Guthrie Govan Discussion :: View topic - Soloing all over the neck
Help support this site by shopping at Amazon through our link.
Guthrie Govan Discussion Forum Index

Guthrie Govan Discussion
The Official Guthrie Govan Discussion Board

www.GuthrieGovan.co.uk

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

 
Soloing all over the neck
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Guthrie Govan Discussion Forum Index -> Techniques, Theory, and Musical Education
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
M@



Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 214
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Precisely.

You know the sound of the flat 7 (f note) against a G7 chord, and you also know where it sits visually with regards to the physical position on the board (whether learnt by understanding the Whole-Tone/Half-Tone sequence of the scale on a single string, the chord shape, via CAGED for example, or 3-note per string scale or whatever), so you know the sound and feel before you hit it. Then it's just up to you how you want to play it (short, long, spanky, cranky, endless list of adjectivs ad nauseum to convey your mood on the day, hour, second or nano second).

Your not mentally saying, "Oh, OK now I go for the flat 7 cause I know it will work theoretically", you are going for the flat 7 sound/feel that you have internalised first, whether it's a single note or a scale/arpeggio fragment (and happend to put a "Label" to, i.e theory/concept/pontification whatever) - enuff said really!!! The rest just extrapolates from there...

One could also infer that Guthrie uses (or originally learnt) such systems considering he espouses them in his text books Creative Guitar I & II, and by the large number of professional world class improvisers who teach by using visual shapes and patterns etc... don't forget that the human brain is a "pattern seeking device", might as well let it do what it does best!!!

This is not Brain Science or Rocket Surgery guys Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Now, just PLAY!!!



Razz



Cheers
M@
_________________
"My day job feeds my family, my night gig feeds my ego!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mirth



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 160
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rickh wrote:


.


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!



Of course to completely ignore shapes would be ridiculous, to a pointÖbut I find it tends to be a crutch for people, including myself. For example when I learn a chord voicing I work out all the inversions on the neck, etcÖ but I still have to memorize those shapes. Iíve kind of dropped that approach and now work on coming up with voicings on the spot. And not to mention all the variations available in every position (more on this below).

BTW this is not really directed towards you as it appears you are really going for the same thing as me with a different approach. Wink


.
Rickh wrote:



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.


Modes arenít really dictated by starting and stopping points, but more over how they are played over the changes. I think, thinking of different positions as different modes is a bad habit (not sure if this is what you are saying, but more of point for everyone). I think itís better to go with the Allan Holdsworth approach of seeing, for example: All the notes of the Cmajor scale on the fretboard (which happens to start at itís lowest point on the note E {on most guitars anyways i.e. 7 string}) , but know, in whatever circumstance that depending on the situation the mode will be different.

Anyways back to the chords and shapesÖ. Ok you mentioned having a G7 matrix, well thatís exactly what should be wanted, but I think itís more advanced then that. For example G7 means a lot, for example in first position there are a lot of ways to play a G7 chord, especially if you count extensions (which should always be counted unless playing in a big band) so letís see what do I see in first position if Iím think G7; 1/x/0/0/0/1, or 1/0/1/1/0/0, or 1/2/0/3/0/1, or even 0/1/1/1/0/3 or something, and that barely scratches the service, those are all acceptable notes for the G7 chord, will they all work in in every situation, no, but nothing does. Playing 3/x/3/4/3/x is not acceptable in a modern fusion band really, or even a jazz band, considering youíre playing a really low Root clashing with the bass. But anyways, Iím not sure if you see what Iím getting at.
For me I see the single string, not so much as playing up and down the string, but connecting the 6 mini pianos in the matrix. I definitely donít just think, and nor should anyone, up and down one string at one time. To me Iím playing 6 strings all the time, and seeing them as single strings all at the same time. Iím not more comfortable in any position, all the notes are always there all the time on every string. Position shifting, I never think about it, I visualize the path from one note to another whether that is 2 frets away, or 24 and 4 strings.

I realize that not everyone is bound by Positions, and thinking notes is definitely the way to approach it, butÖ that doesnít mean itís the correct method. Iím not doubting it works for people. Iím not doubting it worked for me, for awhile. But I feel there needs to be a shift in the guitar pedagogy. This is the only instrument with such a low standard. Again this is a different topic, but most guitarist struggle with the basics, (just knowing where the notes on the fretboard are) that is it the most basic thing for learning an instrument, and to me the position/box style playing has failed most people with this. So thatís why I think in the beginning the best approach is the single string approach. I think people need a strong foundation of at least where all the notes are, without having to fumble around to figure it out.
So I feel the single string method provides a better starting ground for knowing your instrument.

