there are few more factors: guitar was 1) underdeveloped in terms of projection (body too small, poor projection, tone dies quickly), and it had irregular tuning (a mix of 4ths and major 3rds, which make fretboard a mess). As such, it was and it still is difficult to play. All other string instruments have regular tuning of some kind (violin, cello), all woodwinds and piano have regular tuning, even the recorder, and all of them are easier to learn to play. So the major composers skipped it - instrument was not developed enough to make it worthwhile, because it's quiet, and few people could play it well.
@@zvonimirtosic6171 Not all string instruments have regular tuning. The lute, for example, has a less regular tuning than the guitar and was used in classic music during the baroque and renaissance periods. It is completely normal for plucked string instruments to have a tuning which facilitates chord shapes, which the guitar has. As far as this making guitar more difficult than cello or violin, that is nonsense. I play both guitar and cello, and the cello is so much more difficult. As far as piano or woodwinds having more regular tunings, these instruments are designed around particular scales, and playing in other keys is more difficult than the home key. I don't know how this is "regular". Guitar is actually more isomorphic than most other instruments because it is arranged in a chromatic way, rather than according to a scale. For me, the main challenge with classical guitar comes from coordinating the movements of the left hand to play multiple parts together, but I am not sure that guitar is much more challenging than most other instruments, and I say that as someone who plays multiple string, woodwind and keyboard instruments. Composers could have learned to play and write for guitar if they chose to, and it's not uncommon today that they do. This is due primarily to a cultural shift, but it is also true, as you say, that the instruments have improved very much in the last century or two.
@@ninjaaron Irregular tuning on the guitar is the artefact of the past, and of guitar's simplistic use and poor repertoire. It is not a thoughtful design conclusion that really makes sense for the instrument to play a very complex music. The tuning was devised (adapted) by poor amateurs who had non-existing repertoire - there is nothing to brag about there. It works well for simplistic use only. As such, it is indeed one of the reasons why it is difficult to play the guitar now when its body size, scale, frets, tone woods, etc. are all well designed, but only few dared to play on it more than simple strums as it was done way back in the past. So there is incongruence between the design, and music, one does not follow the other. Another problem was projection. The lute you mentioned, was defined long before the guitar, and was a well-established instrument, with a decent repertoire in court and dance music, and had a good following. The guitar had to "steal" and adapt lute's repertoire. If you exclude many adapted pieces, then the guitar's repertoire was below abysmal. The guitar is - still - mostly used in genres based on primitive (folk) rhythmic music and its many derivatives: from Flamenco, to blues, rock, etc., with patterned (easy to visually memorise) approach to playing. For more complex music, like cool jazz, fusion, classical, neoclassical, etc. the instrument is very challenging, where only very dedicated musicians can excel. In short, while on most instruments one can learn a song by ear, then follow regular pattern to play it easily in different octaves and keys, on irregularly tuned guitar it becomes a nonsensical mess and a real-time game of sudoku on the fretboard.
@@zvonimirtosic6171 > Irregular tuning on the guitar is the artefact of the past, and of guitar's simplistic use and poor repertoire. It is not a thoughtful design conclusion that really makes sense for the instrument to play a very complex music. The tuning was devised (adapted) by poor amateurs who had non-existing repertoire - there is nothing to brag about there. This is absolutely untrue. Numerous guitar tunings have been used throughout the ages and are still used today both in classical and popular music. The fact that the guitar has a major triad and a minor triad built into it's tuning is only a benefit for chordal or polyphonic music. Regular tunings exist for the guitar and some people make very good use of them. all-fourths tuning is great for playing melodies, but it falls apart for polyphonic music unless you're approaching the instrument from an entirely new direction like Stanley Jordan (a great user of fourths tuning). If regular tunings were more beneficial for playing classical music, classical musicians would use them. For the most part, they don't use them because standard tuning presents the best compromise between regularity and suitability for polyphonic and chordal music. > In short, while on most instruments one can learn a song by ear, then follow regular pattern to play it easily in different octaves and keys, on irregularly tuned guitar it becomes a nonsensical mess and a real-time game of sudoku on the fretboard. Have you ever played a woodwind or keyboard instrument? This is completely untrue. Transposing on guitar is generally much easier because scale patterns are the same in all keys---they are simply moved up and down the neck. Most instruments are not like this. Learning all the scales on guitar takes a little practice, but this is true of literally every other instrument as well. Guitar is not more difficult than other instruments. Playing the styles you mention is of course difficult on guitar, but they are difficult on every other instrument as well. Jazz and classical are challenging on every instrument because players are constantly pushing the boundaries of what has been done.
no sry, i have another pianissimo question (for anyone)......, is there another term for pianissimo style of guitar playing? i search and dont find the correct results
Chris Nupen was not correct in saying that there was no repertoire for classical guitar when Segovia started. There is quite a huge one already. We had the works of Sor, Giuliani, Carulli, Aguado, Tarrega, Llobet, Pujol, etc.
