When he demonstrates moving to a brighter string to give the illusion of a crescendo, that's quite clever, and something I've never heard anyone else articulate.
Many thanks to Siccas for posting this video. It's illuminating to hear how much thought is involved in playing a classical musical instrument at a high level, and how clearly these ideas were explained.
This is one of the best videos about tone production. Music is a performance art - amateur or professional it’s about communication. If your sound doesn’t project so people can understand you, what’s the point?
Love listening to Caballero. Always something to consider. One of the more eloquent communicators in the classical guitar world. Half the time I disagree with his views, but I always appreciate hearing them articulated.
If this were correct, every mediocre guitarist with a twangy sound would be able to project. Somehow they still need amplification, as does Jorge. I call BS.
Shout all you want and pretend you're not the clowns. It doesn't change the fact that every mediocre guitarist has a bright sound, it's nothing special, and it doesn't project. Lies have short legs.
It seems that the argument you are making here hinges on the assumption that "bright sound" and "twangy sound" have the same meaning. It is sensible that you may feel they are, and it would perhaps be an interesting topic of discussion; but that is your argument, not one presented in Jorge's discussion. To call "BS" on an argument someone makes implies that you find fault in the logic of their arguments. Using your own arguments to call "BS" on someone else's arguments is illogical.
I do find fault in the so-called logic of this argument, as would anyone informed by known facts from the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics. It's simply misguided. It's not my job to inform Mr. C or YT commentators what those facts are. They can be found in practically any textbook on these subjects.
@@Rib3y2q Thank you for your reply. Are you then abandoning the relationship you established between "bright" and "twangy" sound being the same -as stated in your original post, and why did you choose to do so? Also, could you specify which of the arguments presented by "Mr. C"' do you take issue with? From what I saw in this video, there were three principal arguments presented in this video, and they were explained with examples. It is not clear from your comment which argument you take issue with. You also say that "anyone informed by known facts from the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics" would "find fault in the so-called logic of this argument". Assuming that you know which argument(s) you are referring to, how do you know that statement to be true? Would that not require us to consult with everyone with knowledge in those fields and ask their opinion? Did you manage to do that before making that statement?
I believe that sacrificing a nice tone that you get in a small room for the sake of being audible in a concert hall is currently less desirable. Audio amplification has reached such a high quality that it has become a decent alternative. There are more things involved here than just varying your tone production with your fingers. An excellent guitar for recording and intimate performances is different from a concert guitar where the need to be loud implies many disadvantages regarding tone quality. Finally, the guitar is an intimate instrument, it is not suited for concertos or playing with a big orchestra.
I don't like the harsh hard nail scraping tone many guitarists cultivatenowadays. Classical musicians are obsessed by 'projection' which is nothing more than volume. If you really want volume, use an amp or play flamenco.
You are onto something. I play classical guitar for myself and my family and friends like the majority of players out there (Im no where near the level of the pros). The concert guitars I have played, I don’t much care for. Similarly, the double top guitars don’t appeal to me. It’s not about volume for me.
I didn’t think it was clacky. But I too am always at a loss using brighter tone. I felt this was a great concept of using it in dynamics particularly. I imagine that one’s choice of repertoire would also be influenced by how large or not the space is. And weather you are against an orchestra will make a difference in how a brighter tone comes off.
@@chupieThe illusory nature of guitar is what makes it a special instrument. Its ability, through colour, to suggest or allude to qualities that it does not necessarily have is unique. Projection, sustain and even volume are all things guitars can allude to, to a point. However, Caballero’s interpretations are still ultimately governed by how they will be heard by an audience in a large concert hall and this will always be a question of volume. His playing demonstrations betrayed the idea that this was a discussion on tonal illusion alone.
dylan_the_wizard if you don’t like the bright tone in any context, fair enough, but I think the point here is that a brighter tone has a context in which compliments the space best - in large spaces. Large spaces blur the sound together through reverb etc, and a bright tone compliments that by cutting through more. If the combination of the two works well, who’s anyone to judge? The guy states in the video, he wouldn’t use that kind of tone with a microphone close in front, because that’s not the context in which it’s designed for, it works in a large space with a further back audience. Some people prefer the sound of a larger space (myself included), and if a bright tone helps to translate musical ideas that would otherwise be lost if sitting more than 1 foot back, so be it.