Rickh wrote:



I think this is every serious improvisor's life time goal!

Cheers, Tim, keep em' coming Smile

Anyone else?



No doubt!!! Smile


Cheers Rick!!, Anyone else?


I realize this approach is different then everything going on at the moment, but sometimes change is in orderÖ.sometimes itís not, ha.
_________________
www.timmirth.com
www.myspace.com/redsidevisible
www.myspace.com/mirthfulmusic
www.reverbnation.com/timmirth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mirth



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 160
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

M@ wrote:
Precisely.

You know the sound of the flat 7 (f note) against a G7 chord, and you also know where it sits visually with regards to the physical position on the board (whether learnt by understanding the Whole-Tone/Half-Tone sequence of the scale on a single string, the chord shape, via CAGED for example, or 3-note per string scale or whatever), so you know the sound and feel before you hit it. Then it's just up to you how you want to play it (short, long, spanky, cranky, endless list of adjectivs ad nauseum to convey your mood on the day, hour, second or nano second).

Your not mentally saying, "Oh, OK now I go for the flat 7 cause I know it will work theoretically", you are going for the flat 7 sound/feel that you have internalised first, whether it's a single note or a scale/arpeggio fragment (and happend to put a "Label" to, i.e theory/concept/pontification whatever) - enuff said really!!! The rest just extrapolates from there...

One could also infer that Guthrie uses (or originally learnt) such systems considering he espouses them in his text books Creative Guitar I & II, and by the large number of professional world class improvisers who teach by using visual shapes and patterns etc... don't forget that the human brain is a "pattern seeking device", might as well let it do what it does best!!!

This is not Brain Science or Rocket Surgery guys Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Now, just PLAY!!!



Razz



Cheers
M@



Sound is definitely the most important, all other methods are kind of silly in comparison.

What I'm suggesting is not ignoring shapes, or patterns, but I suppose making the overall pattern bigger, not in such small shapes.

I think you should be seeing this...



as opposed to seeing this....





(sorry it's a bass) but you get the point.

Anyways, any thoughts?
_________________
www.timmirth.com
www.myspace.com/redsidevisible
www.myspace.com/mirthfulmusic
www.reverbnation.com/timmirth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rickh



Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 40
Location: Leeds - UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Food for thought indeed. When I mentioned G7 I was talking about un altered G7 in a purely mixolydian sense. Minorised dominants, Altered dominants, Lydian Dominants etc. etc. are whole different topics Smile

Regarding the modes of the major scale, I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that they have positions! I too think of the holdsworthian bigger picture!

Allan Holdsworth wrote:




I didn't make an instructional video for many years....because I didn't think anyone would be interested in anything I have to say....

Here's a scale I invented, it's a minor, it's a major, it's a diminished, and its an augmented, as you can see it's symmetrical...I don't have a name for it... *gets out pointer*



I know what you mean about the standard of guitarists! I'd be interested to hear your cure for terrible sight reading ability, banish tab? That's not a bad idea, I wish I'd learned to read music exclusively from the beginning since tab isn't a fraction as good as reading dots and these days I don't go near it.

Cheers, Rick Very Happy
_________________
The more you learn the less you know
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Mirth



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 160
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rickh wrote:
Food for thought indeed. When I mentioned G7 I was talking about un altered G7 in a purely mixolydian sense. Minorised dominants, Altered dominants, Lydian Dominants etc. etc. are whole different topics Smile



I figured as much. Just making a point as well Wink Plus the more I know the more I realize that just about everynote is always available at all times. It's kind of backwards really. You learn all these ideas and sounds, and find out that you actually can just about do anything in the end. But of course you need to know what it sounds like first.


Rickh wrote:


Regarding the modes of the major scale, I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that they have positions! I too think of the holdsworthian bigger picture!


I figured as much as well. Ha.


Allan Holdsworth wrote:




I didn't make an instructional video for many years....because I didn't think anyone would be interested in anything I have to say....

Here's a scale I invented, it's a minor, it's a major, it's a diminished, and its an augmented, as you can see it's symmetrical...I don't have a name for it... *gets out pointer*




God, I love that guy!!!

