Drop 2's four positions vs CAGED

[princeplanet]

Been working on drop 2 voicings and starting to visualize arps and modes around the shapes. This for the most part coincides with CAGED visualizations, but for the slight confusion as to the "spare" position, ie, CAGED is 5 positions and Drop 2 is 4. Associating arp and scale patterns with each of the 4 inversions of drop 2 for each chord means at some point for each of the 4 drop 2 positions you are forced to shed the out of position CAGED pattern. Sometimes the choice is easy, sometimes it's a 50/50 call. Now you could memorize the 2 options for the particular drop 2 grip that resides across both CAGED positions, but why bother? If thinking shapes and ideas around chord grips is the goal, then surely 4 is enough? Not being lazy, I have the CAGED thing down, just want to make things easier to conjure at a moment's notice.

Soooo, was just wondering how you guys feel about this?

[ksjazzguitar]

Don't worry about it. They are too different organizational systems. They aren't meant to overlap. It would be like saying, "But if it's 1 gallon of milk, how can it be 3.8 liters?" Because they're two different systems. Learn both (I mean musically, not that communist plot, the metric system) and learn many others. There are many ways to organize the fretboard and each one will have something different to reveal.

Peace,
Kevin

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

Don't worry about it. They are too different organizational systems. They aren't meant to overlap. It would be like saying, "But if it's 1 gallon of milk, how can it be 3.8 liters?" Because they're two different systems. Learn both (I mean musically, not that communist plot, the metric system) and learn many others. There are many ways to organize the fretboard and each one will have something different to reveal.

Peace,
Kevin

Sensible advice, as usual, but I'm contemplating what not to learn this month, I mean, if Wes Montgomery were to walk in my lounge room at night and listen to me practice, I'm 100% certain he'd say something like "Hey, why are you practicing that shit for?...." y'know?

Dunno, there's a certain logic to learning to fill in around the 4 chord shapes as opposed to the CAGED positions, or even the extra in-between CAGED patterns that some insist you learn. Surely that stuff can wait, no? Anyways, aren't you more of a "decorate the arps" kinda guy than a "play the scale patterns" one?

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

This for the most part coincides with CAGED visualizations,

How could it not?

Originally Posted by princeplanet

if Wes Montgomery were to walk in my lounge room at night and listen to me practice, I'm 100% certain he'd say something like "Hey, why are you practicing that shit for?...." y'know?

I don't know if I'd worry about that. Would Wes walk in and see Paco de Lucia practicing and ask, "Why are you practicing with those other three fingers?"

CAGED seems simple enough. It's simpler than what I learned. I don't think it's broke and thus can't be fixed. It is what it is. If you are going to play guitar, you are going to limited in what you can grab - as a vibraphone player and his four mallets is limited when compared to a piano player and his ten mallets. You are going to have to expect to flop around in experimentation and doubt.

[Archie]

Ah, but the metric system is much more logical than the Imperial system. Not even the British use that any more.

[princeplanet]

All I'm trying to say is that it's just too easy to say "just learn everything". I'm thinking the trick is to first know what kind of player you wish to be and find the most efficient way to get there. If you wanna play like Django, you won't be needing any quartal chops, nor would you need to know the Lydian chromatic concept to sound like Charlie Christian, Barney Kessel or even Wes.

Many seasoned players and teachers here insist on thinking of chords first, then the chord tones, arps, scales licks etc associated with that chord in the same position it's in. It seems easier to have one set of material for each of 4 chord positions. Surely it's hard to argue that this "system" is not efficient and powerful enough to make me the player I one day wish to be? ( in the style of bop to hard bop btw)?

[bako]

I don't know of any one organizational system that perfectly matches the requirements for individual musical expression.
I would suggest that you try what you say and explore how well it works for you.
See where it needs tweaking and if it completely doesn't work then there is no quicker way to find out.
Along the way you will learn additional details about your present musical needs.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

All I'm trying to say is that it's just too easy to say "just learn everything". I'm thinking the trick is to first know what kind of player you wish to be and find the most efficient way to get there. If you wanna play like Django, you won't be needing any quartal chops, nor would you need to know the Lydian chromatic concept to sound like Charlie Christian, Barney Kessel or even Wes.

