Yup the unitar I love The Advancing Guitarist, it's one of the theory books I'll be keeping a long time. _________________ Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"
Thanks guys! Actually that was written a couple years back and I have a lot more to it now. It’s pretty much a complete system at this point. I worked with probably 50 students for a year expanding the concept. The results were very good all in all. I’d slowly mix in the shapes, but only once you know what you are doing. My wife keeps telling me I need to write a book, maybe one day. Let me know if it works.
Anyways, I actually used the “Stanley Jordan” tuning for about 2 years exclusively. I liked it a lot, and relearned a whole bunch of stuff. But I started teaching more (and couldn’t force it on others, as well as keep my head straight) and I headed back to music school where I needed to convert for the teacher. So now for about 2 years I’m back in traditional.
For people thinking about switching, a couple observations…
1. “standard” open chords are fewer, and less full versions. But, it does force chords with more extensions, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
2. Everything is symmetrical, which is great, especially if you do a lot of 2 hand stuff like me. But any sequence is really slick.
3. You don’t have to learn 3 or 4 ways to play the same voicings, on different string sets, everything is the same. Which is pretty neat, 3 times as many voicings you can learn in the same amount of time.
4. The top 2 strings are really tight, I never had an out of the ordinary break, but it sometimes scared me, plus I think the guitar is a little tight strung as it is, so it was always odd for me. I thought about tuning down a half step, or whole step, but I didn’t really want to re learn the neck completely. (BTW I used 10-46)
5. Pentatonics are a little odd, considering it’s the guitar’s “most popular” and “over used” (in certain contexts) scale, that might be an issue for you. But at the same time if you play 3 n/p/s pentatonics it’s pretty nice.
6. All in all it is at least as good as standard tuning and for jazz probably a lot better.
Everyone should try it for a month or so, it’s enlightening to say the least. You start to see a lot of patterns in scales in stuff that you might not have before.
2. Everything is symmetrical, which is great, especially if you do a lot of 2 hand stuff like me. But any sequence is really slick.
How do you mean symmetrical? This what Stanley says in his video, but I didn't get it.. the neck is tuned to a cycle of fourths one way and a cycle of fifths the other?
I did think of trying tritones once but I figured the reason for tuning in fourths and fifths is to make the more prominent chord tones 3rd and 5th in easy reach so that chords can be continuous and solos don't demand a great deal of stretch. _________________ Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"
2. Everything is symmetrical, which is great, especially if you do a lot of 2 hand stuff like me. But any sequence is really slick.
How do you mean symmetrical? This what Stanley says in his video, but I didn't get it.. the neck is tuned to a cycle of fourths one way and a cycle of fifths the other?
I did think of trying tritones once but I figured the reason for tuning in fourths and fifths is to make the more prominent chord tones 3rd and 5th in easy reach so that chords can be continuous and solos don't demand a great deal of stretch.
I suppose it’s not *perfectly* symmetrical in both directions, but in either direction it is very symmetrical. For example: Any symmetrical scale (whole tone, diminished, or even a fully diminished arpeggio) are completely symmetrical up the neck, there are no weird shifts at the 2nd string.
Or another example, let’s say you learn a lick that goes on the 5th and 6th string in II position. GABCD, starting with your second finger. That same scale fragment is the same shape no matter what octave or what strings. You don’t have to shift it anywhere.
So maybe you are playing octaves in two hands; one starting on G on the D string, and one with hi G on the G string, the hands will completely copy each other, no matter what you play, there is no splitting of the hands, they do the same thing (in octaves, or unison).
Another thing is chord voicings; say you are doing the “root guide tone” voicing of a G 7th chord… 3/x/3/4/x/x/ that same shape is used no matter what string or what octave. Like; x/10/x/10/11/x or x/x/5/x/5/6 . So you don’t have to learn a bunch of shapes for the same voicing.
A six string augmented chord would go…. 6/5/4/3/2/1/ instead of 6/5/4/3/3/2/ .