Rickh wrote:

I know what you mean about the standard of guitarists! I'd be interested to hear your cure for terrible sight reading ability, banish tab? That's not a bad idea, I wish I'd learned to read music exclusively from the beginning since tab isn't a fraction as good as reading dots and these days I don't go near it.

Cheers, Rick Very Happy



Oddly enough, I'm not completely against tab. I think for technique stuff, it is the most logical thing to use. But other than that I don't have alot of use for it.

reading sucks on guitar, and I think really the only to get good at it is practice. Lots of practice. Though I think it ties in with just knowing your guitar really well. And not getting stuck anywhere position wise. If you have time to prepare you can make a good judgement of where you need to start, but sometimes on the fly you just need to go with it.

I'm an alright sight reader, probably a B on a grading scale where A is awesome and F is non existant, D being able to with time.

I should probably work on it more, but i guess I'm a little bit of a snob and prefer to play original stuff, where people have to read my charts, ha.

Oh well.

Sorry as you can see I'm a bit of a non-conformist, I just don't really accept anything until I try it out, or think about it a bit. I really feel there needs to be a change in the guitar world. But at the same time, who cares about all this theory stuff anyways, music is about the ears.

But yeah, try being married to me, my wife goes mad, I'm pretty against the pack on a lot of things. But I always have reasons for it. Hopefully it's a good thing to question things, so far I'm not so sure Wink

cheers.

Good discussion, keep'em coming...
_________________
www.timmirth.com
www.myspace.com/redsidevisible
www.myspace.com/mirthfulmusic
www.reverbnation.com/timmirth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
duggy



Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Northern Ireland

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can any of you give me a definitive article (on the net) that will fully explain the caged thing to me? Every thread I read on the subject, everyone has a different definition of it Confused

Also, Tim (Or Mirth, whichever you prefer Wink ) any idea when you'll be continuing the learning the notes article? I've been on the program for 3 days, and I can name the notes pretty well, but I don't know what else I should do for a while Confused
_________________
http://duggan.dmusic.com - My playing

feel free to add me on msn:
conor-duggan@hotmail.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Mirth



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 160
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duggy,

I don't know when I'll write more, but I'll give you something to work on.

One thing you can do is pick random notes all over the fretboard (one string for now) so with the d string, you could either write them as notes (preferred) or just write the names down. So something like this...

c b g f a c d e f a b g e c d a d e f b c etc... and try playing that, try different octaves and everything.

Then to get more advanced you can either pick a key like... E major

then something like this would come up...

e f# a d# g# b e b c# d# f# g# e f# c# a e d# etc.....

try playing that.

Then of course you can mix the whole string up like this....

f# Bb Ab g# e Fb d c# Gb b# d# Ab Db Cb b# d e Gbb etc...

Try playing that. Again it's better if you write it down as notes on manuscript, that way you'll get better at reading and you can throw in Octave transpostion.

Another thing is to get a book of melodies to play, don't worry if it goes to low or too high, just adjust to a different octave.

Make sure you are thinking of note names. Another thing you could try to do is...sing while you play, or even before, this is great ear training tool. Especially when you open it to all chromatics.

This will be hard at first, but it will come quicker and quicker.

Good luck...

Tim (you can call me either mirth or tim Wink

Cheers.
_________________
www.timmirth.com
www.myspace.com/redsidevisible
www.myspace.com/mirthfulmusic
www.reverbnation.com/timmirth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Slabbefusk



Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How would one go about learning the single string approach? Just take a song and jam along one string at a time focusing on hitting the "right notes" and remembering where they are/remember the feel for each chord?
_________________
Is there life after breakfast?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shapiro



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like this discussion.
What Ive done is learned all the mode shapes in a few different ways. First I learned the Box shapes. Then i learned the 3 notes per string shape of each. Then I found out that I really like the top two strings for some reason and can improvise more easily on them, I know almost exactly what the notes Im about to hit sound like. Then (since I know the top 2 strings of the box shapes so well) I took groups of anywhere from 4-6 notes of those shapes and go octaves down into other mode shapes. Then you can get into other modes with that method. And now, basically its all just one big shape like Mirth described...All the ways I learned the shapes just interconnected over time. In short......PLAY YOUR GUITAR, dont worry about the theory! How do you think you learned to speak English??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
antonis



Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey mirth. do you have the whole lesson for this one string per week thing Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Mirth



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 160
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, no I do not, not typed up anyways. I have it written in a notebook somewhere. Also it has been refined a lot since then.