I am 79, studied with Hector Quine in London in the 60s, he taught Bream's technique as he was his close friend. I also studied with Segovia in Sienna, so saw his right hand very close. I also saw Segovia & Bream many times in big rooms, Festival Hall London being one. The issue is the right hand position and thus the way the nails strike the strings. If you study Segovia & Bream and most others from that era you will see the hand is turned inward, the nails striking the strings at about 45* this means a fully rounded warm sound even when playing brightly near the bridge. Bream played mostly top strokes and not free in the air. This meant far more power and depth. Why modem players don't do this I really don't understand, it's far the best way to get maximum tone from a guitar. I used to sit in the balcony at Festival Hall and hear every note from Segovia's Hauser, volume is not everything, it's quality and feeling that count. Please try this old technique and look closely at Bream's right hand, it will make a huge difference to the sound you produce. Also, nails do not need to be like claw of an eagle, l😅ok at David Russell and you will see how he does it and makes the most beautiful sounds. Hope this helps.
Bravo Maestro Caballero! This is one of the topics I personally like to indagate as well from a luthier prospective! Thanks for sharing!! Gabriele Lodi luthier
I am very pleased to listen to your incredibly talented performance of such an amazing collection of absolutely phenomenal covers of this magical music. Thank you Jorge 👍👏🌹🌹🌹💕.
I've read somewhere that concert players prefer a new guitar for the clarity and projection, contrary to the warmer mellower sound of a broken in guitar, is there truth to that?
Mein Partner und ich haben versucht, eine Szene aus einem dampfenden Liebesroman nachzuspielen. Es endete damit, dass wir beide über den lächerlichen Dialog lachen mussten und beschlossen, unsere eigene Version zu schreiben🐱
When he demonstrates moving to a brighter string to give the illusion of a crescendo, that's quite clever, and something I've never heard anyone else articulate.
Many thanks to Siccas for posting this video. It's illuminating to hear how much thought is involved in playing a classical musical instrument at a high level, and how clearly these ideas were explained.
More of this please!
Yaaaaaaass!!!!!!!!! 💯💯💯💯
Really awsome explanation. Top notch content here.
This is one of the best videos about tone production. Music is a performance art - amateur or professional it’s about communication. If your sound doesn’t project so people can understand you, what’s the point?
Great discussion!
Love listening to Caballero. Always something to consider. One of the more eloquent communicators in the classical guitar world. Half the time I disagree with his views, but I always appreciate hearing them articulated.
Jorge Caballero is a great player and teacher
If this were correct, every mediocre guitarist with a twangy sound would be able to project. Somehow they still need amplification, as does Jorge. I call BS.
🗣🤡
Shout all you want and pretend you're not the clowns. It doesn't change the fact that every mediocre guitarist has a bright sound, it's nothing special, and it doesn't project. Lies have short legs.
It seems that the argument you are making here hinges on the assumption that "bright sound" and "twangy sound" have the same meaning. It is sensible that you may feel they are, and it would perhaps be an interesting topic of discussion; but that is your argument, not one presented in Jorge's discussion. To call "BS" on an argument someone makes implies that you find fault in the logic of their arguments. Using your own arguments to call "BS" on someone else's arguments is illogical.
I do find fault in the so-called logic of this argument, as would anyone informed by known facts from the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics. It's simply misguided. It's not my job to inform Mr. C or YT commentators what those facts are. They can be found in practically any textbook on these subjects.
@@Rib3y2q Thank you for your reply. Are you then abandoning the relationship you established between "bright" and "twangy" sound being the same -as stated in your original post, and why did you choose to do so? Also, could you specify which of the arguments presented by "Mr. C"' do you take issue with? From what I saw in this video, there were three principal arguments presented in this video, and they were explained with examples. It is not clear from your comment which argument you take issue with. You also say that "anyone informed by known facts from the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics" would "find fault in the so-called logic of this argument". Assuming that you know which argument(s) you are referring to, how do you know that statement to be true? Would that not require us to consult with everyone with knowledge in those fields and ask their opinion? Did you manage to do that before making that statement?
I believe that sacrificing a nice tone that you get in a small room for the sake of being audible in a concert hall is currently less desirable. Audio amplification has reached such a high quality that it has become a decent alternative. There are more things involved here than just varying your tone production with your fingers. An excellent guitar for recording and intimate performances is different from a concert guitar where the need to be loud implies many disadvantages regarding tone quality. Finally, the guitar is an intimate instrument, it is not suited for concertos or playing with a big orchestra.
@@edokaric4727 Você acertou! Exatamente o meu caso.