Definitely not yamaha C 40 hahaha.. He played Ramirez guitars throughout 1960s. Anyways if you just started playing, C40 is more than good enough for you cuz you wouldnt really know the difference until you got to a certain level. It's equally playable as premium ones.
The problem with Segovia was he never ventured into the Electric guitar scene. This set the Electric guitar back decades as he would of took the electric guitar to places no one would of expected. Still he was the one who took the classical guitar to it’s limits. His touch technique is one of the best ever no one comes close not even his students.
@@georgesheffield1580 Would like to see any videos of that in order to see how he approached his playing technique unto the electric guitar with the pick or finger style.
If Segovia successfully widened the gulf between the much nearer relations of flamenco and classical guitar into two distinct dedicated disciplines, then we can safely assume that he only viewed the electric guitar developments through a spyglass. I strongly doubt that Segovia wanted to distract himself from his lifelong mission by dabbling in the electric. [edit] Segovia called the electric guitar "an abomination"... nuff said.
If you mean normal electric guitar, no. I don't think the sound suits classical guitar music. Electric classical guitars have the potential, but it was only invented towards the end of his lifetime. Why should he bother, if Ramirez can fulfill his goal? By no means, it is not a problem that he didn't. Many excellent guitarists play extremely well with the electric. John Williams tried electric, but he was not outstanding, despite his outstanding skill with the classical one.
There's no way Segovia could have dabbled in electric. He was very traditionalist when it came to the guitar as an instrument. He famously never used amplification in his performances even when the technology became widespread, instead he relied solely on his own skills in projecting the sound of the instrument. He once described the electric guitar as 'an abomination,' expressing that no electric equivalents existed for the violin and cello, so why should an electric guitar exist? Segovia was a classical guitarist deeply dedicated to his craft, and ultimately, that's what he was: a dedicated classical guitarist who saw little reason to leave the world he loved and had revolutionized.
It's been quoted that Segovia was the Father of the Guitar. Though it is true he is one of the fathers of "Modern Guitar" as we know it today. However, the "Lyre" is the Ancestor to the Modern Guitar. Now, as to those who have been quoted saying that Segovia or Any other Guitarist was, or is the greatest Guitarist, I would refer them to David's Lyre Playing when he played to King Saul, who was under a curse from The Almighty. David's playing "Soothed" Saul's tormet from the curse. And btw.... I've been playing and enjoying listening to Segovia play Modern guitar for over 50 years.🙏
Having spent a lot of time in the introverted world of classical guitar, I appreciate and respect Segovia's work and the world of many more like him. I also appreciate having such immediate access to this interview. That being said, I think this interview oversells the classical guitar's abilities as displayed in most practical performances. The guitar's timbre is not the primary and immediate reason why it is difficult for a non-guitarist to compose for it. I feel like discussing the timbres of a guitar is a poetic distraction from the real elephant in the room: the left hand's limitations in access to what notes at any given time. The topic of guitar timbre raises a secondary segue in place of the primary concern of what you are asking a performer's fretting hand to execute.
I personally find the classical guitar a beautiful instrument and is capable of a great deal. However, its handful of shortcomings are unjustly compounded by the demands of our overstimulated and volume-obsessed modernity; for better or for worse. Claiming that it is a "tiny-orchestra-in-a-cedar/spruce-box" is setting it up for failure. This sentiment strikes almost like the hyperbolic romance between a young couple before reality sweeps aside that idyllic honeymoon season of life. In Segovia's day prior to our widespread access to recorded high fidelity recordings and DAW technology, perhaps the guitar was more of a siren that could lull a mind into a watercolor dream of portable philharmonic potential. I personally am happy when moments like this can happen in full piece of music, but that's the trick: getting them to be realized in full pieces.