The reason for saying this is answered by the last line of your second paragraph. Today you want to be a good hard bop player. And tomorrow?

There are easier ways to learn. The best way is to study with a teacher that has a logical method. One that has a foundation and builds from there so that eventually you've learned how all the concepts work and can one day go off on your own. Famous teachers that come to mind for this type of thing are Mick Goodrick, Vic Juris, Jimmy Bruno, ect. They all have a system.

The tools of jazz players are the same tools Bach had. It's in how you use them. In the book 20th Century Harmony by Persichetti he goes into all types of harmonic things that are used in jazz yet all his examples are from published classical pieces. All of these concepts such as quartal harmony were around in music. Not everybody used them. Some used them without knowing it (xx2233 is a 6/9 chord but its voiced in 4ths. Django used it all the time)

Originally Posted by princeplanet

Many seasoned players and teachers here insist on thinking of chords first, then the chord tones, arps, scales licks etc associated with that chord in the same position it's in. It seems easier to have one set of material for each of 4 chord positions. Surely it's hard to argue that this "system" is not efficient and powerful enough to make me the player I one day wish to be? ( in the style of bop to hard bop btw)?

I'm not sure if I understand you on this. Can you play the exact same notes/lines /chord in each of those 4 chord positions?

Excluding set arrangements or pieces, when you improvise or comp you never know where you're going to end up finger or position wise. Knowing scales, arps, ect using different fingers helps to keep you from having an oops moment should you land on a finger and not know how to conveniently get to the next place your going to . It helps to keep you from getting lost.

There are 4 useable E's on the guitar (open first string) they are open , 5th fret 2nd string, 9th on the 3rd string and 14th on the 4th string. You have 4 useable fingers on the left hand. This means you could conceivably come up with at least 13 different ways to play a pattern staring on E.

If I only know 4 ways to play riff B and they all start with my first finger, what do I do should I land on my 4th finger from the previous riff A right before wanting to wanting to use riff B?

It's really tough to figure out how to proceed. There are lots of methods out there and lots of concepts. Without a strong foundation you can wind up spinning your wheels and wasting time on things that will get you nowhere. I would recommend you take a few lessons with a good teacher that can help point you in the right direction.

[max_power]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

Surely it's hard to argue that this "system" is not efficient and powerful enough to make me the player I one day wish to be? ( in the style of bop to hard bop btw)?

The thing about "systems" is that they are designed as shortcuts to understanding the guitar. In the long run, there is no system you could use that is complete in and of itself. It's important to remember that many of these systems are not mutually exclusive. Right now it might seem like you have to choose between CAGED or Drop 2 forms, but as you progress the lines become blurred and what you have is a more comprehensive understanding of the guitar.

So in short, learn everything. Of course, certain things are more useful to learn first...but this is purpose of having a good teacher: to steer you in the right direction and make sure you're using your practice time efficiently. There's nothing wrong with being self-taught, but having a good teacher will save you a lot of grief.

[cosmic gumbo]

I found that the more you sight read and play, the more a natural organizational system starts to develop under your fingers, because you can't watch your left hand and read the chart at the same time. It also seems to trigger a more subconscious level of the brain's analytic function. String players have to do it with no frets! Is it any wonder that many good sight readers are the best players, also?

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

If I only know 4 ways to play riff B and they all start with my first finger, what do I do should I land on my 4th finger from the previous riff A right before wanting to wanting to use riff B?

This of course is a very good point, and I thank you for raising it. I have given this some thought and have decided I can't be as ambitious as some of you, whether it's to do with talent, time or lack of application to very long term goals that may disappoint...... Instead I see the example of players of various instruments who don't seem to practice everything, only what they use, and they are extremely adept at getting great mileage from their own custom built "systems". Benson doesn't practice what Martino practices, and Scofield has a different regime to Jim Hall. Who the hell knows what personal systems were developed by great giants such as Parker and Montgomery, but be assured they were strong on things that seemed logical to them, whilst happy to ignore or eschew techniques or ideas that are deemed important by teachers and books (forums?).

