Originally Posted by: PonyOneit's actually a good technique to get grounded in. most music schools encourage using a floating hand. initially it is way easier to anchor a pinky or other finger, but, i think that after awhile it's worth it to learn to not anchor yourself so you have more freedom of movement.

But I'm not sure not anchoring yourself necessarily give you more freedom of movement. Speaking for myself only, I think I can play just as fast anchored or unanchored- not that speed is everything, of course; I guess saying I can play just as well anchored or unachored is a better way of putting it. I'm a little biased *against* a floating hand, cuz, as a Berklee College of Music Performance Major dropout (late '70's), Berklee *forced* all guitar players to use a floating hand; the ONLY thing allowed to touch the strings was the pick. No hybrid picking, no dampening of the strings with your palm. That really ticked me off, and really changed my playing style. I'm of the mind of "whatever you're comfortable with" school, and if you can get to where you want to go on the neck, I don't care if you use your toes. Some people think anchoring is a crutch, but I say, so what? I play both ways now, depending on what I'm doing, but mostly I'm somewhat anchored. I have to admit when I'm playing REALLY fast, like Zakk Wylde fast, I'll be floating. On the other hand, I was learning Flight of the Bumblebee after hearing Petrucci play it, and for some reason, I'm more comfortable playing that anchored; maybe because it's so chromatic, I dunno. Ironically, I'm teaching guitar to my daughter, and I'm only allowing her to use a floating hand; I want her to be able to feel her way around the neck without the "crutch". The difference with my experience, is, I was playing for about 10 yrs. before going to Berklee and kinda had to relearn things; to my detriment, imo. Just my 2 cents on the subject.