My wife keeps getting on me about finishing it, but I'm going to school fulltime and teaching 20 to 30 hours a week, I'm just struggling for time. Hopefully in the next year, I'll have all the stuff I've written, put together, and up somewhere, where it can be used. I hope to get a "lecture" together this year to present to the music dept. and maybe even at the GFA competition, or other guitar festivals(I know someone has put it together twice). I hope to be able to show people the "pedalogical" stuff I've discovered, in my research.

Anyways, sorry, I hope to get it together soon, anyone know a dimension where the days are 48 hours instead of 24? Time is always against me !

cheers,

Tim
_________________
www.timmirth.com
www.myspace.com/redsidevisible
www.myspace.com/mirthfulmusic
www.reverbnation.com/timmirth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
antonis



Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

one thing that really helped me a lot is rusty cooley's instructional "extreme pentatonics", it helped me to learn the pentatonic all over the neck, and it made it easier for me to learn caged
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
RD



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 293

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shapiro wrote:
PLAY YOUR GUITAR, dont worry about the theory! How do you think you learned to speak English??


Extremely good point.

Another question would be:

What was first in this world, theory or music? If the answer is "music" (and that is the answer for me), then theory is not the source of music and thus highly overrated by all music nerds.

Also: people who treat music as math sound like it.

I think the most important thing is to be able to convert emotion into sound and to be able to interpret it visa versa. If you can do that and are able to get it out of your instrument with the necessary technique, then you can make music.

Ofcourse if you're required to read notes and required to write stuff down, like when playing in an orchestra for instance or when working with freaks like Chick Corea, then you'll have to be able to read music and know the notes on your instrument. But it's not the source of musicianship.

Giving something a name doesn't change the essence of that something. You can call a whale a mammal, but to me it's still a big fish swimming in the ocean. Same with music: you can call it an F# or a Gb, but the sound stays the same. So if you can think in sounds and again, are able to play it, then you can make music. Ofcourse it might help communication between certain musicians if they're all familiar with the music terminology.

I really don't think people like Hendrix, Van Halen or Reinhardt were all too concerned with all that theory stuff.

I also think that Guthrie isn't creating from theoretic knowledge either. He is able to give it all a name since being a teacher requires you to know that stuff. But I think he's using his inner creativity rather then creating from theoretic knowledge persť.

When you're thinking about modes, chordnames, etc., I doubt you can really feel and "be" the music at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
antonis



Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RD wrote:
shapiro wrote:
PLAY YOUR GUITAR, dont worry about the theory! How do you think you learned to speak English??


Extremely good point.

Another question would be:

What was first in this world, theory or music? If the answer is "music" (and that is the answer for me), then theory is not the source of music and thus highly overrated by all music nerds.

Also: people who treat music as math sound like it.

I think the most important thing is to be able to convert emotion into sound and to be able to interpret it visa versa. If you can do that and are able to get it out of your instrument with the necessary technique, then you can make music.

Ofcourse if you're required to read notes and required to write stuff down, like when playing in an orchestra for instance or when working with freaks like Chick Corea, then you'll have to be able to read music and know the notes on your instrument. But it's not the source of musicianship.

Giving something a name doesn't change the essence of that something. You can call a whale a mammal, but to me it's still a big fish swimming in the ocean. Same with music: you can call it an F# or a Gb, but the sound stays the same. So if you can think in sounds and again, are able to play it, then you can make music. Ofcourse it might help communication between certain musicians if they're all familiar with the music terminology.

I really don't think people like Hendrix, Van Halen or Reinhardt were all too concerned with all that theory stuff.

I also think that Guthrie isn't creating from theoretic knowledge either. He is able to give it all a name since being a teacher requires you to know that stuff. But I think he's using his inner creativity rather then creating from theoretic knowledge persť.

When you're thinking about modes, chordnames, etc., I doubt you can really feel and "be" the music at the same time.


i agree but it's very important when you play something to know what it is
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
antonis



Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

duggy wrote:
Can any of you give me a definitive article (on the net) that will fully explain the caged thing to me? Every thread I read on the subject, everyone has a different definition of it Confused


guthrie's book creative guitar 1 explains really good the CAGED
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Guthrie Govan Discussion Forum Index -> Techniques, Theory, and Musical Education All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
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



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group