Sure, I'd like to know 153 ways to play every idea that pops into my head, but life is short, far too short for me to acquire that facility. I'd happily settle for 4 or 5 ways to loosely play preconceived ideas quickly and neatly in ways that still feel spontaneous for me to be "improvising". If I finish idea A on a particular finger that precludes the smooth transition to ideas B C D E F G H I J, then hopefully I'll still be able to land ideas K L M N O P Q R.

The message I get from many great players (OK, not all) is that it's not how much you practice, or even how much you know, but it's how you apply what you know. Even if you only use one thousandth of the available knowledge. We can't know it all and each of us must draw a line and say "Basta! , time to make music with what I do know".

Thinking in Drop 2 forms might just be one way of intentionally limiting my skill set in a way that invites music making, not puzzle solving. Dunno about you folks, but I can easily get sucked in to the challenge of just learning and practicing new stuff, and then finding other new stuff to practice, without ever really putting this stuff into practice. Damn the person that once said to me: "Never practice what you know, practice only what you don't know". You can take that advice too literally!

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

...I mean, if Wes Montgomery were to walk in my lounge room at night and listen to me practice, I'm 100% certain he'd say something like "Hey, why are you practicing that shit for?...." y'know?

Well, my perception of Wes (from anecdotes of people that met him) is that he would be much too much of a gentleman to say that. And I what "sh*#" are you referring too? Wes did play drop-2 voicings, although it is doubtful that he thought of it that way. And I think you can find exaples of CAGED thinking in there - it certainly was common with other players.

They are just different organizational systems. There is a certain arbitrariness in any organizational system and each has it's own strengths and weaknesses and areas in which it is most helpful. The danger isn't mixing systems, the danger is focusing too much on one organizational system and thinking that it is the reality when it is just one perspective trying to explain/organize the reality. So mix and match. Invent your own that works for you. Just never fool yourself into thinking that it is anything but a symbolic representation of the original.

Originally Posted by princeplanet

Anyways, aren't you more of a "decorate the arps" kinda guy than a "play the scale patterns" one?

I think that I am a "bring out the chord tones guy." I always say, "the reason we practice scales so that we can forget about them." Practice your scales, arps, and chords until you know them so well that you don't have to use 99% of your brain power figuring out where to find the note that your hearing.

True, I don't like people who run scales. But running arps is only a little better. I like to be aware of the specific chord tones and how they want to move. I want to know how the note that I'm playing relates to the underlying harmony and how it relates to the next chord. That is what a good composer does - he doesn't say to himself, "I'm just going to play a bunch of G altered scale here and hope that everything works out." If improv is spontaneous composition, then I think that that should be the goal, IMHO - to try to manage and control how the notes relate to the harmony as much as possible. But there are those that disagree - that's just how I see it.

Peace,
Kevin

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

That is what a good composer does - he doesn't say to himself, "I'm just going to play a bunch of G altered scale here and hope that everything works out." If improv is spontaneous composition, then I think that that should be the goal

Peace,
Kevin

Well I can certainly relate to resorting to "just play a bunch of X here and see if it works out...". Infact, I still do a lot of that, but by doing that I reach my epiphanies. Trial and error, you throw a bunch of stuff at some chords and some things eventually stick. You notice it, take note, internalize it and own it. Next time you use it, you meant it. But it takes a lot of trial and error, using stuff you kinda know, but are unsure of the way it rubs up against various situations.

I guess that by limiting my means I just wish to get more organized trial and error happening. It's this "learning what works and what doesn't " that I feel I need to do much more of. No reason why it can't eventually lead to unlimited learning, it's just another way to get there, and making your own way is a good thing, right? Otherwise we all sound like we went to Berklee.....