Some things are easier, some are a lot harder. All the intervals are easier to remember, the shapes always stay the same. 1/x/2/x/x/x/ is a major 7th, so is x/1/x/2/x/x and x/x/1/x/2/x/ and so is x/x/x/1/x/2/
So that’s how it’s symmetrical, I hope this makes sense.
Perfect sense, I'll not need to scrutinize that bit of the DVD again ta. _________________ Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"
Joined: 02 Jun 2007 Posts: 5 Location: Northern Ireland
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:
Hey Tim, just thought I'd let you know that the musical examples towards the end of the article are cut off (for me anyway). Does this happen with everyone? _________________ http://duggan.dmusic.com - My playing
Joined: 16 May 2005 Posts: 40 Location: Leeds - UK
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject:
Mirth wrote:
a Eb major scale: Eb, F, G, G#, Bb, C, D, Eb" or whatever, as long as you are aware of what you are doing. So visualizing G# instead of Ab might work for you.
That's very confusing, in a flat key you would only use flats, as in the key signature, so in Eb you've got Bb, Eb and Ab: Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D. More important is memorising the degree of the note in relation to the harmony and it's specific sound.
duggy wrote:
1. How can I learn to solo over the whole neck?
2. Do you guys memorize scales in all postions? If so, isn't it near impossible to memorize exactly the postions of all those scales? That means scales, and there modes btw.
I would get busy practising the CAGED system before starting to use single strings exclusivley. Using CAGED you've got 5 positions that do cover the whole neck, and link to each other. To start doing this I would pick a key, find all 5 (basic) major and minor chords, which you can modify into maj7, dom7, min7 and m7b5 chords. You can play the triads around each shape, play the 7th arpeggios around each shape, and the scales around each shape. By relating your scales and arpeggios to the relavant chord forms it's much easier to remember them in all positions in a playing situation. This will take time but if you persevere with it you're guaranteed to get the whole neck down comfortably.
Your playing sounds great btw, good luck
_________________ The more you learn the less you know
a Eb major scale: Eb, F, G, G#, Bb, C, D, Eb" or whatever, as long as you are aware of what you are doing. So visualizing G# instead of Ab might work for you.
That's very confusing, in a flat key you would only use flats, as in the key signature, so in Eb you've got Bb, Eb and Ab: Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D. More important is memorizing the degree of the note in relation to the harmony and it's specific sound.
That's true, but also not true, as far as I'm concerned you could call the notes green, blue and red, a name is only a name. So who cares, really, if they are all flat, the sound that comes out is more important.
Rickh wrote:
duggy wrote:
1. How can I learn to solo over the whole neck?
2. Do you guys memorize scales in all postions? If so, isn't it near impossible to memorize exactly the postions of all those scales? That means scales, and there modes btw.
I would get busy practising the CAGED system before starting to use single strings exclusivley. Using CAGED you've got 5 positions that do cover the whole neck, and link to each other. To start doing this I would pick a key, find all 5 (basic) major and minor chords, which you can modify into maj7, dom7, min7 and m7b5 chords. You can play the triads around each shape, play the 7th arpeggios around each shape, and the scales around each shape. By relating your scales and arpeggios to the relavant chord forms it's much easier to remember them in all positions in a playing situation. This will take time but if you persevere with it you're guaranteed to get the whole neck down comfortably.
Your playing sounds great btw, good luck
I think caged is alright, but people start thinking shapes more than notes. That is a problem. I think going for single string first, know what your doing then use the advantages of CAGED, not the other way around. People tend to get stuck in a pattern, and aren't able to think out side of the box without switching to another pattern. Plus there are 7 positions, not 5, for the standard "8" note scale, it leaves 2 spots out, which is unacceptable to me.
You need to be able to play anywhere, anyway, anytime, not based on a pattern. That's how I feel anyways. Patterns restrict more than free you up. I just feel like it's another whole step in the process. Plus most people never get out of their comfort zones, like the standard 12 position e minor pentatonic that everyone and their mothers’ know. I bet most people don't even know what notes they are playing in that scale.
Also by working on the single string method, caged kind of becomes obsolete, you don't need the cheat of the CAGED system to find the notes, you will eventually just know where all the notes are, all the time. It forces you to really know where you are, it will seem like you are behind at first compared to a pattern player, but in time you will definitely surpass them. I really believe this.
Wow, guitar, what an instrument, good luck everyone.
Joined: 16 May 2005 Posts: 40 Location: Leeds - UK
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:53 am Post subject:
Mirth wrote:
That's true, but also not true, as far as I'm concerned you could call the notes green, blue and red, a name is only a name. So who cares, really, if they are all flat, the sound that comes out is more important.
It's true because it's the most logical and efficient way to communicate music with other musicians. If you hand out charts that are riddled with enharmonic blunders, it's going to make life hard, especially for other instruments like saxes.
Mirth wrote:
I think caged is alright, but people start thinking shapes more than notes.
How do you know?
Mirth wrote:
That is a problem. I think going for single string first, know what your doing then use the advantages of CAGED, not the other way around. People tend to get stuck in a pattern, and aren't able to think out side of the box without switching to another pattern.
Why not? Perhaps they would be unable to "think outside the box" without switching to another string. It's up to the player to use his head over his fingers, not the methodology used.
Mirth wrote:
Plus there are 7 positions, not 5, for the standard "8" note scale, it leaves 2 spots out, which is unacceptable to me.
I am aware that there are 7 "positions" for a 7 note scale. The fact is they inevitably overlap on the fretboard so 2 of the patterns are identical to 2 other patterns starting on different root notes. The idea is they correspond with the chord forms in a very logical manner. There are no missing spots, have you even tried it?
Mirth wrote:
You need to be able to play anywhere, anyway, anytime, not based on a pattern. That's how I feel anyways. Patterns restrict more than free you up. I just feel like it's another whole step in the process. Plus most people never get out of their comfort zones, like the standard 12 position e minor pentatonic that everyone and their mothers’ know. I bet most people don't even know what notes they are playing in that scale.
Also by working on the single string method, caged kind of becomes obsolete, you don't need the cheat of the CAGED system to find the notes, you will eventually just know where all the notes are, all the time. It forces you to really know where you are, it will seem like you are behind at first compared to a pattern player, but in time you will definitely surpass them. I really believe this.
Patterns are inevitable and it would be foolish to ignore them on the guitar. The CAGED system isn't about memorising a bunch of patterns to mindlessly play, its about relating your scale notes directly to corresponding chord tones in logical positions all over the neck. Why do you call them patterns? What's next - don't use chord shapes? I'm not sure why you assume people are unable to move from one position to the next, but with that logic, aren't they just as likely to be unable to move from one string to the next?
At the end of the day, you need to combine both position playing and single string thinking to get around the fretboard but for someone who's just starting to get into this stuff, surely the CAGED method has got to come first. Trying to learn individual strings and then eventually combine them at this stage is illogical and seems like a huge burden only to eventually find those patterns keep cropping up after all.
Btw this is by no means a bashing, it's an interesting friendly debate
Look forward to hearing your thoughts - Cheers _________________ The more you learn the less you know
That's true, but also not true, as far as I'm concerned you could call the notes green, blue and red, a name is only a name. So who cares, really, if they are all flat, the sound that comes out is more important.
It's true because it's the most logical and efficient way to communicate music with other musicians. If you hand out charts that are riddled with enharmonic blunders, it's going to make life hard, especially for other instruments like saxes.
Well, of course, I agree with that, and think that way, as well, but not everything is as easy as that. Maybe if we're talking one key, but once things move around some times, logic isn't as simple. I think it is affective to know that g# and Ab are really the same. I say this from experience playing with some original modern jazz groups. Writing the melody over changes (with key changes) sometimes leads to "enharmonic blunders". Like If you're in Ebminor and a D7 chord shows up, or something and you play a Gb over the D7, is it simpler to follow the original key of the song, or to go with the key of the moment. And even then, wouldn't Ebb7 be more appropriate, but who wants to think of it that way? Not me? even if it's not technically correct. It's not that I can't think of it that way, it's just a little redundant.
