From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: Fingerstyle Guitarists? (was: Fingerstyle Acoustic Guitarist discographies)
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:19:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <BOWERS.92Aug13120436@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
|> In article <oevtifk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <BOWERS.92Aug11135104@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
|> >|> In article <16938mINNcsg@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
|> 
|> >|> >Is it just me, or is there anybody else who absolutely
|> >|> >hates the phrase "fingerstyle guitarist"??  Is this
|> >|> >really accepted terminology?  *gack*
|> 
|> >|> Well, actually, John Fahey and John Stropes wrote quite a bit about
|> >|> how to describe this particular style of guitar.  John Fahey prefered
|> >|> American Primitive Guitar, and I've heard John Stropes refer to it as
|> >|> American Classical guitar.
|> 
|> >Well, Fahey's at least refers more to his lack of formal,
|> >classical training, not to the mechanics of his music - much
|> >as Grandma Moses' painting style showed her lack of formal
|> >training, but not whether or not her brushes had natural
|> >bristles. It's what you do, not the tool you use.
|> 
|> Well, in a way you _ARE_ describing her style.  She was a painter.
|> She was not a weaver or a scultor or a photographer.  As for the
|> dstintion in the choice of tool, I agree.  It doesn't matter whether
|> you use a flat top steel, or a nylon (or even a cat gut!) classical.

No, you misunderstood my point. In neither case did the artist 
receive formal training, and *that's* the origin of the "American 
Primitive" part of their description of their art. As you agree,
it had nothing to do with the tool, but it did have everything to
do with the training (or lack).
 
|> >|> >Nobody but me cringes at this label?
|> 
|> >|> Well, it is a bit of a mouthful, but I never found it _offensive_ or
|> >|> anything.  Perhaps you could clarify?  Or maybe suggest a _new_ label
|> >|> to call ourselves...
|> 
|> >Or how about simply "guitarists" - I know of no rule
|> >requiring use of a pick/plectrum. Shouldn't we claim
|> >that name back from those who need an extra tool before
|> >they can play?
|> 
|> Guitraists is a bit broad, don't you think?  I mean you'll get
|> everyone from Stanley Jordan to Eddie Van Halen to Leo Kottke to
|> Sabicas to Segovia in there.  I _like_ the idea of distinction in the
|> style, Acoustic Finger Style, but we need a more precise word for it.
|> 
|> Classical Folk?
|> 
|> I dunno...

Well, I guess my aim was to create a big tent and invite everybody in
(no, I'm not a Republican :^). Even "fingerstyle guitar" is an
awfully big tent, including Michael Hedges in the same category as
Guy Van Duser and Mark Knopfler, for instance. The idea was to 
emphasize that it's all guitar, with many different playing techniques 
and musical styles.

You can't really have a concise category until you include the
kind of music as well as the mechanics used to play it. And with
people like Hedges opening up new musical vistas, any term will
just get fuzzier and fuzzier with time (except possibly those
that refer exclusively to classical music written prior to the
last few decades...)

Don Coolidge
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk