i took a little clasical guitar as a kid. my teacher, mrs. convey, told me i should grow my nails... wasn't gonna happen given my age and activities. ever since then, i have heard the same echoes... you should grow your nails out if you want to play fingerstyle. even nate's tutorials mention you should grow nails for fingerstyle. and while he says that it is ok to play without nails -- you can build up callouses on your finger tips --- and that many great players play fingerstyle without nails, his preference for nails bleeds through in the eyes... that there is a tonal sacrafice for not having nails.

and so i gave nails a try. it took forever to grow them long enough. it's a log of maintenance. in the end, i hated the way it felt. and while i wanted a slightly brighter tone, the nails i found to be too bright. it seemed i would be doomed to sub-standard tone...

...until i spoke with a friend of mine who stood the whole argument on its head...

he said, "i don't play classical, but the best classical tone comes from the fleshy bits... you're probably using the wrong strings... try a multi-filament carbon or titantium... or splurge and get real gut... tarrega played without nails. in fact, there are many advocates of softening any callouses on the right hand to keep the tone control of flesh."

thus began a flurry of research and a sharp left turn towards a much needed history lesson.

in the olde timey days, gut strings were the technology of the day. they have considerable more resonance and top end compared to nylon. they stretch more and have some grit, so the finger did not slip so easily and the tone / volume could be more accurately controlled. they also tended to fray if played with nails that weren't properly tended.

what did famous guitarists of the day have to say on the subject?

"never in my life have i heard a guitarist whose playing was supportable if he played with the nails. their playing is to mine what the harpsichord was in comparison to the pianoforte" -- fernando sor

"to obtain a full and mellow tone, apply some force at the top of the fingers, but avoid touching the string with the nails except for special effects." -- mateo carcassi

dionisio aguado, a lifetime player using nails, cut his thumbnail late in life, and began playing "on the flesh". it was fransisco tarrega who convinced aguado to try nailess. said aguado, "if i were to do it all over again, i would play without nails."

but with the advent of nylon strings, string resonance was significantly reduced, leading more and more players to embrace nails. however, now days you can get the real gut or the synthetics mentioned above and achieve the correct tone without the need for nails.

what about technique differences?

there are a few. one of the main differences is plucking. players used to playing with nails will pluck a string fairly parallel to the guitar. the string should roll off the nail. if you pluck that way without nails, you will have barely any tone and there will be significant volume drop off.

nailess classical guitarists will pull the string with the tip of the finger, and will pluck down (or up) and away, not parallel. this gives the string significantly more volume and resonance. with very short nails you can curl the finger a little and catch the tip of the nail on release, adding brightness where desired.

i didn't realize it until i did a bunch of research, but my natural plucking motion already incorporated this technique, and my efforts to "correct" it were probably misguided, and i am now focusing on reincorporating them.

so while mrs. convey tried to teach me to play with nails and the segovia technique, i was too lazy to practice. i was very good, however, at mimicing. and so it is that i learned the method she used instead of the one she taught, and that method is more akin to tarrega. i no longer feel like a second-class plucker, and am embracing the road less travelled.

the morale of the story is that "do as i say not as i do" never works.

or maybe it was something else.

pluck on guitar heroes.