Rickh wrote:
Mirth wrote:
I think caged is alright, but people start thinking shapes more than notes.
How do you know?
Because I started like everyone else with patterns and a version of Caged, and eventually tried it myself, though it's not the direction I was interested in going,(more on this later)
Rickh wrote:
Mirth wrote:
That is a problem. I think going for single string first, know what your doing then use the advantages of CAGED, not the other way around. People tend to get stuck in a pattern, and aren't able to think out side of the box without switching to another pattern.
Why not? Perhaps they would be unable to "think outside the box" without switching to another string. It's up to the player to use his head over his fingers, not the methodology used.
Of course, if you approach the string like a pattern, but what happens when you go with one string, is it's much easier to visualize the notes, and actually know what note you are on. By switching to a single string, you begin seeing things more linear. Most people are able to understand things better when they are in a straight line, like a piano, or saxaphone. Up goes up, down goes down.
The hard thing about guitar is it's a six string matrix of notes, and sometimes up is not up, and sometimes down is not down. Just telling someone it's one way or another, is not enough.
I don't believe all patterns are bad. But I think it's better that people know the note structure pattern of a major scale, then the fingerings for it, without the wwhwwwh concept. Most people, especially beginners can't actually see it happening when you cross strings, they are just trying to memorize a shape in their head. There is no theory involved, it's just a shape. I've found from teaching, that when I used to teached in boxed ways, most students didn't know what or why they were doing stuff, even with explaination, because they couldn't see it happening, they had to take my word for it. The nice thing about the single string is they can see the music theory happening right before there eyes. They understand the concept. Building patterns, based on CAGED or otherwise becomes no big deal.
I've seen it work, or I wouldn't say it, i wish I would have started that way, I'd be a lot further now.
Rickh wrote:
Mirth wrote:
Plus there are 7 positions, not 5, for the standard "8" note scale, it leaves 2 spots out, which is unacceptable to me.
I am aware that there are 7 "positions" for a 7 note scale. The fact is they inevitably overlap on the fretboard so 2 of the patterns are identical to 2 other patterns starting on different root notes. The idea is they correspond with the chord forms in a very logical manner. There are no missing spots, have you even tried it?
Again, I have worked with Caged, and there are still 7 positions for standard scale. I'm aware you end up hitting a lot of the same notes, but even shifting one note, or one finger can make a difference.
I just checked on my guitar, and you do leave 2 positions out. I just feel it ties you too much to a pattern or shape. For example if there is a G7 chord being playing, are you thinking I need the "G" pattern on the 1st position? Or are you thinking, the notes in G7 are G, B, D, F, my possiblities are Gmixolydian, Altered scale, diminished scale, triadic options?
To me, CAGED is nice as a visual tool, something you show some one so they can connect the dots, but as a system, it relys on the Boxed position shapes, or whatever you want to call them, too much. People get away with not knowing what notes they are playing. Maybe you even learn what degree of the scale each note in a shape for a particular chord is, but God that's a lot of work. Why not learn that F is the 7th of G, the b9 of E, the min3rd of D and so on, instead of learning a pattern with a bunch of chord tensions memorized on the shape, for a zillion different chords.
We aren't talking an infinite number of chords, there are only 12 different notes, and really only so many intervals. I just think that guitar is kind of taught all wrong sometimes. What other instrument to 90% of it's playesr only know the notes in 1st position, if even that? Now, of course, most other instruments aren't as complex, or abstract. But trumpet pretty abstract and I bet most 10 year olds who play know more notes than most guitarists.
Anyways that's a whole different topic...
Rickh wrote:
Mirth wrote:
You need to be able to play anywhere, anyway, anytime, not based on a pattern. That's how I feel anyways. Patterns restrict more than free you up. I just feel like it's another whole step in the process. Plus most people never get out of their comfort zones, like the standard 12 position e minor pentatonic that everyone and their mothers’ know. I bet most people don't even know what notes they are playing in that scale.