Therefore, a solution I propose would be to point out what the instrument can do in comparison to its mechanical peers. for merely one instance:
*Isaac Albéniz: Torre Bermeja (1888), de Doce piezas características Op. 92, nº 12*
ruclips.net/video/V7xuPiiGqio/видео.html THE PIANO in this corner (Esteban Sánchez)
*Isaac Albéniz' "Torre Bermeja" performed by Jack Davisson on a 1971 Jose Oribe "Calidad Suprema"* versus THE GUITAR in this corner
ruclips.net/video/GvT2cSIbi9c/видео.html
Notice how the piano cannot perform the pizzicato-like technique as demonstrated by the guitarist in the video's mark at approximately 2:04 of the Jack Davisson performance. I noticed this while listening to a recording by Julian Bream, whose thumb seemed to almost over-emphasize this technique (I cannot find that Bream recording on RUclips; alas I heard it on a radio station). I'll let the listener decide whether they like the freed polyphony of the piano versus the colorful intimacy of the guitar strings in regards to the piece as a whole. However, I cannot deny that the pizzicato technique that was a tiny moment that brought a metaphorical grin to my imagination -- almost as if the guitarist could say to the pianist : "Maybe I cannot play that bass note at that octave... but I can do THIS!".
Perhaps that's what Segovia truly meant and I am misinterpreting his intention of this poetic segue. After all, his answer to the question is a lot more intriguing than:
"Well, here's the problem: I only have four fingers on the fretboard which are like a spotlight to available notes, minus the open strings. When a composer wants to think of the piano as a three-octave-plus-a-fifth piano that composer will fail to make something playable. Even worse, a thumb cannot compete with a pianist's left hand. Here's a lot more things that a guitar CANNOT DO!"
Thus, Segovia was in the business of selling the guitar to the world and not informing potential hearers what it cannot do.
So what are you trying to say?
@@TheManDownstairs13 Read it again
You have to go with what it can do. All of the slurs, hammers, etc.are unique to the guitar, and cannot be done on a piano. The most expressive characteristic is that it can be tuned, and you don't have to stay in tempered tuning- you are forced to use "key coloring", which was used on pianos untill they finally gave it to equal temperment, around 1850. Equal temperment has been called atonal, due to its having lost the tonal gravity of harmonics.
Isn’t focusing primarily on what the guitar can’t do (vs. its possibilities) a sort of discontented poetic distraction?? I don’t think Segovia’s point of view here is just the business of selling guitar. I believe he is sincere and his career and impact of guitar has validated his approach.
Yo pienso que ambos instrumentos son extraordinarios y auténticos reyes en su género. Cada uno tiene limitaciones. Finalmente, cada uno destaca en su campo. En cuanto a color, desde luego la mecánica interpuesta de un piano no puede rivalizar con un instrumento como la guitarra. Ni en muchos otros recursos expresivos y sonoros. Evidentemente, en cuanto a posibilidades polifónicas, el piano manda. Para mi son ambos dos cumbres, cada una en lo suyo. OTros instrumentos necesitan siempre ser acompañados, dan poco de sí, o cansan al poco rato. El piano y la guitarra, no. Son maravillosos.
Segovia was the father of the guitar by right of merit. He earned this title. He understood the instrument more than anyone else. He was also very charismatic in communicating his knowledge. He may have no time for beginners and untalented but as a guitarist today if you listen to what he says and do his practicing routines you'll realise how far ahead of his time he really was.
I'm whatever the musical equivalent of illiterate is, but I still experience the sounds of great composers/players deep inside my soul.
My grandfather was the same and had Segovia's - and Pablo Casals' - recordings. He was a tough old dude, but his eyes would mist as the albums popped on the turntable.
Am digging a lot of these comments - posted by those who have a depth of knowledge I lack ~ yet passion shared.
Paz y luz
Andrés Segovia Torres, 1st Marquis of Salobreña (21 February 1893 - 2 June 1987) was a virtuoso Spanish classical guitarist from Linares, Spain.
30 seconds - 1:30 spot on explanation . IMHO the piano is probably close in color or timbre . " Not really listening to music ...... dreaming with music " , that was beautifully spoken .
Absolutely.