@@edokaric4727you didn't get the point 😅
@edokaric4727 And you still didn't get the point. You're incoherent, brother.
@@eduardobenassi3072Caballero is right 😉
One of the guitar giants.
I don't like the harsh hard nail scraping tone many guitarists cultivatenowadays. Classical musicians are obsessed by 'projection' which is nothing more than volume. If you really want volume, use an amp or play flamenco.
Thanks for your perspective!
Maybe classical guitars aren't meant to be played in big halls if you're forced to play with that unappealing clacky tone?
You are onto something. I play classical guitar for myself and my family and friends like the majority of players out there (Im no where near the level of the pros). The concert guitars I have played, I don’t much care for. Similarly, the double top guitars don’t appeal to me. It’s not about volume for me.
I didn’t think it was clacky. But I too am always at a loss using brighter tone. I felt this was a great concept of using it in dynamics particularly. I imagine that one’s choice of repertoire would also be influenced by how large or not the space is. And weather you are against an orchestra will make a difference in how a brighter tone comes off.
@@FiddleSticks800but it wasn’t about volume. It was about tonal illusion and the actual science of whether a tone comes through or not.
@@chupieThe illusory nature of guitar is what makes it a special instrument. Its ability, through colour, to suggest or allude to qualities that it does not necessarily have is unique. Projection, sustain and even volume are all things guitars can allude to, to a point.
However, Caballero’s interpretations are still ultimately governed by how they will be heard by an audience in a large concert hall and this will always be a question of volume. His playing demonstrations betrayed the idea that this was a discussion on tonal illusion alone.
dylan_the_wizard if you don’t like the bright tone in any context, fair enough, but I think the point here is that a brighter tone has a context in which compliments the space best - in large spaces. Large spaces blur the sound together through reverb etc, and a bright tone compliments that by cutting through more. If the combination of the two works well, who’s anyone to judge? The guy states in the video, he wouldn’t use that kind of tone with a microphone close in front, because that’s not the context in which it’s designed for, it works in a large space with a further back audience. Some people prefer the sound of a larger space (myself included), and if a bright tone helps to translate musical ideas that would otherwise be lost if sitting more than 1 foot back, so be it.
I am 79, studied with Hector Quine in London in the 60s, he taught Bream's technique as he was his close friend. I also studied with Segovia in Sienna, so saw his right hand very close.
I also saw Segovia & Bream many times in big rooms, Festival Hall London being one.
The issue is the right hand position and thus the way the nails strike the strings. If you study Segovia & Bream and most others from that era you will see the hand is turned inward, the nails striking the strings at about 45* this means a fully rounded warm sound even when playing brightly near the bridge.
Bream played mostly top strokes and not free in the air. This meant far more power and depth. Why modem players don't do this I really don't understand, it's far the best way to get maximum tone from a guitar.
I used to sit in the balcony at Festival Hall and hear every note from Segovia's Hauser, volume is not everything, it's quality and feeling that count. Please try this old technique and look closely at Bream's right hand, it will make a huge difference to the sound you produce. Also, nails do not need to be like claw of an eagle, l😅ok at David Russell and you will see how he does it and makes the most beautiful sounds.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for sharing this insights with us!
Bravo Maestro Caballero!
This is one of the topics I personally like to indagate as well from a luthier prospective!
Thanks for sharing!!
Gabriele Lodi luthier
Thank you
Em síntese: não existe timbre “feio”, existe timbre inadequado. O contexto define o timbre. Excelente! 👍
I am very pleased to listen to your incredibly talented performance of such an amazing collection of absolutely phenomenal covers of this magical music.
Thank you Jorge 👍👏🌹🌹🌹💕.
Great! I have a cheap acoustic guitar, so I have to use a bright tone almost all the time.
Thanks!
I've read somewhere that concert players prefer a new guitar for the clarity and projection, contrary to the warmer mellower sound of a broken in guitar, is there truth to that?
no
❤
The instrument plays a huge role in that. Some will be far from ideal for producing brighter tones.
We agree! Depending on the piece and the tone you want to produce, the choice of your guitar is very important.
@@SiccasGuitars We pluckers need to deal with so much crap. Should've played piano, like my grandma. That woman had zero stress 🤣
Sounds like a great Flamenco player
Mein Partner und ich haben versucht, eine Szene aus einem dampfenden Liebesroman nachzuspielen. Es endete damit, dass wir beide über den lächerlichen Dialog lachen mussten und beschlossen, unsere eigene Version zu schreiben🐱