Also by working on the single string method, caged kind of becomes obsolete, you don't need the cheat of the CAGED system to find the notes, you will eventually just know where all the notes are, all the time. It forces you to really know where you are, it will seem like you are behind at first compared to a pattern player, but in time you will definitely surpass them. I really believe this.
Patterns are inevitable and it would be foolish to ignore them on the guitar. The CAGED system isn't about memorising a bunch of patterns to mindlessly play, its about relating your scale notes directly to corresponding chord tones in logical positions all over the neck. Why do you call them patterns? What's next - don't use chord shapes? I'm not sure why you assume people are unable to move from one position to the next, but with that logic, aren't they just as likely to be unable to move from one string to the next?
At the end of the day, you need to combine both position playing and single string thinking to get around the fretboard but for someone who's just starting to get into this stuff, surely the CAGED method has got to come first. Trying to learn individual strings and then eventually combine them at this stage is illogical and seems like a huge burden only to eventually find those patterns keep cropping up after all.
Btw this is by no means a bashing, it's an interesting friendly debate
Look forward to hearing your thoughts - Cheers
Quote:
I'm definitely not bashing either
onwards,
To me it seems that learning the patterns, in CAGED, is the illogical first step. It's like learning to write sentences but not knowing any words. I think first you need to understand what you are doing with something like CAGED, before you trying doing it.
Also chord shapes are over rated as well, but a somewhat necessary evil. They do get redundent, and guitarists are slaves to shapes. We should really be able to grab any notes we want any time, in any shape, this woule be ideal. There are a zillion ways to play a G7 chord on the guitar, why learn 5, or even 20, shouldn't we just know what is acceptable for a G7 and grab the notes accordingly, if it happens to be a standard shape, so be it, but if it's a little different, all the better.
I feel like shapes and patterns are tools to help us learn how to maneuver on the guitar, but they end up being vices that only restrict us from moving forward. Kind of like ordering from a restaurant for all of your food instead of learning to cook, and saving money, and probably making something better than you would have got anyways.
(sorry bad analogy) anyways. I see the advantages of CAGED, but from teaching for about 8 years now, I've seen a lot of students get majorly stuck because they never understood what they were doing, and when I show them the single string stuff, a light bulb goes off.
Do people get stuck on one string ever? sure. No matter what way you teach, or how good you are at it, there will always be the students that never practice, or their parents send them there or whatever. But the ones that work on it, have always made incredible progress well beyond anything I ever saw with the standard methods of teaching.
The key is not to dwell on the single string thing, this is not a "unitar". But spending 20 to 30 minutes a day can really make a major difference in your perception of the guitar, and having things like CAGED become obsolete in the end, of course that may be a couple years, or more down the line, but isn't it worth it to be free to play whatever, however whenever, regardless of shapes.
Where am I currently with this, for myself:
Currently I can see all the notes all the time on the guitar, and staying in any one key for more than a couple seconds, I can get anywhere by seeing the notes in my head, I never think about scale patterns.
And I can pull about any single note stuff anytime.
What I'm working on is, faster changes, being able to see the whole fretboard shift in my head, kind of like one of those light guitars, but changing in a split second, I'm getting better at it.
seeing and playing 4 or 5 notes at a same time, and moving them anyway I want regardless of shape, but based on the chord tensions, and notes etc...
Just throwing more stuff on the fire fer debate, what do you make of Wes Montgomery alledgedly knowing 80 chords but knowing loads of applications for them? Isn't that shapes? Or Scott Henderson and his use of voicings?
Great discussion by the way _________________ Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"
Just throwing more stuff on the fire fer debate, what do you make of Wes Montgomery alledgedly knowing 80 chords but knowing loads of applications for them? Isn't that shapes? Or Scott Henderson and his use of voicings?
Great discussion by the way
Of course that method has worked in the past, and continues to work. But I think with the way the human mind is, and science goes, we always have to strive to do better. Obviously just knowing a few chords/shapes and all will get you through any song, or standard. Technically that's all you need.