Sólo en muy contadas y extraordinarias ocasiones he asistido a esas veladas memorables en las que la inspiración del músico ha logrado el milagro del verdadero arte. Entonces creo que he experimentado ese sueño del que habla Segovia. Generalmente escucho a la vez que estoy pendiente de (tengo formación en guitarra clásica) del detalle, la técnica, el fraseo, la pulsación, los errores, las cosas que no me gustan, el timbre, el instrumento, la postura, el estilo... Pero cuando un artista logra alcanzar lo sublime, ya no escucho, ya no critico, ya no estoy pendiente de nada, sólo de la música y la belleza, en un especie de ensueño desconectado del mundo y del entorno. Quizá sea es el sueño del que habla. Y sucede tan pocas veces (incluso con los más grandes músicos) Un concierto con Jordi Savall en San Felipe Neri, en Barcelona, éramos cuatro gatos un mediodía... fue uno de esos ensueños.
Do you know the piece he plays at 1:53?
Brilliant man
Indeed
The versatility of the guitar was expanded even further when it became electric. It has astonishing possibilities no other instrument has.
I could listen to 1:13 until 1:30 all day. So simple yet played beautifully.
Can you understand that this music and this way of playing was not known by the world until this man started touring outside Spain.
SeaDawgOST Well said
Très juste c est grâce à se génie que j ai apprécié et étudier cet instrument depuis plus de 50 ans
He was not the first to play a mixed repertoire out of Spain. He was just the first to segregate the flamenco repertoire, excluding it for reasons which research shows to have been, lets say politely, complicated.
@@AndSendMe ooh yea i forgot about those guys.
@@AndSendMe Would you be willing to elaborate in a frank manner? My current impression is that you're saying the man didn't like flamenco and wanted to play classical guitar otherwise. EDIT: or perhaps that the world of flamenco rejected him.
Conformation from the master gives me peace of mind.
This is fascinating, as it reminds me of the approach of Romantic pianists like Horowitz or Moiseiwitsch, who sought to "orchestrate" at the piano. Segovia was such an imaginative colorist..
Thank you for sharing his insights on the guitar, fascinating.
Please forgive the sales pitch but we have a good festive deal on our Segovia films, on DVD, if you’d like to permanently own a copy: allegrofilms.com/collections/the-films/products/andres-segovia-at-los-olivos-the-song-of-the-guitar
Thank you for sharing this very special video, it means a lot to us all.
Please upload some more of these.
A true genius
Not so. Augustine mangore Barrios was a true genius.
NEVER set a guitar upside on its neck! That being said. Long live Sergovia !!! ❤💕✝️🎵
He plays beautifully and explains sound color very well, but this does not explain why the guitar had very little repertoire up to this point. If anything, the variety of colors available on the guitar would make it more appealing composers. It has a lot more to do with classical tradition and the cultural status of the guitar.
Aaron, the same could be said about the saxophone.
Segovia is correct, but there are few more factors: guitar was 1) underdeveloped in terms of projection (body too small, poor projection, tone dies quickly), and it had irregular tuning (a mix of 4ths and major 3rds, which make fretboard a mess). As such, it was and it still is difficult to play. All other string instruments have regular tuning of some kind (violin, cello), all woodwinds and piano have regular tuning, even the recorder, and all of them are easier to learn to play. So the major composers skipped it - instrument was not developed enough to make it worthwhile, because it's quiet, and few people could play it well.
@@zvonimirtosic6171 Not all string instruments have regular tuning. The lute, for example, has a less regular tuning than the guitar and was used in classic music during the baroque and renaissance periods. It is completely normal for plucked string instruments to have a tuning which facilitates chord shapes, which the guitar has. As far as this making guitar more difficult than cello or violin, that is nonsense. I play both guitar and cello, and the cello is so much more difficult.
As far as piano or woodwinds having more regular tunings, these instruments are designed around particular scales, and playing in other keys is more difficult than the home key. I don't know how this is "regular". Guitar is actually more isomorphic than most other instruments because it is arranged in a chromatic way, rather than according to a scale.
For me, the main challenge with classical guitar comes from coordinating the movements of the left hand to play multiple parts together, but I am not sure that guitar is much more challenging than most other instruments, and I say that as someone who plays multiple string, woodwind and keyboard instruments. Composers could have learned to play and write for guitar if they chose to, and it's not uncommon today that they do. This is due primarily to a cultural shift, but it is also true, as you say, that the instruments have improved very much in the last century or two.
