Drawbacks to learning scale shapes

[bobsguitars09]

Are there any drawbacks to only learning "shapes" for scales? he talks about going beond shapes in this video and it got me thinking.

[ChrisDowning]

Until you really know your way around the fretboard, shapes are a very good way of learning all the scales. Just pick a system you feel comfortable with - I like the 6 Jimmy Bruno patterns for scales because it feels like it just 3 pattens that start on the sixth or fifth string. And I also like his approach to playing the modes as well - just start from different strings within his scale patterns to create them.

Seems patterns and shapes are a logical approach. The piano has the notes laid out logically (can you actually imagine any other system?) - so why wouldn't you do something like that on the guitar?

I'm not sure how far running up and down a single string to create a scale or just randomly looking for each note wherever they occur on the fret board would work. Certainly, I don't think my brain works like that.

[destinytot]

Are there any drawbacks to only learning "shapes" for scales?

It's (perhaps) an obvious point, but putting visual "shapes" before sounds strikes me as decidedly unmusical.

On the other hand, I think anyone who has developed awareness of the power of intervals will be able to make effective use of "shapes" as a means of accessing sounds within a pool of available notes.

I believe that playing music involves coordination of aural and other sensory reactions and establishing an inside-to-outward musical pulse. I use a keyboard to study music, but I've recently started using guitar chord shapes as a visual reference - "seeing" tensions as an effortless response to "hearing". But I'd no sooner run a scale than use the alphabet to speak.

[MarkRhodes]

It's (perhaps) an obvious point, but putting visual "shapes" before sounds strikes me as decidedly unmusical.

I don't know, Mike. One reason many horn players (and other jazz musicians) play a bit of piano because (they say) it is so easy to SEE the relation of notes on a keyboard.

One thing about the guitar is that you may sound the same pitch in several places and, on the fly, you don't want to have to think about which one. As Reg would say, you need a "default," something you can do without thinking about it. Herb Ellis taught playing from shapes and did it himself----when I get that good (ha!) I might cast about for something better, but I think the shapes approach is far from exhausted by me meager talent. I don't think it is unmusical.

Jimmy Bruno teaches five fingerings (-someone above mentioned six, and that's what Jimmy used to teach, but now it's "the five fingerings" of the major scale) and one reason he does is that (-he thinks) it helps a budding player link the sounds in his head with fingerings on the guitar, so---eventually---you know how to play what you hear in your head.

[destinytot]

One reason many horn players (and other jazz musicians) play a bit of piano because (they say) it is so easy to SEE the relation of notes on a keyboard.

I don't question at all the visual support that guitar shapes offer. I use them, too - and I tried to say how and why in the other two paragraphs. My point was about the dangers of running scales - 'blurting out' the whole pool of notes - as a conditioned response to "seeing" the notes in a given shape.

I believe in training the hand to respond to information supplied by the ear. The speed of response matters to me far more than the speed of the playing.

I've begun practising scales to improve dexterity in fingering and picking, but I rely on muscle-memory - not shapes. Chord shapes, on the other hand, spell out chord tones - I want to play off those (and 'decorate' them). They help me learn tunes - to implement on the instrument what my ears either 'know' (changes) or 'imagine' (lines).
PS

Ellis taught playing from shapes and did it himself----when I get that good (ha!)

I'm pretty sure Herb Ellis recommended singing what one plays - I love his playing, and I think that's excellent advice.

The only reason I started ear-training with a piano or keyboard is that I couldn't name the notes quickly enough on guitar.

But now that I know my fretboard well enough to play - and quickly name - what I hear/imagine, and my technique's coming together, bebop beckons...

[Irez87]

It's (perhaps) an obvious point, but putting visual "shapes" before sounds strikes me as decidedly unmusical.

On the other hand, I think anyone who has developed awareness of the power of intervals will be able to make effective use of "shapes" as a means of accessing sounds within a pool of available notes.

Destiny, do we have ESP or what? I just said the same thing on my new thread about Drop 2 and 3 voicings. I said that shapes serve and sever the guitarist from his or her ear and creating the musical that truly ruminates in his or her head. But I already feel the hate for taking this opinion. Glad I wasn't the only one with that opinion here on the forum . Brace yourselves (I kid, you guys are really open, for the most part, on this forum)

[destinytot]

ESP

I said that shapes serve and sever the guitarist from his or her ear and creating the musical that truly ruminates in his or her head.

I'm pretty sure I understand and agree completely. I meant something along those lines by this sentence:

But I'd no sooner run a scale than use the alphabet to speak.

I was trying to infer that neither the names nor the sounds of the letters in the spellings of the words which we use in speech have any effect on the pragmatics, function or intention behind the act itself.

(PS Off to play at a restaurant with a flautist - nervous but excited!)

[mhch]

Learning shapes shouldn't be the end goal. For me, praticing shapes was only a way to master the interval relationship between notes on a keyboard, both in my fingers and in my ears.