I guess my question to you (everyone) and myself, is am I satisfied with doing what everyone else is doing? Why not go for the whole enchilada? (yum!)
I've found from working with a lot of pianist, in jazz anyways, that they can just grab chords out of the blue, even if they've never attempted a certain version of the chord (octave displacement or what have you). That is the flexibility I want with the guitar. I want to be able to just grab stuff anywhere, not just grab a shape I memorized.
I know lots of shapes and have constantly gone back and forth with this, but I feel like I've always known one way is better (for me) and that's striving to be the best with it. I've used and learned hundreds of chords and know lots of applications for them, but they are always a vice.
Do I make good music with them? I think so, I recently played with a really stellar jazz/fusion trio, playing 3 hour sets, etc... And I really started being able to throw shapes here and there while I soloed, and it sounded good, but I always felt a slave to the shape. So I'd learn another one, and another one, them I've got zillions (slight exaggeration ) of shapes swarming in my head, when it would just be easier, in some way, to just grab chords out of the blue.
So watch out, 10 years from now I'll be a monster, and that's after 15 years of playing already, hmm, I'll try for 5, ha.
Joined: 16 May 2005 Posts: 40 Location: Leeds - UK
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject:
Mirth wrote:
Well, of course, I agree with that, and think that way, as well, but not everything is as easy as that. Maybe if we're talking one key, but once things move around some times, logic isn't as simple. I think it is affective to know that g# and Ab are really the same. I say this from experience playing with some original modern jazz groups. Writing the melody over changes (with key changes) sometimes leads to "enharmonic blunders". Like If you're in Ebminor and a D7 chord shows up, or something and you play a Gb over the D7, is it simpler to follow the original key of the song,
or to go with the key of the moment. And even then, wouldn't Ebb7 be more appropriate, but who wants to think of it that way? Not me? even if it's not technically correct. It's not that I can't think of it that way, it's just a little redundant.
Good point, and when a tune modulates all over the shop they don't tend to bother with a key sig, just add all the accidentals as they see fit, it's easier that way. Sometimes "correct" stuff is harder to use, like double flats as you said.
Mirth wrote:
Of course, if you approach the string like a pattern, but what happens when you go with one string, is it's much easier to visualize the notes, and actually know what note you are on. By switching to a single string, you begin seeing things more linear. Most people are able to understand things better when they are in a straight line, like a piano, or saxaphone. Up goes up, down goes down.
The hard thing about guitar is it's a six string matrix of notes, and sometimes up is not up, and sometimes down is not down. Just telling someone it's one way or another, is not enough.
I don't believe all patterns are bad. But I think it's better that people know the note structure pattern of a major scale, then the fingerings for it, without the wwhwwwh concept. Most people, especially beginners can't actually see it happening when you cross strings, they are just trying to memorize a shape in their head. There is no theory involved, it's just a shape. I've found from teaching, that when I used to teached in boxed ways, most students didn't know what or why they were doing stuff, even with explaination, because they couldn't see it happening, they had to take my word for it. The nice thing about the single string is they can see the music theory happening right before there eyes. They understand the concept. Building patterns, based on CAGED or otherwise becomes no big deal.
I do remember as a beginner, learning to go WWHWWWH up a single string before starting regular position playing, and it was majorly helpful as a complete beginner.
Mirth wrote:
Again, I have worked with Caged, and there are still 7 positions for standard scale. I'm aware you end up hitting a lot of the same notes, but even shifting one note, or one finger can make a difference.
I just checked on my guitar, and you do leave 2 positions out. I just feel it ties you too much to a pattern or shape. For example if there is a G7 chord being playing, are you thinking I need the "G" pattern on the 1st position? Or are you thinking, the notes in G7 are G, B, D, F, my possiblities are Gmixolydian, Altered scale, diminished scale, triadic options?