@@ninjaaron Irregular tuning on the guitar is the artefact of the past, and of guitar's simplistic use and poor repertoire. It is not a thoughtful design conclusion that really makes sense for the instrument to play a very complex music. The tuning was devised (adapted) by poor amateurs who had non-existing repertoire - there is nothing to brag about there.
It works well for simplistic use only. As such, it is indeed one of the reasons why it is difficult to play the guitar now when its body size, scale, frets, tone woods, etc. are all well designed, but only few dared to play on it more than simple strums as it was done way back in the past.
So there is incongruence between the design, and music, one does not follow the other.
Another problem was projection. The lute you mentioned, was defined long before the guitar, and was a well-established instrument, with a decent repertoire in court and dance music, and had a good following. The guitar had to "steal" and adapt lute's repertoire. If you exclude many adapted pieces, then the guitar's repertoire was below abysmal.
The guitar is - still - mostly used in genres based on primitive (folk) rhythmic music and its many derivatives: from Flamenco, to blues, rock, etc., with patterned (easy to visually memorise) approach to playing. For more complex music, like cool jazz, fusion, classical, neoclassical, etc. the instrument is very challenging, where only very dedicated musicians can excel.
In short, while on most instruments one can learn a song by ear, then follow regular pattern to play it easily in different octaves and keys, on irregularly tuned guitar it becomes a nonsensical mess and a real-time game of sudoku on the fretboard.
@@zvonimirtosic6171
> Irregular tuning on the guitar is the artefact of the past, and of guitar's simplistic use and poor repertoire. It is not a thoughtful design conclusion that really makes sense for the instrument to play a very complex music. The tuning was devised (adapted) by poor amateurs who had non-existing repertoire - there is nothing to brag about there.
This is absolutely untrue. Numerous guitar tunings have been used throughout the ages and are still used today both in classical and popular music. The fact that the guitar has a major triad and a minor triad built into it's tuning is only a benefit for chordal or polyphonic music. Regular tunings exist for the guitar and some people make very good use of them. all-fourths tuning is great for playing melodies, but it falls apart for polyphonic music unless you're approaching the instrument from an entirely new direction like Stanley Jordan (a great user of fourths tuning).
If regular tunings were more beneficial for playing classical music, classical musicians would use them. For the most part, they don't use them because standard tuning presents the best compromise between regularity and suitability for polyphonic and chordal music.
> In short, while on most instruments one can learn a song by ear, then follow regular pattern to play it easily in different octaves and keys, on irregularly tuned guitar it becomes a nonsensical mess and a real-time game of sudoku on the fretboard.
Have you ever played a woodwind or keyboard instrument? This is completely untrue. Transposing on guitar is generally much easier because scale patterns are the same in all keys---they are simply moved up and down the neck. Most instruments are not like this.
Learning all the scales on guitar takes a little practice, but this is true of literally every other instrument as well. Guitar is not more difficult than other instruments. Playing the styles you mention is of course difficult on guitar, but they are difficult on every other instrument as well. Jazz and classical are challenging on every instrument because players are constantly pushing the boundaries of what has been done.
JOAQUÍN TURINA Y MANUEL DE FALLA. LOS MAESTROS ,LO DICE OTRO MAESTRO. !! INCREÍBLE!! VIVA ESPAÑA 🇪🇸
manuelos vida He was incredible brother
He was a great teacher.
He was not
@@pabloespinoza3733 why?
@@ahmeteren4016 He must have taken personal lessons from him and did not like him, of course.
@@turbulentwap3410sk Christopher Parkening the same question...🤔bet you would get a different answer!!!
What a legend
This blew my mind
What is he playing at 2:10 for the pianissimo?
no sry, i have another pianissimo question (for anyone)......, is there another term for pianissimo style of guitar playing? i search and dont find the correct results
It's a tonal dynamic.. loudness of sound..
Maybe a part of Chaconne
C EST LUI QUI A DONNE A LA GUITARE SON TITRE DE NOBLESSE MERCI POUR CE MERVEILLEUX CADEAU
It's not hard to understand, music is not the music sheet, but as he said, in the 'Dream'
Who is the interviewer?
Christopher Nupen
So great
The guitar is the king and queen of all the musical instruments and Master Segovia is the God of the guitar universe.
amazing!!!
What year was this interview recorded?
1968
I learned so much.
Mô🍅🍊🍐🚯🚹🚻🚻*u
Harp is also a string polyphonic instrument.
The greatest in my opinion.