The benefit is the ability to run any scale or any arpeggio in any note order from any keyboard position without thinking "shapes" but rather just thinking "intervals" instead. At one point in time, you don't even "think" much.

[MarkRhodes]

I don't question at all the visual support that guitar shapes offer. I use them, too - and I tried to say how and why in the other two paragraphs. My point was about the dangers of running scales - 'blurting out' the whole pool of notes - as a conditioned response to "seeing" the notes in a given shape.

.

We're of one mind there. I don't run scales. I think of shapes as triads and sevenths---chords---not scales. Carol Kaye refers to the triads as "anchor" notes, those you build around. (She is the most anti-scale teacher I have ever encountered. One of her sayings is: "Don't play something over a chord--play the chord!" But what she means by "play the chord" is more involved than a beginner would know.)

[Irez87]

We could even use our ears to hear the notes in new shapes by singing along with the notes at first (another way to train both the ear, eye, and hand all at once). All we are saying... is give ears a chance...

[MarkRhodes]

We could even use our ears to hear the notes in new shapes by singing along with the notes at first (another way to train both the ear, eye, and hand all at once). All we are saying... is give ears a chance...

Right. No one is against ears. But fingering on the guitar is a challenge because the same pitch may be sounded at different places. As we've all heard umpteen times: "There's only one middle C on a piano but on guitar there are several." On guitar, there's just not a one-to-one relationship of The Note You Hear In Your Head and The Place You Finger That Note on the Guitar. (Well, there are some: low E, F, F#, G and G# can only be played in one place on the guitar, as can the higher notes on the high E string.) So guitarists need a link between ear and finger. This is what Jimmy Bruno stresses so much: developing the ear and linking the fingers to it, so that you know how to play what you hear in your head.

[Irez87]

Also, a reason to think in areas and not strict position once you know the notes... each guitar speaks differently on certain strings. For instance, I LOVE my Eastman, but I know that no matter what, she won't sing when I play a Db on my low e. However, that same Db will sing on my a string. Johnny Smith went into that in that video interview we had up here somewhere.

But my point is that, for so many, the guitar is just a physical instrument where the eye is the lay of the land. That produces guitarists who have technique, but they could have been so much better if they developed there ears. Especially because the guitar is tied to rock and metal (there are good bands in both) the guitar becomes a physical sport of who can play faster instead of who can use that speed more musically. But, it happens on the sax as well.

[christianm77]

I learned lots of shapes and they still plague my playing... I wonder if we can actually eliminate them from guitar playing? Maybe not.

Playing from shapes and playing by ear are not necessarily in opposition either.

What I try to practice is flexibility and to play by ear as much as I can. If you can think of a different way of playing a major scale everyday say, you will learn more about your instrument in the long run then if you only practice a few fingerings.

Problem with this is that in the short term progress can be slower and in the real world this is not always acceptable. Music is full of compromises, I have to learn things like bebop heads 'in position' to be able to play them on gigs - ideally I would be able to play them anywhere instantly.

[Irez87]

The Segovia and Johnny Smith fingerings really helped me get out of my old shapes and into the actual melodic line. I like the Segovia "method cause it is all about playing the line, not the shape (I mean the whole shifting idea). I feel like my lines are more free this way as opposed to position playing and being limited by the range of that position. Doing lines with compound octaves and shape is easier with the shifting, IMO

[fumblefingers]

Shapes are always there whether we choose to recognize them or not. That means whether you play in position, shift between two, shift between three, or play the Goodrock "unitar", etc.

the key is to master both vertical and horizontal playing. Or is it the other way around?

[ChrisDowning]

I think connecting two scale patterns to create three octave scales might get you out of thinking the 'five shapes' and it seems to be what most books get to advise in their later pages. The five patterns work better though than the sort of halfway between pattern positions that have lots of five fret stretches. Certainly I have never had any difficulty in challenging myself to try to play every lick, every song, in all five positions - let alone inventing some halfway positions as well! Let's face it piano players are only having to deal with one note in one place whereas we have the same note played in 4 or 5 positions. Te piano feels so linear compared to the guitar its difficult to draw comparisons.

[ChrisDowning]

Not sure what happened to that six shape scales stuff that Jimmy Bruno did. Bought the PDF book about them from his website. Then saw them all again as they were taught on his video "No Nonsense Jazz Guitar" AND ... then later I found there was a published book of the same material so I bought that many times and distributed to students who got on very well with it. It was basically like CAGED and did shapes that were in pairs starting on the 5th or 6th strings - sort of E And A, then G and C, and a couple with a two fret slides, D and another version of G.

After publishing so much on his scale patterns it's surprising he basically went back to CAGED.

[MarkRhodes]

Not sure what happened to that six shape scales stuff that Jimmy Bruno did. Bought the PDF book about them from his website. Then saw them all again as they were taught on his video "No Nonsense Jazz Guitar" AND ... then later I found there was a published book of the same material so I bought that many times and distributed to students who got on very well with it. It was basically like CAGED and did shapes that were in pairs starting on the 5th or 6th strings - sort of E And A, then G and C, and a couple with a two fret slides, D and another version of G.