To me, CAGED is nice as a visual tool, something you show some one so they can connect the dots, but as a system, it relys on the Boxed position shapes, or whatever you want to call them, too much. People get away with not knowing what notes they are playing. Maybe you even learn what degree of the scale each note in a shape for a particular chord is, but God that's a lot of work. Why not learn that F is the 7th of G, the b9 of E, the min3rd of D and so on, instead of learning a pattern with a bunch of chord tensions memorized on the shape, for a zillion different chords.
Firstly, how are you missing anything out? In 1st position with a G7 tonality, You can easily visualise the scale tones and chord tones by seeing this G13 shape: 3 x 3 2 0 0 (for example) and pick out notes, then I could go up into 3rd position and see 3 x 3 4 5 5 (for example) and so on. This isn't to say I'm not thinking about the notes but why would you ignore the visual aid? It is extremely helpful and I'm pretty sure every good guitarist is doing it. If you were thinking of notes exclusively at all times, all this stuff would still be there, so why not take advantage and syncronise both methods for the best overall effect? I don't beleive that anyone knows exactly what note/degree they are playing ALL the time - sometimes your fingers and especially your ears do the work!
The thing is, you keep referring to using caged as memorising boxes and patterns, just because they correspond with chords. This is not the case, one should still be thinking of the notes they are playing like you say, thinking of F as the 7th of G7, G as the root, A as the 9th etc. There is not neccessarily a reliance on learning shapes, merely the direction is angular, making for slick connectivity over chord changes. It's no more about pattern playing than a more linear approach would be. You could say one can learn single strings and avoid learning the notes, by thinking of tones and semitones instead of notes and degrees!
Mirth wrote:
Also chord shapes are over rated as well, but a somewhat necessary evil. They do get redundent, and guitarists are slaves to shapes. We should really be able to grab any notes we want any time, in any shape, this woule be ideal. There are a zillion ways to play a G7 chord on the guitar, why learn 5, or even 20, shouldn't we just know what is acceptable for a G7 and grab the notes accordingly, if it happens to be a standard shape, so be it, but if it's a little different, all the better.
I feel like shapes and patterns are tools to help us learn how to maneuver on the guitar, but they end up being vices that only restrict us from moving forward.
Surely they aren't vices, I see them as springboards. Once you learn the stuff inside out, you no longer think about them physically and concentrate on the music. As Charlie Parker said, "Learn the changes, then forget them." But you have to learn them first! Once you've learned to play in all positions, and you've learned to link them together seamlessly in a linear fashion, you can then think of the neck as one big G7 matrix, and then start plucking out notes and clusters and triads and chords at will. This process will take many, many years.
Both position type playing and linear string playing are equally valid and neccessary tools to get around the guitar. My point is that position playing is not pattern playing unless you make it that way, it's just a cool way to play smoothly over changes as you don't have to race across the fretboard to get to the next chord as you'll have everything under your fingers where ever you are at a given time. Btw I just looked in Guthrie's first book, and he starts with the CAGED idea and explains the 5 positions for the 7 major modes linked in with that and it's the most refreshing outlook I've ever come across in a book or otherwise. I just feel the linear string thing is a more advanced method and any relative beginner would really struggle to stay motivated with it since it takes so long to get playing with it. I think if one was to absorb the CAGED material first, then explore the linear strings for a long while, in that order, they will get the most out of it.
Mirth wrote:
Where am I currently with this, for myself:
Currently I can see all the notes all the time on the guitar, and staying in any one key for more than a couple seconds, I can get anywhere by seeing the notes in my head, I never think about scale patterns.
And I can pull about any single note stuff anytime.
What I'm working on is, faster changes, being able to see the whole fretboard shift in my head, kind of like one of those light guitars, but changing in a split second, I'm getting better at it.
seeing and playing 4 or 5 notes at a same time, and moving them anyway I want regardless of shape, but based on the chord tensions, and notes etc...
I think this is every serious improvisor's life time goal!
Cheers, Tim, keep em' coming
Anyone else? _________________ The more you learn the less you know
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I love The Advancing Guitarist, it's one of the theory books I'll be keeping a long time.
ta.