Chris Nupen was not correct in saying that there was no repertoire for classical guitar when Segovia started. There is quite a huge one already. We had the works of Sor, Giuliani, Carulli, Aguado, Tarrega, Llobet, Pujol, etc.
At 1:45 Johnny Cash could've started singing.
Great speech
"By being the only string instrument really polyphonic"
Harp, Piano, multi-string zithers, etc. : "You sure about that maestro?"
Came here from Marcin's new album.
The best. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
His Yamaha C40 sounds great!
It is really? He play a c40 yamaha, if yes im buying one because it sound so impressive
Definitely not yamaha C 40 hahaha.. He played Ramirez guitars throughout 1960s. Anyways if you just started playing, C40 is more than good enough for you cuz you wouldnt really know the difference until you got to a certain level. It's equally playable as premium ones.
Great joke!! Lol
الف رحمة على روحك
Maravilloso
makes perfect sense why Pat O'Brien is such a great guitarist.
The problem with Segovia was he never ventured into the Electric guitar scene. This set the Electric guitar back decades as he would of took the electric guitar to places no one would of expected. Still he was the one who took the classical guitar to it’s limits. His touch technique is one of the best ever no one comes close not even his students.
I heard him lecture and play a number of electric guitars at the univ. of North Texas years ago .
@@georgesheffield1580 Would like to see any videos of that in order to see how he approached his playing technique unto the electric guitar with the pick or finger style.
If Segovia successfully widened the gulf between the much nearer relations of flamenco and classical guitar into two distinct dedicated disciplines, then we can safely assume that he only viewed the electric guitar developments through a spyglass. I strongly doubt that Segovia wanted to distract himself from his lifelong mission by dabbling in the electric.
[edit] Segovia called the electric guitar "an abomination"... nuff said.
If you mean normal electric guitar, no. I don't think the sound suits classical guitar music. Electric classical guitars have the potential, but it was only invented towards the end of his lifetime. Why should he bother, if Ramirez can fulfill his goal? By no means, it is not a problem that he didn't. Many excellent guitarists play extremely well with the electric. John Williams tried electric, but he was not outstanding, despite his outstanding skill with the classical one.
There's no way Segovia could have dabbled in electric.
He was very traditionalist when it came to the guitar as an instrument. He famously never used amplification in his performances even when the technology became widespread, instead he relied solely on his own skills in projecting the sound of the instrument. He once described the electric guitar as 'an abomination,' expressing that no electric equivalents existed for the violin and cello, so why should an electric guitar exist?
Segovia was a classical guitarist deeply dedicated to his craft, and ultimately, that's what he was: a dedicated classical guitarist who saw little reason to leave the world he loved and had revolutionized.
Segovia is the reason as to why the steel string acoustic guitar exists in America.
he has nothing to do whatsoever with the devlopment of the steel string guitar
@BearfootBob According to George Gruhn he did especially Martin.
Still the greatest.
Illuminating
You have to wonder what he would have thought of shredders like Yngwie Malmsteen, Michael Romeo, etc. 🎸
Love to hear him head to head with Clapton..... Nuts I know but but who would win ...my money is on Sergovia.
ウォーピアニシモがすげぇ！
感嘆しました
ive never hear him speAK English before
It is not really as listening w music but better dreaming with music
Il n apprécié pas Barrios
It's been quoted that Segovia was the Father of the Guitar. Though it is true he is one of the fathers of "Modern Guitar" as we know it today. However, the "Lyre" is the
Ancestor to the Modern Guitar. Now, as to those who have been quoted saying that Segovia or Any other Guitarist was, or is the greatest Guitarist, I would refer them to David's Lyre Playing when he played to King Saul, who was under a curse from The Almighty. David's playing "Soothed" Saul's tormet from the curse. And btw.... I've been playing and enjoying listening to
Segovia play Modern guitar for over
50 years.🙏
2.20 his nails are dirty but a virtuoso !!!
Nikola te voli @nikolatevoli
Steve Vai calls this sound shaping.
Very interesting and a great film except for the overly sycophantic interviewer.
Agreed
He just shows due respect by calling him Maestro, nothing wrong in that.
Some people always have to find something to complain about.
Pioneer for the guitar? Yes. Nice decent person? No.
He's good, but no Dimebag Darrell.
lol
Can you imagine if the world knew Abel Fleury from Argentina? He was 1000 times better guitarist than Segovia
meh