After publishing so much on his scale patterns it's surprising he basically went back to CAGED.

I don't think Jimmy ever uses the term "CAGED." The six fingerings you learned were a mix of vertical and horizontal. (I have that 'six fingerings' book too.) The five fingerings are all straight up and down, sixth string root. They start on the following notes of a major scale: 7, 2, 3, 5, 6.

For a C major scale, the first fingering would be 5, (which starts on the G of the low E string), followed by 6 (A) 7 (B) 2 (D) and 3 (E). I learned these shapes years ago---long before I heard of "CAGED". They're not fancy but they sure are functional. For his 'guitar workshop', I see the point of this: every new student learns these fingerings and then can follow explanations / examples that refer to them.

When I think of "shapes," I think of chord shapes such as Charlie Christian and Herb Ellis played out of. Not scale shapes but major chords (and minors and sevenths).

[fumblefingers]

i don't have it in front of me but i remember Bruno's six fingerings as CAGED with extra notes on the first string to enable a full two octaves from the scale's tonic or "modal root".

now i believe that he's emphasizing CAGED shapes. one learns the notes from 6th string to 1rst. you play the lowest note on the 6th to the highest on the first. and he makes the point that they're NOT scales. that's basically true. they're two octave modes extended by a major 2nd or minor 3rd.

[destinytot]

We're of one mind there. I don't run scales. I think of shapes as triads and sevenths---chords---not scales. Carol Kaye refers to the triads as "anchor" notes, those you build around. (She is the most anti-scale teacher I have ever encountered. One of her sayings is: "Don't play something over a chord--play the chord!" But what she means by "play the chord" is more involved than a beginner would know.)

Running scales from shapes is one of several wrong turns I've taken.

On the subject of running, I've grown so used to feeling as if I'm trying to run before I can walk that I'm not sure that feeling's always justified or fair. On the other hand, perfectionism plus procrastination makes for paralysis - and a perfect excuse. Who'd have thought 'fun' could be such hard work?!

[MarkRhodes]

now i believe that he's emphasizing CAGED shapes. one learns the notes from 6th string to 1rst. you play the lowest note on the 6th to the highest on the first. and he makes the point that they're NOT scales. that's basically true. they're two octave modes extended by a major 2nd or minor 3rd.

Jimmy loves the phrase "pitch collections". So he will say, "You have a C pitch collection here...." But I don't think he ever relates the fingerings to what we now call CAGED forms. One advantage to learning Jimmy's way as you don't have "root-itis" because even what one might call the Ionian shape starts on the major seventh, not the root.

When I think of shapes, I think of the triads "F" , "D" and what some call "long A" (but others call "G"). It's good to know one's triads on the top three strings, whatever style of music you play.

Here's what playing out of shapes looks like:

[bobsguitars09]

We're of one mind there. I don't run scales. I think of shapes as triads and sevenths---chords---not scales. Carol Kaye refers to the triads as "anchor" notes, those you build around. (She is the most anti-scale teacher I have ever encountered. One of her sayings is: "Don't play something over a chord--play the chord!" But what she means by "play the chord" is more involved than a beginner would know.)

Hi Mark. do you have any visual examples of how you look at scales as chords? great conversation!

[ChrisDowning]

Ok MarkR, I can see where you are coming from. I certainly started out learning shapes - but about thirty odd years ago I came across a series of three books long out of print now that showed a way of learning jazz chords that stuck with me ever since. Now I would 'build' a chord from understanding chord structure rather than going the 5000 chord shapes for guitar. Never done the 5000 route.

The books were by Pat McKee called "Jazz Harmonies - The System" and showed how chord tones change to form new chords based on voicings around four note shapes. For example he starts by showing a nut position C major chord - take off your fisrt finger and that dropped tone gives you C maj7, drop that tone again by putting your little finger on the Bb on the G string and put the first finger back on the 1st fret and you have C7. Then drop that tone again so you hold down the A on the G string and you have C6. It's really the start of learning which notes in the chords are what - 1st, 3rd, 5th etc.. Keep doing that with your CAGED chords and you have 5 chords, 4 versions x 12 positions = 120 chords. once you get the hang of how this all works you can adjust any simple chords to whatever is required. So no more shape learning beyond the basics.

Since these books are long out of print I am happy to email page copies of the beginning, say twenty pages, to anyone who wants to see what his system was all about. If someone had written something that was like this system + the Mickey Baker book approach it would have been a powerful way to learn. Jody Fisher goes someway down this route with his starting exercises with three string chords.

[Irez87]

i think destiny said this before, but the concern isn't so much the shapes. It's more of playing the shape to get the sound instead of hearing the sound and expressing it through the shape that we seem to both gripe about.

[ChrisDowning]

Bilmey, that's a bit deep. You a therapist!? Ha!